NUFC not the subject of the police raids - Statement

[Baggio]

The fact that we've got 4 through the door proves if they are a little slow it can't be too much of a problem.

 

Those 4 players were signed under the old board, before the new owner got his own boys in.

 

I don't think so.

 

Chris Mort said he was the one that gave the nod for the Viduka and Barton deals to go through.

 

but I thought directors weren't supposed to have a say in transfers ?

 

 

 

He isn't just a director, he runs the club.

 

so he answers to the major shareholder ?

 

 

 

Well Ashley has over 50% of the shares which gives him the controlling stake of the club, so yes I'd say Ashley calls the shots.

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

Not really, how the shares were meant neither the Halls or Shepherd had a controlling stake of the club so any decision would have gone to a vote with the board, I presume Shepherd and his brother would have stuck together, as would Dougie Hall and his sister, which meant Tim Revill would get the deciding vote.

 

Ashley's situation is slightly different, he's going to own all of the club in the near future so any major decision will be down to him with Mort there as a close friend to run the club on his behalf.

[Mick]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

[Mick]

 

and if they don't ?

 

What is your opinion if this the way they will carry on doing things ?

 

 

 

I'll inform my opinion if and when it happens, not before.

[NE5]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

[Baggio]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

 

They didn't have enough shares to.

[NE5]

 

and if they don't ?

 

What is your opinion if this the way they will carry on doing things ?

 

 

 

I'll inform my opinion if and when it happens, not before.

 

thought you were knowledgeable, ie more knowledgeable than Shepherd for instance, can't you make a decision without using hindsight ?

 

mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

thought you were knowledgeable, ie more knowledgeable than Shepherd for instance, can't you make a decision without using hindsight ?

 

mackems.gif

 

If I was in Shepherd's former position I wouldn't have needed hindsight, unlike you and him I knew both Souness and Roeder were not good enough, it's foresight.

[NE5]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

 

They didn't have enough shares to.

 

28% isn't enough to do what you want either, is it ?

 

 

[Baggio]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

 

They didn't have enough shares to.

 

28% isn't enough to do what you want either, is it ?

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=42718.msg921165#msg921165

[NE5]

 

thought you were knowledgeable, ie more knowledgeable than Shepherd for instance, can't you make a decision without using hindsight ?

 

mackems.gif

 

If I was in Shepherd's former position I wouldn't have needed hindsight, unlike you and him I knew both Souness and Roeder were not good enough, it's foresight.

 

You are sadly mistaken about me supporting Souness BTW, as you know its the only thing you yourself have got right, through agreeing with me, I made hundreds of posts to this effect and yes, we saw eye to eye in that respect at least.  As for Roeder,

I indeed thought that he was worth a crack, or deserved a crack, on the basis that my number 1 choice, Allardyce had decided to stay with Bolton and so Glenn would either have been successful in his own right or steadied the club and kept the seat warm for the number 1 choice of the club, chosen by the board you despise BTW.

 

Shame that even with hindsight, you consider qualifying for europe more than any other club but 4, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals, and recording the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years, to be "failure" and "just the same" as spending decades scrapping around the 2nd division and the bottom places in the 1st division.

 

With this amazing foresight you claim to have, I don't think the question you are currently avoiding is beyond you ?

 

Which is a slightly re-phrased version of "if Allardyce is successful who will you credit, and if he isn't who will you blame" that you have been avoiding for quite some time now.

 

 

[NE5]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

 

They didn't have enough shares to.

 

28% isn't enough to do what you want either, is it ?

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=42718.msg921165#msg921165

 

So you agree that Shepherd wasn't in fact running the club on his own after all ? Although you are guessing over who sided with who, even if they weren't unanimous, which they may have been and you are presuming they weren't that too.

 

 

[Baggio]

 

but the Halls could have vetoed anything Shepherd wanted, yes ?

 

 

 

In the same way that the major shareholders in any company could but rarely do veto decisions made by the chairman.

 

so they could ?

 

 

 

They didn't have enough shares to.

 

28% isn't enough to do what you want either, is it ?

 

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=42718.msg921165#msg921165

 

So you agree that Shepherd wasn't in fact running the club on his own after all ? Although you are guessing over who sided with who, even if they weren't unanimous, which they may have been and you are presuming they weren't that too.

 

 

 

Shepherd ran the club on a day to day basis, any major decisions would likely go to a vote by the board, Shepherds brother might side with Hall, Halls sister might side with Freddie, either way those 5 got together and voted on the major decions at the club.

 

[Mick]

 

You are sadly mistaken about me supporting Souness BTW, as you know its the only thing you yourself have got right, through agreeing with me, I made hundreds of posts to this effect and yes, we saw eye to eye in that respect at least.  As for Roeder,

I indeed thought that he was worth a crack, or deserved a crack, on the basis that my number 1 choice, Allardyce had decided to stay with Bolton and so Glenn would either have been successful in his own right or steadied the club and kept the seat warm for the number 1 choice of the club, chosen by the board you despise BTW.

 

Shame that even with hindsight, you consider qualifying for europe more than any other club but 4, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals, and recording the 3 highest consecutive league positions in 50 years, to be "failure" and "just the same" as spending decades scrapping around the 2nd division and the bottom places in the 1st division.

 

With this amazing foresight you claim to have, I don't think the question you are currently avoiding is beyond you ?

 

Which is a slightly re-phrased version of "if Allardyce is successful who will you credit, and if he isn't who will you blame" that you have been avoiding for quite some time now.

 

 

 

As for you supporting Souness, I must admit that one is not something I can say is 100% true, I can only go by what people have said, people who I have no reason to think are lying, you on the other hand are not Leazes, so who should I believe?

 

I thought one of the reasons you thought we should have appointed Roeder was because we’d appointed winning managers in the past and they had failed so the natural thing to do was appoint a failure.

 

I don’t think the European qualifications, FA Cup finals and 3 league finishes are failure, taking us from 2nd in the Premiership to 14th (edit 13th) and taking a profitable club and building up massive debts is certainly a failure, maybe you think that is a success.  What did we win for qualifying for Europe?  What did we win for those cup finals?  What did we win for those 3 best finishes, the ones so good that we sacked the manager who achieved them?

 

That question I’m avoiding to answer seems to be a big problem for you as I answered it weeks ago and have posted a link to it, you even followed the link and started posting in the same thread.

 

 

[NE5]

oh well, if you would swap our last decade for Leicester or the smoggies, with a solitary League Cup win - against the mighty Tranmere in Leicester's case - including their relegations and half empty stadiums every week, in exchange for our fairly consistent european qualifications and Champions League runs, you are on your own. Or should I say, I wouldn't.

 

Anyone but Fred eh  mackems.gif

 

As you say, Shepherd is going or gone, so as he is the single person that has stopped us winning loads of trophies, here's to a golden future. According to your foresight that is. Shame about all the other 88 clubs that have done worse than us and didn't have Shepherd as chairman isn't it ? Odd, to say the least. Did he prevent all of those from being successful too ?

 

 

 

 

[Mick]

oh well, if you would swap our last decade for Leicester or the smoggies, with a solitary League Cup win - against the mighty Tranmere in Leicester's case - including their relegations and half empty stadiums every week, in exchange for our fairly consistent european qualifications and Champions League runs, you are on your own. Or should I say, I wouldn't.

 

Anyone but Fred eh  mackems.gif

 

As you say, Shepherd is going or gone, so as he is the single person that has stopped us winning loads of trophies, here's to a golden future. According to your foresight that is. Shame about all the other 88 clubs that have done worse than us and didn't have Shepherd as chairman isn't it ? Odd, to say the least. Did he prevent all of those from being successful too ?

 

 

 

 

Where did that lot come from?  You're listening to the voices again, either the tablets are not working or you've forgot to take them again, some people never learn. 

[NE5]

oh well, if you would swap our last decade for Leicester or the smoggies, with a solitary League Cup win - against the mighty Tranmere in Leicester's case - including their relegations and half empty stadiums every week, in exchange for our fairly consistent european qualifications and Champions League runs, you are on your own. Or should I say, I wouldn't.

 

Anyone but Fred eh  mackems.gif

 

As you say, Shepherd is going or gone, so as he is the single person that has stopped us winning loads of trophies, here's to a golden future. According to your foresight that is. Shame about all the other 88 clubs that have done worse than us and didn't have Shepherd as chairman isn't it ? Odd, to say the least. Did he prevent all of those from being successful too ?

 

 

 

 

Where did that lot come from?  You're listening to the voices again, either the tablets are not working or you've forgot to take them again, some people never learn. 

 

Backtracking

 

mackems.gif

[OzzieMandias]

I see "success" has now been redefined as "not being the only person responsible for leading the club from 2nd to 13th and losing a few cup finals along the way".

[TRon]

 

No, you're wrong, I've no reason to have a soft spot for anybody. I just find it amusing that people make things up to discredit Shepherd - and Hall for that matter - in the same way that they allow their dislike of Craig Bellamy to influence their opinion that we were better off without him. They didn't think that when he was here. They didn't dislike Shepherd either when we were in the Champions League and I bet they didn't give their FA Cup Final tickets away either.

 

Fickle. To put it bluntly. They wouldn't know true mediocrity - or a really s*** board - if it hit them in the face with a rusty shovel.

 

 

 

FYI Bellamy was got rid of by Souness (Manager) and Shearer (Captain) under Shepherd (Chairman). Only a fat-headed pig could attribute this to 'fickle fans' while failing to call Shepherd to account for sacking SBH for finishing 5th.

 

FYI I'm quite aware who was behind the departure of Bellamy. I suggest you learn to read properly, then come back and understand I am referring to fickle supporters who turned against a player who gave everything for the club, after supporting him when he was here and playing a major part in us shooting up the league from a mid table place into the top 4, simply because he was sold on the wishes of a pig headed manager, that they mysteriously backed with this sale.

 

 

 

Once Shepherd's own appointed manager and captain had decided Bellamy had to go, what is it you expected board members here to do exactly? If he was a Beardsley or Gascoigne perhaps we would have wept with frustration like you, but he wasn't. He was bellamy; a player who could cause opposing teams problems, but wasn't really a finisher.

 

Even so, most would have been happy for him to stay, but Shepherd and his own personally selected management team decided otherwise. Now tell me again; who got rid of your hero Bellamy?

[KaKa]

From The TimesJuly 18, 2007

 

Agent says he has nothing to hide

 

Kaveh Solhekol

 

The agent at the centre of inquiries into allegations of corruption in football has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to clear his name. Willie McKay became the focus of attention after it emerged that he had been involved in transfer deals between the three clubs – Newcastle United, Portsmouth and Rangers – whose offices were raided by City of London Police on Monday.

 

“It’s not me,” McKay, 47, said yesterday. “I have no idea what they are doing. All I can do is carry on doing my job of selling players. I think you will probably find that when it all comes out, it will be nothing. I was in Newcastle yesterday with Charles N’Zogbia [the Newcastle midfield player]. I don’t know whose homes police went to, but it wasn’t mine.”

 

McKay represented Jean Alain Boumsong in his £8 million transfer from Rangers to Newcastle and Amdy Faye in his £2 million move from Portsmouth to St James’ Park, both in January 2005. The transfers were two of the 17 that were not cleared last month by the inquiry into alleged irregular payments from transfer dealings, conducted by Quest and headed by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington.

 

“I have been involved in many, many transfers,” McKay said. “The FA have got all the paperwork. Go there and see if they have any problems with the paperwork.”

 

An FA spokesman declined to comment on McKay’s claim yesterday. “There are no simple answers in this case,” he said.

 

Eyebrows were raised when Newcastle, who were managed at the time by Graeme Souness, agreed to pay £8 million for Boumsong only six months after he had joined Rangers on a free transfer from Auxerre. Souness, who has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Stevens’s inquiry, expected the France centre back to be as good as Rio Ferdinand or John Terry, but Boumsong was held in low regard by Newcastle supporters and he endured a nightmare 18-month spell on Tyneside before he was sold to Juventus for £3.3 million.

 

“Jean Alain Boumsong played for France,” McKay said. “How many members of the France squad can you buy for less than £10 million? Ask Martin O’Neill what a good player he is. He tried to sign him when he was at Celtic. Ask Gérard Houllier, who wanted to buy him when he was at Liverpool. Ask Inter Milan, ask Barcelona. I rest my case.”

 

McKay has denied that his home in the North East was one of two houses raided by police on Monday and the family of Freddy Shepherd, the Newcastle chairman, have insisted that they are not involved in the investigation. “Photographers have been circling Freddy’s house, but he has nothing to do with what has happened,” a family spokesman said. “Nobody knows anything about what is alleged to have gone on. But I can tell you one thing: everyone at Newcastle would love to find out, so action could be taken by the club if necessary.”

 

While City of London Police officers sifted through the evidence that they had gathered, the chairman of a Football League club contacted by The Times suggested yesterday that the police investigation centred on allegations of VAT fraud and money-laundering. “I don’t think this is just about bungs,” he said. “It could be wider than that.”

 

A spokesman for Quest, an independent company specialising in security investigations, refused to confirm whether McKay had complied with the request made by Stevens last month to provide more information about the transfers of Boumsong and Faye. “Investigations are ongoing and there is a lot of work still to do,” the spokesman said.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2093757.ece

 

 

[NSG]

Don't like the fact he was with Zog yesterday.

[KaKa]

Don't like the fact he was with Zog yesterday.

 

Agreed Zog could definitely do with having a better agent.

[olliemort]

Don't like the fact he was with Zog yesterday.

exactly what i wos thinking!

[Teasy]

I have no idea what they are doing. All I can do is carry on doing my job of selling players

 

I thought he was an agent, which surely should entail more then simply being a player salesman..  Parasite..

[OzzieMandias]

?It?s not me,? McKay, 47, said yesterday. ?I have no idea what they are doing.

 

So it could be him, then.

[NE5]

 

No, you're wrong, I've no reason to have a soft spot for anybody. I just find it amusing that people make things up to discredit Shepherd - and Hall for that matter - in the same way that they allow their dislike of Craig Bellamy to influence their opinion that we were better off without him. They didn't think that when he was here. They didn't dislike Shepherd either when we were in the Champions League and I bet they didn't give their FA Cup Final tickets away either.

 

Fickle. To put it bluntly. They wouldn't know true mediocrity - or a really s*** board - if it hit them in the face with a rusty shovel.

 

 

 

FYI Bellamy was got rid of by Souness (Manager) and Shearer (Captain) under Shepherd (Chairman). Only a fat-headed pig could attribute this to 'fickle fans' while failing to call Shepherd to account for sacking SBH for finishing 5th.

 

FYI I'm quite aware who was behind the departure of Bellamy. I suggest you learn to read properly, then come back and understand I am referring to fickle supporters who turned against a player who gave everything for the club, after supporting him when he was here and playing a major part in us shooting up the league from a mid table place into the top 4, simply because he was sold on the wishes of a pig headed manager, that they mysteriously backed with this sale.

 

 

 

Once Shepherd's own appointed manager and captain had decided Bellamy had to go, what is it you expected board members here to do exactly? If he was a Beardsley or Gascoigne perhaps we would have wept with frustration like you, but he wasn't. He was bellamy; a player who could cause opposing teams problems, but wasn't really a finisher.

 

Even so, most would have been happy for him to stay, but Shepherd and his own personally selected management team decided otherwise. Now tell me again; who got rid of your hero Bellamy?

 

I'll try to explain this slowly.

 

My "hero" is Tony Green

 

Such childish remarks do you no credit and deflect from any sensible point you might make

 

My point is with people ie supporters who say "we are better off without Bellamy" when we clearly are not. The same people who supported this player when he played for us and realised how influential he was ?

 

So what exactly is their problem. What exactly is your problem ?

 

Are such people saying that he is a good player if he plays for Newcastle, and a shit player if he plays for someone else ?

 

Staggering that this needs to be explained.

 

Your point about Gazza and Beardsley perhaps has deeper significance than you realise. If you begin by asking yourself why 2 NUFC supporting local lads chose to leave the club for bigger clubs with more ambition, and a Welsh player with no affinity whatsoever didn't really want to leave the club........

 

Think about it.

 

I don't expect MICK to get involved in this, its far too complicated for him

 

mackems.gif