Mort is new Chairman - Shepherd leaves

[NE5]

If nothing else ,at least Mort is more likely check out contracts properly and kick the escape clauses into touch

 

You can forget buying any top quality players then.

 

which will undoubtedly cause a lot of squealing

 

 

[Kev]

hopefully Mort's right about what hes said for the future!

more signings, trophies

[NE5]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

[Baggio]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

 

Going by his logic we wouldn't have signed Martins last season as we couldn't afford him, even though without him the club would likely have been relegated.

[NE5]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

 

Going by his logic we wouldn't have signed Martins last season as we couldn't afford him, even though without him the club would likely have been relegated.

 

And therefore lost loads of more money.

 

This logic has been stated before, by HTL if I remember, myself, others and now yourself

 

He likes living in his little cocoon, macbeth, taking no risks. He would have loved McKeag, Seymour etc, selling players for profit.

 

 

[Guest bluegeordie]

Not sure if this has already been pointed out, and apologies if it has, but in the wake of Fat Fred's recent departure, I can't quite believe that the official NUFC website has a story entitled "Who'll Eat All The Pies?" A mere coincidence, or someone in the web team with a sense of humour, engaging in a piece of good old fashioned passive aggression? I know which I'd put my money on.   

[Guest newcastle4life]

Brilliant now just need some new signings.

[macbeth]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

 

Going by his logic we wouldn't have signed Martins last season as we couldn't afford him, even though without him the club would likely have been relegated.

 

And therefore lost loads of more money.

 

This logic has been stated before, by HTL if I remember, myself, others and now yourself

 

He likes living in his little cocoon, macbeth, taking no risks. He would have loved McKeag, Seymour etc, selling players for profit.

 

 

 

Six of the last ten seasons we finish bottom half of table, greater than any other period in the club's history, but not would shoule be accepted as a greta achievement.

 

Chairman appoints Souness and Roeder as managers.

 

We get what we deserve. It seems that spending all our money on a star player is all we want, so it's all we get. While we seemingly have to buy Owen, Luque, Martins, Duff cos that is what we want, in the same time we also bring in Moore and Bernard to strengthen the defence. If  investing and speculating means taking the club to the brink of financial meltdown then I completely understand why you feel Shepherd was so good. Me I'd like us to spend to the absolute limit of what we can afford.

 

In the last 10 years Newcastle United have had to borrow money, not to buy players, but to pay dividends to shareholders. That people are happy to borrow money for anything but investment in the club is something I can never understand.

[NE5]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

 

Going by his logic we wouldn't have signed Martins last season as we couldn't afford him, even though without him the club would likely have been relegated.

 

And therefore lost loads of more money.

 

This logic has been stated before, by HTL if I remember, myself, others and now yourself

 

He likes living in his little cocoon, macbeth, taking no risks. He would have loved McKeag, Seymour etc, selling players for profit.

 

 

 

Six of the last ten seasons we finish bottom half of table, greater than any other period in the club's history, but not would shoule be accepted as a greta achievement.

 

Chairman appoints Souness and Roeder as managers.

 

We get what we deserve. It seems that spending all our money on a star player is all we want, so it's all we get. While we seemingly have to buy Owen, Luque, Martins, Duff cos that is what we want, in the same time we also bring in Moore and Bernard to strengthen the defence. If  investing and speculating means taking the club to the brink of financial meltdown then I completely understand why you feel Shepherd was so good. Me I'd like us to spend to the absolute limit of what we can afford.

 

 

like we did under McKeag, Seymour etc for over 30 years ?

 

And all for financial meltdown, a half empty stadium, generating less interest and less money, so selling our best players to make ends meet, and a footballing result of staring at 3rd division football.

 

And a financial result of a failed share issue that couldn't even raise 2.5m quid, achieving only half of that from a combination of business and supporters in the city. Selling Peter Beardsley to Liverpool, a local lad who knew Newcastle were a dead duck, raised more than that.

 

Still, if that is what you want, fair enough.

 

UV has raised an interesting question, that I suspect you are avoiding due to myself and Baggio replying first and hoping nobody will notice.

 

Oh, BTW, if you consider numerous years in the old 2nd division, including one stretch of eerrr 6 years, and just as many years fighting to stay up once we got up, superior to our league positions in the last decade, you have a bit of a problem.

 

 

[macbeth]

In the 8 years up to July 2006

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid Freddie Shepherd £3,247,034 to do his job

 

 

Newcastle United (funded by its fans buying tickets, shirts, paying Sky subscription money) paid dividends on the shares he owned.This came to a total of £5,489,239.

 

The total amount of money he took from Newcastle United was therefore £8,736,273.

 

 

He also made several million from the sale of his shares to Ashley, but that didn't directly effect the club's own accounts, that was purely Ashley's money.

 

For too long Shepherd robbed us. In the end it cost US over £9m to have him as chairman for the last 9 years. If he is never allowed back in the ground again it would be too soon for me. A thieving b******, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team.

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

this point has been mentioned before to him. Macbeth, without a shadow of doubt, prefers the club to exist among also rans as he has always said the club should not get involved in attempting to speculate and take risks to buy the top quality players. As all the successful clubs do.

 

He has also never really attempted to answer when he has been asked to explain how 1m a year would have any sort of significant impact on the clubs fortunes, and also obviously thinks that directors and owners of the club should be doing it all for nothing but goodwill.

 

One thing in his favour, is that if the club is actually run in this way, he won't start squealing about the club lacking ambition - as surely as the vast majority of people on this board WILL do - as he will be happy with real mediocrity [certainly nowhere near playing in europe as regularly as we have] and a balance sheet showing a profit, however meagre.

 

 

 

Going by his logic we wouldn't have signed Martins last season as we couldn't afford him, even though without him the club would likely have been relegated.

 

And therefore lost loads of more money.

 

This logic has been stated before, by HTL if I remember, myself, others and now yourself

 

He likes living in his little cocoon, macbeth, taking no risks. He would have loved McKeag, Seymour etc, selling players for profit.

 

 

 

Six of the last ten seasons we finish bottom half of table, greater than any other period in the club's history, but not would shoule be accepted as a greta achievement.

 

Chairman appoints Souness and Roeder as managers.

 

We get what we deserve. It seems that spending all our money on a star player is all we want, so it's all we get. While we seemingly have to buy Owen, Luque, Martins, Duff cos that is what we want, in the same time we also bring in Moore and Bernard to strengthen the defence. If  investing and speculating means taking the club to the brink of financial meltdown then I completely understand why you feel Shepherd was so good. Me I'd like us to spend to the absolute limit of what we can afford.

 

 

like we did under McKeag, Seymour etc for over 30 years ? You wish to compare us with the worst you have seen. I aim higher. It's liek saying we're better than sunlun. Great, maybe enough for you, but not enough for me

 

And all for financial meltdown, a half empty stadium, generating less interest and less money, so selling our best players to make ends meet, and a footballing result of staring at 3rd division football.

No we have none of those things. We have full stadium, huge income, therefore a huge advantage yet we still have 6 finishes in the bottom half of the league.

 

And a financial result of a failed share issue that couldn't even raise 2.5m quid, achieving only half of that from a combination of business and supporters in the city. Selling Peter Beardsley to Liverpool, a local lad who knew Newcastle were a dead duck, raised more than that.

 

Again, absolutely. But that had nothing to do with the chairmanship of Freddie Shepherd. That turnaround was done by a top class business man, who passed on the control of the club to Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Hall.

 

 

Still, if that is what you want, fair enough.

 

No I don't. I never wanted to see the incompetence of McKeag repeated. Sadly I did. I wasn't one of those who swooned when Shepherd made some great statement, brought in Souness and Roeder, ansd then gave us "what we wanted" with trophy signings rather than trophies.

 

UV has raised an interesting question, that I suspect you are avoiding due to myself and Baggio replying first and hoping nobody will notice.

 

Missed it, will go back now and have a look.

 

Oh, BTW, if you consider numerous years in the old 2nd division, including one stretch of eerrr 6 years, and just as many years fighting to stay up once we got up, superior to our league positions in the last decade, you have a bit of a problem.

 

You must have missed the bit I've now highlighted for you in blue. Again, it depends on your ambitions.

 

 

[NE5]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

[macbeth]

 

 

I find it hilarious that you're all quibbling over around £1m a year going to the chairman and 1/4 owner of the club when 1 (one) player is payed 4 or 5 times that. Do you expect Ashley will take out less for his £213m over the long term?

 

Will you be happy if he bleeds £35m out of us over the next 9 years ?? I won't. I will complain long and hard. Others  may rejoice in an Intertoto qualification and look the other way. 

 

As I mentioned earlier Shepherd was paid £500k a year as chairman, that was salary, and some  will suggest he was worth that. It is at least arguable that he was doing work to get that money.

 

You do all realise that these "loses" you're all so damning about are directly due to the amount of money the club payed in transfers and wages trying to achieve success. I guess you're implying Ashley should spend less so that his profits are higher?

 

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns. The graph below shows the club losses, you can see where the majority of it came from. So £35m out of £58m of the losses came from giving money to shareholders. So £23m of the overspend was spent  speculating on players and their wages, £35m spent on Hall and Shepherd pension funds. You surely cannot be happy with that. Unless your surname is Hall or Shepherd.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif

 

As the chairman said in his annual report the wages played to players were decided purely by the board. If the player wages are too high there was only one person to blame and that was Shepherd. He is responsible for all contractual agreements, be they the wages or the get-out clauses.

 

This graph shows the consistency of the overspend, the graph does not show the £10m loss Shepherd managed between July1st and December 31st 2006.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profit5.gif

 

and this last one how the worth of the club has progressed under Shepherd. Again the graph has to have a further £10m taken off it for the last 6 months of 2006. So 56 to 6 in 9 easy steps.

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/assets1.gif

 

 

 

[Baggio]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

[macbeth]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

 

cos the the board were rubbish, had no idea how to run a club.

 

Again you are looking at the worst example you can find and saying H&S are better.

 

I'd rather look up rather than down for my aspirations. If you settle yourself that you're better than a McKeag or a Murray then you will never progress. Have some ambition man.

[ChezGiven]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

According to all those figures there was no way we had £10m to spend either.

[macbeth]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

I would have preferred us to sign Martins out of money that had gone into the club. If H&S had not taken £35m out in the previous 8 years we could have signed Martins and re-signed Woodgate, and still had £15m left over. We had to borrow money to buy Martins, we shouldn't have needed to borrow. He didn't just cost £13m, he cost £13m plus a pile of interest.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

I would have preferred us to sign Martins out of money that had gone into the club. If H&S had not taken £35m out in the previous 8 years we could have signed Martins and re-signed Woodgate, and still had £15m left over. We had to borrow money to buy Martins, we shouldn't have needed to borrow. He didn't just cost £13m, he cost £13m plus a pile of interest.

 

 

 

How do you know we had to borrow money?

[Guest]

What does it matter where the money comes from macbeth? Facts are, the money was spent, we still got that player, so what does it matter?

[madras]

What does it matter where the money comes from macbeth? Facts are, the money was spent, we still got that player, so what does it matter?

because if you acquire something you have to eventually pay for it,sooner or later if you keep acquiring without paying you'll get kicked in the balls.

[Guest]

People have been saying for the last 4-5 years that, "We'll do a Leeds", yet the club is still there in the Premiership able to sign players like Geremi, Viduka & Barton (and we could have made those signings even without the takeover).

[madras]

People have been saying for the last 4-5 years that, "We'll do a Leeds", yet the club is still there in the Premiership able to sign players like Geremi, Viduka & Barton (and we could have made those signings even without the takeover).

our debt was financed different to leeds but had we kept on building up debt as we were we may not have done a leeds but would have had to downscale.

 

you cannot,in football,or most walks of life,spend without regard to where it comes from.

[Mick]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

 

 

In 1991 we were in the old 2nd Division, the teams listed below were all in the 1st (top) division.

 

Why did Leeds who were 4th top of the 1st division only have 12,000 on average more than we did in 1991?  Why did Villa only have 9,000 more in the same division as Leeds?  Why did Chelsea who were 5th in the 1st Division only average 5,000 more than we did in 1991?

 

Why do they all have higher gates on average today than they had in 1991?

 

In 1991 Liverpool were 2nd in the 1st Division, why did they finish 3rd last season yet still have a higher average crowd?  In 1991 Arsenal won the 1st Division, how come they finished 4th last season yet had an average crowd that was almost double that of 1991?

 

Last season (edit: should have been season before last) Man U finished eactly in the same position as they did in 1992, they had almost 24,000 more fans in this time round.

 

I could go on but don't see the point.

[Mick]

 

According to all those figures there was no way we had £10m to spend either.

 

We just went further into debt, the same as the year before when we suddenly acquired an overdraft for the first time, the overdraft was for £17 million.

[ChezGiven]

 

According to all those figures there was no way we had £10m to spend either.

 

We just went further into debt, the same as the year before when we suddenly aquired an overdraft for the first time, the overdraft was for £17 million.

 

Northern Rock lent us the money for Owen you mean?

[Mick]

 

Northern Rock lent us the money for Owen you mean?

 

No idea what it was used for but it does look like it, it was shown in the accounts as an overdraft, it wasn't on the books the year before.  Our interest payments also went up considerably that year from memory.