NE5 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Quite amazing how these threads about finance attract macbeth like a fly to dog shit. Of course we all know that if the club spend money they are wrong, and if they don't they are still wrong .... what we actually need at Newcastle is a board who can win the league spending zero money, just like everyone else does ........ mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Just...wow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Grow up, ffs. While you're at it, tell me again why you're now advocating that we should have bought more players in summer 2003. I think I must have missed it the first time you answered it. I think that if the club were going to spend £8.5m that summer then it would have been better spending it on strengthening the squad than on enlarging the Hall and Shepherd pension funds. I will always look for the football side of the business to come first. You (and NE5) have consistently disagreed with me on this. We just have to accept that you see different priorities for the club from the ones I do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Just remind me are these the same angels who undermined and then sacked SBR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Just remind me are these the same angels who undermined and then sacked SBR? NE5 and HTL ?! Never seen them accused of that before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Just remind me are these the same angels who undermined and then sacked SBR? NE5 and HTL ?! Never seen them accused of that before Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Grow up, ffs. While you're at it, tell me again why you're now advocating that we should have bought more players in summer 2003. I think I must have missed it the first time you answered it. I think that if the club were going to spend £8.5m that summer then it would have been better spending it on strengthening the squad than on enlarging the Hall and Shepherd pension funds. I will always look for the football side of the business to come first. You (and NE5) have consistently disagreed with me on this. We just have to accept that you see different priorities for the club from the ones I do. probably. I see success on the pitch as a priority, and realise this is not possible unless you compete with the other clubs aiming for the same thing. You, however, just look at the balance sheet. Question. As ourselves and the mackems were, and are, serious and close rivals, and both have the potential and the fanbase to be consistent trophy winners, and fill a stadium, 8) Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ? Straight question. Don't bother with arse farting around with your agenda, just answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 probably. I see success on the pitch as a priority, and realise this is not possible unless you compete with the other clubs aiming for the same thing. You, however, just look at the balance sheet. Question. As ourselves and the mackems were, and are, serious and close rivals, and both have the potential and the fanbase to be consistent trophy winners, and fill a stadium, 8) Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ? Straight question. Don't bother with arse farting around with your agenda, just answer. Who do you think has ran the 2 clubs the best in the last 15 years ?? Or since they beat us in the play offs for instance. Us for speculating and showing ambition, or the mackems for being bean counters ? I used to spend too much time on the RTG sunlun board explaining to them how bad Murray was, and how good Sheperd was in comparison. I had the financial results for both clubs, and could argue any fact that any mackem came up with to try and defend Murray. (Well all except one). They hated me. They hated me for two reasons. The first was that those who were prepared to look beyong me being a wind-up Mag could see that my comments on the financial mess their club was in was perilous. The other thing was that I could show that Shepherd ran NUFC the right way. NUFC invested at the right times, funded the ground redevelopment well, controlled wages, and helped the manager to produce a side that was in the CL. I loved it, just loved it. My arguments were water tight. (Except for one thing) There is no doubt that up 2003 Shepherd looked to be in control of what he was doing, and most clearly he was better than his nearest competitor in knowledge of how to run a football club. I am more than happy to agree that Shepherd pre-2003 was better than Murray. The thing is that I now see all the things I wound the mackems up with being repeated by Shepherd. Panic buying, so Murray backed Reid and paid over the top for Flo and Marcus Stewart and some others on the deadline day, Shepherd did it with Souness and Owen/Luque/Solano. Neither club coudl afford those deals, but both sets of fans justified it on "we'd have gone down if we hadn't bought". We got lucky, they didn't. (Or their buys were crap). In both cases enticing contracts were offered, that subsequently dragged the clubs down. The spiral downwards began. I am happy to say Shepherd is better than Murray, but it was like the argument that Shola was better than Kevin Kyle. A very parochial argument that fires up locals but just makes outsiders smile condescendingly at us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Grow up, ffs. While you're at it, tell me again why you're now advocating that we should have bought more players in summer 2003. I think I must have missed it the first time you answered it. I think that if the club were going to spend £8.5m that summer then it would have been better spending it on strengthening the squad than on enlarging the Hall and Shepherd pension funds. I will always look for the football side of the business to come first. You (and NE5) have consistently disagreed with me on this. We just have to accept that you see different priorities for the club from the ones I do. Let me get this straight. Despite you constantly slagging the club off for spending money and increasing the wage bill you're saying this very course of action would have been ok in summer 2003, it's suddenly ok to ignore the fact the club strengthened the squad by signing 3 players earlier in 2003, 2 of them England squad players? Is that what you're saying, despite the ~£43m deficit over the previous 32 months and the huge increase in playing staff as a result of doing that? I just want to be clear on what you're saying, keeping in mind that PLC's pay dividends and that the club (company) will have money allocated to the manager for transfers and money allocated for all other parts of running the business, including I assume predicted or expected dividends to shareholders. It's no good saying they should have spent that £8.5m on a player, that money was for dividends and there was money allocated for transfers to bring in Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer (fees and/or wages). If this other £8.5m had gone on a player and that player had turned out to be a Boumsong you'd be slagging them off now for spending that £8.5m on this player and for increasing the wage bill accordingly. The club can't win with the likes of you. What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? What's wrong with signing 3 players earlier in 2003 rather than 1 in January and 2 more in July? Had that happened what would be your argument? Well I think you'd be saying the same, that they should have spent that £8.5m in the summer of 2003 on a player. Hence, your argument is nothing to do with the club not signing a player in summer 2003, it's to do with the club paying dividends, which it's been pretty much established is something you've been banging on about for years. I detect massive envy in you mate. What's been shown without a shadow of doubt in these latest exchanges is your clear double standards on this issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? Subsequent disastrous non-qualification for Champions League. Obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? Subsequent disastrous non-qualification for Champions League. Obviously. Typical ignorance of the big picture from you. Troll. As usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Re: the summer of 2003. We only signed Bowyer but the board took a chance by signing Woodgate in the January. It paid off and we got into the Champions League but it's possible much of the summer budget went on taking that chance. I think the board may also have been waiting to see if we got through the Champions League qualifying stage before signing another player. With hindsight, that looks like a mistake but another big money signing wouldn't have guarenteed us getting through and if we didn't we might have been really struggling financially. I'm not one to hold back on criticising Shepherd et al when I see fit but the players at Robson's disposal should have been more than enough to get past Partizan Belgrade and, frankly, we bottled it in the home leg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? Subsequent disastrous non-qualification for Champions League. Obviously. Typical ignorance of the big picture from you. Troll. As usual. Typical pathetic insult from you, but it doesn't disguise the fact you were asking an extremely dumb question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Again, can we take issues between individual posters to PM please? Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Re: the summer of 2003. We only signed Bowyer but the board took a chance by signing Woodgate in the January. It paid off and we got into the Champions League but it's possible much of the summer budget went on taking that chance. I think the board may also have been waiting to see if we got through the Champions League qualifying stage before signing another player. With hindsight, that looks like a mistake but another big money signing wouldn't have guarenteed us getting through and if we didn't we might have been really struggling financially. I'm not one to hold back on criticising Shepherd et al when I see fit but the players at Robson's disposal should have been more than enough to get past Partizan Belgrade and, frankly, we bottled it in the home leg. I remember the general feeling, all through that summer, that the squad badly needed freshening. Something to lift it. Yes, Shepherd did say that team-strengthening would only follow CL qualification. And no, a big-money signing would have guaranteed nothing. But what did an £8.5 million payout to shareholders get us? This was our last chance to grab a seat at the top table and we fluffed it. The club's biggest turning-point in the last ten years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know the ins and outs of the shareholders' payouts tbh but I will say that I'd rather we weren't a plc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know the ins and outs of the shareholders' payouts tbh but I will say that I'd rather we weren't a plc. The thing is Alex dividends are a good thing, but imo we have regularly paid too high dividends. This has stopped recently as FS and to his credit can't justify dividends due to poor financial performance. The summer of 2003 is where it is at yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know the ins and outs of the shareholders' payouts tbh but I will say that I'd rather we weren't a plc. The thing is Alex dividends are a good thing, but imo we have regularly paid too high dividends. This has stopped recently as FS and to his credit can't justify dividends due to poor financial performance. The summer of 2003 is where it is at yes. Wasn't it the summer of 69? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know the ins and outs of the shareholders' payouts tbh but I will say that I'd rather we weren't a plc. The thing is Alex dividends are a good thing, but imo we have regularly paid too high dividends. This has stopped recently as FS and to his credit can't justify dividends due to poor financial performance. The summer of 2003 is where it is at yes. Wasn't it the summer of 69? Wat it Bobby Joe or Mary Sue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know the ins and outs of the shareholders' payouts tbh but I will say that I'd rather we weren't a plc. The thing is Alex dividends are a good thing, but imo we have regularly paid too high dividends. This has stopped recently as FS and to his credit can't justify dividends due to poor financial performance. The summer of 2003 is where it is at yes. Wasn't it the summer of 69? Wat it Bobby Joe or Mary Sue? Bobby Moncur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Let me get this straight. Despite you constantly slagging the club off for spending money and increasing the wage bill you're saying this very course of action would have been ok in summer 2003, it's suddenly ok to ignore the fact the club strengthened the squad by signing 3 players earlier in 2003, 2 of them England squad players? Is that what you're saying, despite the ~£43m deficit over the previous 32 months and the huge increase in playing staff as a result of doing that? I just want to be clear on what you're saying, keeping in mind that PLC's pay dividends and that the club (company) will have money allocated to the manager for transfers and money allocated for all other parts of running the business, including I assume predicted or expected dividends to shareholders. If the club had £4m to spend on dividends, and £4.5m to spend on buying shres back from the Hall family then the implication is that they had a spare £8.5m to spend. We will never agree on the dividends. I think bleeding money out of a loss making business is immoral and just plain wrong, and is rewarding incompetence. You don't. The £4.5m used by the club to buy back its own shares, but only from the major shareholder was just plain wrong. No one else was made the offer, it was clearly money the business could not afford to spend, yet they still did it. This, even more than the dividends while losing money, showed that the club was being used to make money purely for the Hall family. Of course I know of the other signings. Of couse that is relevent. My whole argument is that if there was money available to should be spent on the team. This will ALWAYS be my priority. Obviously other things generate income and need money spent on them. So ground redevelopment, extended club shop, Academy. These are all for the good of the club. They are all there to generate money for the team. That summer the board decided that the key investment for the club was not in anything that moved the club forward. It's no good saying they should have spent that £8.5m on a player, that money was for dividends and there was money allocated for transfers to bring in Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer (fees and/or wages). If this other £8.5m had gone on a player and that player had turned out to be a Boumsong you'd be slagging them off now for spending that £8.5m on this player and for increasing the wage bill accordingly. The club can't win with the likes of you. Okay so all manager's make mistakes in their purchases, so the answer with what to do with the club money is to give it to the shareholders instead?? If that £8.5m given the Hall and Shpeherd pension funds had been given to Rangers for Boumsong instead then we'd now be £8.5m better off. Would you prefer Roeder to now have £8.5m to spend or Douglas Hall to have it ? What is the obsession with the summer of 2003? What's wrong with signing 3 players earlier in 2003 rather than 1 in January and 2 more in July? Had that happened what would be your argument? Well I think you'd be saying the same, that they should have spent that £8.5m in the summer of 2003 on a player. Hence, your argument is nothing to do with the club not signing a player in summer 2003, it's to do with the club paying dividends, which it's been pretty much established is something you've been banging on about for years. I detect massive envy in you mate. We bought Woodgate for 9m and Ambrose for 1m in the January, and brought in Bowyer for a free in the summer. At the time, and for the second year running, we were told the purchase of Woodgate (Jenas the previous year) was financed from the extra money made availabe by the unbudgetted successes in the CL that year. This was again a superb example of the correct way to run things. A good plan, then when there was suddenly an upturn the upturn was used to invest in the squad. It could be argued that all that really happened was that the summer 2003 transfer budget was spent early, and that the CL money was given to Douglas Hall. When the fruits of playing in the CL came the club did not take the long term view of investing in the squad, to "guarantee" future success, it instead took the short term financial gain and blew it. And yes I am totally envious of those teams who were our competitors to be int he top 4 who kept their eye on the ball. What's been shown without a shadow of doubt in these latest exchanges is your clear double standards on this issue. I think I'm pretty straightforward. All the money that I put into the club I'd like to see invested in the club, not wasted, not given away to pension funds, just improving the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hodsgod Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something? He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL Ridiculous. Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something? He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL Ridiculous. Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling. yeah but I bet its not a football club, so you still aren't allowed to comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something? He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL Ridiculous. Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling. yeah but I bet its not a football club, so you still aren't allowed to comment Meh, I'm the only one on here qualified to comment on football club finances. But I cant be bothere most of the time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 No-one in this thread has a clue how to run a multi-million pound business so I don't know why we're trying to pass judgement on it. Do people think Freddy runs the club from his garage or something? He has teams of financial advisors and lawyers, yet we seem to know better? LOL Ridiculous. Are you a professional footballer? No? In that case please refrain from commenting on whether anyone was ever 'rubbish' etc. He is wrong, I run a business of 70 million sterling. yeah but I bet its not a football club, so you still aren't allowed to comment Meh, I'm the only one on here qualified to comment on football club finances. But I cant be bothere most of the time Well stop winding us up with your supposed knowledge and do one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now