Mowen Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 One thing I wouldn't mind having cleared up: When did Shephard join the club, and in what capacity was he before being made chairman? Also, in which year was he made chairman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 One thing I wouldn't mind having cleared up: When did Shephard join the club, and in what capacity was he before being made chairman? Also, in which year was he made chairman? From the club accounts ... William Frederick Shepherd: Appointed director of the football club in November 1991 and subsequently as chairman in July1998. Appointed as Non-executive director of Newcastle United PLC in December 1998, became a full time Executive Director in August 2001 ands was appointed Chairman in 2002. (NE5 will disagree with me on this as I've taken it from a club publication, but you can probably assume it is okay) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I'm not quite sure I get that.. It says he was appointed chairman in both July 1998 and 2002? If the first is true, that means he's been here approximately since the Dalgleish dismissal/Gullit appointment? Also, he was just a board member before he became chairman if I've understood it properly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I can't see how it'll work if Shepherd remains Chairman, but surrounded by Ashley's appointees. He won't have any real authority or credibility. If Ashley wants to retain his services, he needs to be given another role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 He needs FS to stay until they fully understand the workings of the club and what has happend over the past few years and the business side. Once that is complete he will be gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 He needs FS to stay until they fully understand the workings of the club and what has happend over the past few years and the business side. Once that is complete he will be gone. Exactly. He won't let Shepherd get away with anything stupid (the likes of release clauses etc) but he will utilise the man's experience and knowledge, till it gets to a point where Shepherd's services aren't needed any more. I'm not a fan of Freddy either but I know he's not completely stupid and he does know everything there is to know about the club, inside and out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 One thing I wouldn't mind having cleared up: When did Shephard join the club, and in what capacity was he before being made chairman? Also, in which year was he made chairman? From the club accounts ... William Frederick Shepherd: Appointed director of the football club in November 1991 and subsequently as chairman in July1998. Appointed as Non-executive director of Newcastle United PLC in December 1998, became a full time Executive Director in August 2001 ands was appointed Chairman in 2002. (NE5 will disagree with me on this as I've taken it from a club publication, but you can probably assume it is okay) So in other words, while he was chairman: Dodgy Dalglish transfers Appointment of Gullit Start of decline under Robson commenced shortly after his second spell as chairman commenced Sacking of Bobby Robson Appointment of Souness Signing of Owen and others. Accused by both Souness and Robson as the man actually in charge of transfers. Appointment of Roeder Appointment of Allardyce And while he was at the club, but not chairman: Appointment of Keegan Signing of Shearer 2nd in the league Appointment of Dalglish Appointment of Robson Champions League Qualification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I'm not quite sure I get that.. It says he was appointed chairman in both July 1998 and 2002? If the first is true, that means he's been here approximately since the Dalgleish dismissal/Gullit appointment? Also, he was just a board member before he became chairman if I've understood it properly? They used to pointedly separate the runnign of the football club, from the running of the umbrella organisation that was Newcastle United. So the group included all the Hall fantasies of the rugby, ice-hockey etc. The football club was just one of those. To begin with Shepherd was only as member of the football club board. Then in late 98 he moved to the group (PLC) board. This happened when the whole group board resigned en-masse at the way the major shareholders were acting. After this mass resignation there was only Hall and Shepherd left. In 2001 the then CEO David Stonehouse "resigned" and Shepherd took over complete day-to-day control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 How did you work that one out? Surely he's been chairman since 98, which would indicate we qualified for the Champs League and hired Robson under him? Edit: For T27, just in case anyone gets confused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 How did you work that one out? Surely he's been chairman since 98, which would indicate we qualified for the Champs League and hired Robson under him? Edit: For T27, just in case anyone gets confused. He became a non-executive director in December 98, as he was forced to resign due to the brothel incident Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 anyone looking at shepherds record at the club in isolation can see he's basically made a total arse of being in charge, it's only when you (or rather NE5) start comparing it to other periods in the clubs history that anyone can make any kind of case for his tenure people with more time than me can debate the finances all day long but the bottom line is that he's not been good enough on and off the pitch, end of story if he's staying then it's 'cause ashley wants him to stay or he's demanded it to sell the shares - if it's the former then i can only think it's 'cause ashley sees the need for a transition period within the staff at the club and a familiar face might make certain upcoming events/sackings/restructurings easier to take and he can use FS as a fall guy if it's the latter then i'd expect ashley to ship him at the first given opportunity and bring someone more competent in all signs point towards diminished power within the club and then getting punted, pity he's being allowed to get that much to be honest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest East Stander Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 anyone looking at shepherds record at the club in isolation can see he's basically made a total arse of being in charge, it's only when you (or rather NE5) start comparing it to other periods in the clubs history that anyone can make any kind of case for his tenure people with more time than me can debate the finances all day long but the bottom line is that he's not been good enough on and off the pitch, end of story if he's staying then it's 'cause ashley wants him to stay or he's demanded it to sell the shares - if it's the former then i can only think it's 'cause ashley sees the need for a transition period within the staff at the club and a familiar face might make certain upcoming events/sackings/restructurings easier to take and he can use FS as a fall guy if it's the latter then i'd expect ashley to ship him at the first given opportunity and bring someone more competent in all signs point towards diminished power within the club and then getting punted, pity he's being allowed to get that much to be honest Summed up perfectly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I think the offer of 101p was what Asley came back with after Shepherd refused the first offer. It was Ashley taking the piss not the other way round imo. All I know is that 100p wasn't good enough, 101p was. It doesn't matter that Ashley upped the offer to 101p, he'd only do that after the initial offer was rejected, Shepherd had to have his 1p per share more than the Hall's. That equates to £300k that the club can't spend on players because other costs will be fixed unless we extend the Gallowgate and leave £300k's worth of seats out or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I think the offer of 101p was what Asley came back with after Shepherd refused the first offer. It was Ashley taking the piss not the other way round imo. All I know is that 100p wasn't good enough, 101p was. It doesn't matter that Ashley upped the offer to 101p, he'd only do that after the initial offer was rejected, Shepherd had to have his 1p per share more than the Hall's. As I understood the Hall's sale agreement, Ashley had to pay them the offer bid. Their deal was only an agreement that if Ashley aquired similar agreements for so many shares, the Halls would accept any offer higher than 100p. Thus the Halls got 101p as well. Though I may have misinterpreted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Wish I'd got here a bit earlier haven't had a good laugh at NE5 in a while. Over last 10 years we have finished 14, 7, 14, 5, 3, 4, 11, 11, 13, 13. To achieve that greatness we have had to borrow £23m more than we have taken in to buy and pay players. We have also borrowed a further £35m to give away to the shareholders. That the people running the club are financially incompetent at running a football club is without doubt. That they are fantastically good at borrowing money to give away to shareholders is also without doubt. They have shown that when they concentrate on something they can be brilliant at it. That Ashley is better is a hope. the has no football experience. The people he is replacing have shown that football experience does not really help when that experience always comes second to personal financial gain. Ashley looks to be a ruthlessly efficient money man, who will not need to take money out of the club the way the Halls and Shepherds have done so. If this is the case we should be better off as a club. zzzzzzzzzzzz You could direct us to all the clubs that have qualified more for europe than we have, at a profit, like we did between the 1960's and 1991, unless you can admit you have a silly agenda too. Or is the profit more important to you ? We could have sold our best players, like we did, that would be profitable, at least until the ground was half full and they realised nobody was interested in the club, which was the situation when the outgoing board found it. You really don't have a clue, you have said in the past you were happy with how the club was run up until 2003, so what are you moaning on about the 7 years from 1996-2003 for ? We could also have been taken over by someone like Adam Crozier, the bloke you said would be "ideal". mackems.gif mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 anyone looking at shepherds record at the club in isolation can see he's basically made a total arse of being in charge, it's only when you (or rather NE5) start comparing it to other periods in the clubs history that anyone can make any kind of case for his tenure people with more time than me can debate the finances all day long but the bottom line is that he's not been good enough on and off the pitch, end of story if he's staying then it's 'cause ashley wants him to stay or he's demanded it to sell the shares - if it's the former then i can only think it's 'cause ashley sees the need for a transition period within the staff at the club and a familiar face might make certain upcoming events/sackings/restructurings easier to take and he can use FS as a fall guy if it's the latter then i'd expect ashley to ship him at the first given opportunity and bring someone more competent in all signs point towards diminished power within the club and then getting punted, pity he's being allowed to get that much to be honest the point that you completely miss, is that you totally underestimate the worth of having someone running the club who has ambition and is prepared to show it. I realise that you may not have experienced NUFC when we had people like this running the club, but you have certainly saw a club 12 years down the road run in such a manner. We are quite lucky to have Ashley, if what we all hope he does actually happens. We could have been taken over by someone with no real ambition or courage for the club, but to not acknowledge such a thing was possible is extemely naive. I do agree with your summing up in general or rather your prediction as to what will happen to shepherd now BTW. And whats more, I think it is the absolute right thing to do. It is also a bit of a bugger that those who refused to give any credit whatsoever to the outgoing board for anything, have to admit to themselves that Ashley has seen some worth in them ie Shepherd, even it is just a transitional period while he and his own men learn the ropes. The interesting thing also, is that I think I asked MICK who he would give the credit to if NUFC win a trophy in Ashleys first season and Shepherd was still chairman ? And who he would blame if we didn't under the same circumstances ? Needless to say, I don't think he replied, and I can't say I'm surprised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 anyone looking at shepherds record at the club in isolation can see he's basically made a total arse of being in charge, it's only when you (or rather NE5) start comparing it to other periods in the clubs history that anyone can make any kind of case for his tenure people with more time than me can debate the finances all day long but the bottom line is that he's not been good enough on and off the pitch, end of story if he's staying then it's 'cause ashley wants him to stay or he's demanded it to sell the shares - if it's the former then i can only think it's 'cause ashley sees the need for a transition period within the staff at the club and a familiar face might make certain upcoming events/sackings/restructurings easier to take and he can use FS as a fall guy if it's the latter then i'd expect ashley to ship him at the first given opportunity and bring someone more competent in all signs point towards diminished power within the club and then getting punted, pity he's being allowed to get that much to be honest the point that you completely miss, is that you totally underestimate the worth of having someone running the club who has ambition and is prepared to show it. I realise that you may not have experienced NUFC when we had people like this running the club, but you have certainly saw a club 12 years down the road run in such a manner. We are quite lucky to have Ashley, if what we all hope he does actually happens. We could have been taken over by someone with no real ambition or courage for the club, but to not acknowledge such a thing was possible is extemely naive. I do agree with your summing up in general or rather your prediction as to what will happen to shepherd now BTW. And whats more, I think it is the absolute right thing to do. It is also a bit of a bugger that those who refused to give any credit whatsoever to the outgoing board for anything, have to admit to themselves that Ashley has seen some worth in them ie Shepherd, even it is just a transitional period while he and his own men learn the ropes. The interesting thing also, is that I think I asked MICK who he would give the credit to if NUFC win a trophy in Ashleys first season and Shepherd was still chairman ? And who he would blame if we didn't under the same circumstances ? Needless to say, I don't think he replied, and I can't say I'm surprised. you're right, i came along just as hall etc... were taking over the club, just my age group i'm afraid i take your point about ambition 100% and ultimately the actions of shepherd have led us to this point - the question is have we reached it through accident or design? again without looking too much into it i'd imagine shepherds tenure has seen the club lose value year on year from the original flotation, thus putting the club in a better position to be taken over like it is right now so basically, as i see it, shepherds ambition, while admirable, has been largely at the expense of the club rather than his own finances and at the end of the day has failed...the flip side being if his ambition had succeeded and we'd been challenging at the top the likelhood is we wouldn't need taking over whichever way you spin it, despite his (perhaps) admirable intentions and ambition, he's failed and THAT is primarily what has brought us to be taken over i think you're right about shepherd getting some credit if we win a trophy next season because he picked allardyce before the takeover, but he'll not be solely responsible as it'll only be money spent rebuilding the defence sufficiently that will see us getting a trophy, and we'd not have seen that without the takeover in my opinion....so if it happens 50/50 and that's being generous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 What does Shepherd's alleged "ambition" count for when it results in us plummetting from the CL-challenging heights we were at when he took over, to the midtable misery of the Souness and Roeder days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 read both posts man, you'll answer your own question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 What does Shepherd's alleged "ambition" count for when it results in us plummetting from the CL-challenging heights we were at when he took over, to the midtable misery of the Souness and Roeder days? apart from when Craig Bellamy was playing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 On his own? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 On his own? mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest puretoon Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I've read the posts and can say with Shepherd at the helm, the club has gone downhill rapidly. He's proved he's only used the club for his own gains money wise. He's put nothing in has he? only taking. I think it's great Mike Ashleys taken over-something had to be done and damn quick. I'm not a fan of Sir John Hall after he condoned Doug's misdemeanors with Shepherd, but by the cringe, he did well in selling up to Mike Ashley I'll give him that. Obviously we're all hoping (I think?)Dein comes in to 'relieve' Shepherd of his post, but think Freddie will leave anyway as he hasn't any power anymore being an emplyeee now. I think the most annoying thing is that Shepherd will leave with very full pockets and huge fat wallet after bringing this club down to it's knees. no, things can only get better.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 You. Have. An. Agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Because we are still a plc until Ashley delists us, why is there no statement on the departures of the board members. Anybody heard anything today? 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