Mort is new Chairman - Shepherd leaves

[macbeth]

 

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?

 

When we signed Owen the club were given the sponsorship money that should have been given over subsequent seasons. It's hidden away as a wee note in the accounts.

[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.

 

 

 

How do you know we had to borrow money?

 

Cos we already had an overdraft. There is also a line in the accounts saying "New borrowings" and it says £11m next to it.

 

We took the "i-must-get-to-work-otherwise-i'll-not-be-able-to-earn-money-i-better-buy-a-ferrari" approach

[Mowen]

Or the "we'll lose a cunt-load of money if we get relegated" option?

[Slugsy]

Sorry if this sounds negative but just because Shepherd has left doesn't mean I am celebrating just yet.

 

Mr Mort is a M&A lawyer, with no actual experience or running any business whatesoever let alone a football club which is infinetely different from anything he has done in the past.

 

So far since Ashley took over full control and placed Mort in charge we have spent zero in the transfer market, which could be for many reasons, but clearly one of them as Allardyce has stated is that the new Board have been too slow.

 

I'm not saying we won't spend any money or it won't turn out well, I do think the whoo ha and celebrations for this guy coming in are a little premature as so far he has said little and delivered nowt. 

 

You could argue that he hasn't had much time but that's one of the dynamics of running a football club, you don't have much time, particularly in the transfer market.

 

We may be run far more efficiently and prudently in the future but whether that actually means we have a improved playing squad remains very much to be seen. 

 

So far any improvements in this football club have come by way of Allardyce, I await some actual tangible action from Mort and Co with baited breath.....

[BottledDog]

Sorry if this sounds negative but just because Shepherd has left doesn't mean I am celebrating just yet.

 

Mr Mort is a M&A lawyer, with no actual experience or running any business whatesoever let alone a football club which is infinetely different from anything he has done in the past.

 

So far since Ashley took over full control and placed Mort in charge we have spent zero in the transfer market, which could be for many reasons, but clearly one of them as Allardyce has stated is that the new Board have been too slow.

 

I'm not saying we won't spend any money or it won't turn out well, I do think the whoo ha and celebrations for this guy coming in are a little premature as so far he has said little and delivered nowt. 

 

You could argue that he hasn't had much time but that's one of the dynamics of running a football club, you don't have much time, particularly in the transfer market.

 

We may be run far more efficiently and prudently in the future but whether that actually means we have a improved playing squad remains very much to be seen. 

 

So far any improvements in this football club have come by way of Allardyce, I await some actual tangible action from Mort and Co with baited breath.....

 

Indeed.

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/newsid_6910000/newsid_6916200/6916275.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6

 

Good interview by Steve Harper on Freddie, training and the new season

[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?

 

Cos we already had an overdraft. There is also a line in the accounts saying "New borrowings" and it says £11m next to it.

 

We took the "i-must-get-to-work-otherwise-i'll-not-be-able-to-earn-money-i-better-buy-a-ferrari" approach

 

If we'd bought a Ferrari, i think we might have done a little better last year. Quite sensibly, the club invested £10m against future earnings growth to ensure we styaed in the prem and realised the increased revenues of £30m.

 

Sensible business all round.

[UV]

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns.

 

Macbeth, what do you say to those people who believe (although mostly it is stated as an absolute truth) that the only way Ashley (or anyone who had taken over) can make money, and the only reason they would have bought the club is to invest heavily in the playing staff to eventually have us playing in the champions league? I don't think they're talking about an extra £4m per year on transfers and wages due to not taking a dividend either, their talking about making even heavier loses in the short term against hopefully making higher profits in the long term. All but the most naive of supporters realise that spending money does not guarantee success, so theoretically this spending over profit must go on indefinitely until a successful manager/team combination are found.

 

Do you agree with this view, or think that they are wrong?

[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.

 

 

 

How do you know we had to borrow money?

 

Cos we already had an overdraft. There is also a line in the accounts saying "New borrowings" and it says £11m next to it.

 

We took the "i-must-get-to-work-otherwise-i'll-not-be-able-to-earn-money-i-better-buy-a-ferrari" approach

 

If we'd bought a Ferrari, i think we might have done a little better last year. Quite sensibly, the club invested £10m against future earnings growth to ensure we styaed in the prem and realised the increased revenues of £30m.

 

Sensible business all round.

 

the only reason it was sensible was that the club was in such a mess that they just HAD to do it. There was no continued, planned-for growth, no steady building, it was a panic situation both with Owen then with Martins.

 

The hope has to be that Allardyce will have the confidence to build it up, to build a club, rather than build a signing. For Shepherd to be say that he was most proud of signing Shearer and Owen suggested that he was satisfied with trophy signings, rather than trophies.

[macbeth]

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns.

 

Macbeth, what do you say to those people who believe (although mostly it is stated as an absolute truth) that the only way Ashley (or anyone who had taken over) can make money, and the only reason they would have bought the club is to invest heavily in the playing staff to eventually have us playing in the champions league? I don't think they're talking about an extra £4m per year on transfers and wages due to not taking a dividend either, their talking about making even heavier loses in the short term against hopefully making higher profits in the long term. All but the most naive of supporters realise that spending money does not guarantee success, so theoretically this spending over profit must go on indefinitely until a successful manager/team combination are found.

 

Do you agree with this view, or think that they are wrong?

 

the extra money, and therefore profits, can only come from the CL. In 2003 we had a turnover of £96m due to being int he CL, last year it was £83m. The rewards have grown hugely since 2003, with Chelsea getting £16m last season in appearance money never mind TV and gate receipts, and increased merchandising sales.

 

The extra money from Sky for the next few years will help all clubs, but will probably just all end up in the pockets of the players.

 

I don't believe anyone can get mega-rich owning a football club given how much it costs to buy them. Shepherd and Hall took the absolute maximum out that was feasible, any more and it would have collapsed.

[UV]

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns.

 

Macbeth, what do you say to those people who believe (although mostly it is stated as an absolute truth) that the only way Ashley (or anyone who had taken over) can make money, and the only reason they would have bought the club is to invest heavily in the playing staff to eventually have us playing in the champions league? I don't think they're talking about an extra £4m per year on transfers and wages due to not taking a dividend either, their talking about making even heavier loses in the short term against hopefully making higher profits in the long term. All but the most naive of supporters realise that spending money does not guarantee success, so theoretically this spending over profit must go on indefinitely until a successful manager/team combination are found.

 

Do you agree with this view, or think that they are wrong?

 

the extra money, and therefore profits, can only come from the CL. In 2003 we had a turnover of £96m due to being int he CL, last year it was £83m. The rewards have grown hugely since 2003, with Chelsea getting £16m last season in appearance money never mind TV and gate receipts, and increased merchandising sales.

 

The extra money from Sky for the next few years will help all clubs, but will probably just all end up in the pockets of the players.

 

I don't believe anyone can get mega-rich owning a football club given how much it costs to buy them. Shepherd and Hall took the absolute maximum out that was feasible, any more and it would have collapsed.

 

That didn't answer the question at all.

 

the only reason it was sensible was that the club was in such a mess that they just HAD to do it. There was no continued, planned-for growth, no steady building, it was a panic situation both with Owen then with Martins.

 

The hope has to be that Allardyce will have the confidence to build it up, to build a club, rather than build a signing. For Shepherd to be say that he was most proud of signing Shearer and Owen suggested that he was satisfied with trophy signings, rather than trophies.

 

If you "plan" to have a decent backup for your main ("trophy signing") striker being injured for a season you have to have 2 "trophy signing" strikers on the books or just buy cheaper strikers who are not as good. I don't see how you can blame the chairman for Owen's injury causing a shift in the transfer targets.

 

If we'd have won a trophy I'm sure that would have been what he was most proud of. Did you expect him to say losing a couple of cup finals or coming 3rd in the league was his proudest moment?

[NG32]

Finishing 3rd with SBR as manager, was a cracking achivement.  Then he chucked it all away by not spending to improve the team.  And here we are now.

[Skirge]

Lets hope that now Big Mike has it all his own way we see some transfer action, Mort seems like a decent bloke and no mug but this is football and we DO need players so lets get to it!!

[UV]

Finishing 3rd with SBR as manager, was a cracking achivement.  Then he chucked it all away by not spending to improve the team.  And here we are now.

 

I'm sure Macbeth will be along in a moment to tell you that not spending then was exactly the right thing to do as the profit that year (before dividends) was only £4.3m, and the previous year it was -£3.1m (we spent £27.6m that year).

[NG32]

I'm sure Macbeth will be along in a moment to tell you that not spending then was exactly the right thing to do as the profit that year (before dividends) was only £4.3m, and the previous year it was -£3.1m (we spent £27.6m that year).

 

Not spending when you are on the up is big mistake.

 

Spending on the slide with Souness in charge was an even bigger mistake.  It was like gambling that we could claw the ground back.  A gamble that failed.

[NE5]

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 was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

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.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

[NE5]

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?

 

Cos we already had an overdraft. There is also a line in the accounts saying "New borrowings" and it says £11m next to it.

 

We took the "i-must-get-to-work-otherwise-i'll-not-be-able-to-earn-money-i-better-buy-a-ferrari" approach

 

To clarify, as Baggio asked :

 

You would not have signed Martins last summer even though his goals without a doubt kept us out of a relegation spot ?

 

 

[NE5]

Sorry if this sounds negative but just because Shepherd has left doesn't mean I am celebrating just yet.

 

Mr Mort is a M&A lawyer, with no actual experience or running any business whatesoever let alone a football club which is infinetely different from anything he has done in the past.

 

So far since Ashley took over full control and placed Mort in charge we have spent zero in the transfer market, which could be for many reasons, but clearly one of them as Allardyce has stated is that the new Board have been too slow.

 

I'm not saying we won't spend any money or it won't turn out well, I do think the whoo ha and celebrations for this guy coming in are a little premature as so far he has said little and delivered nowt. 

 

You could argue that he hasn't had much time but that's one of the dynamics of running a football club, you don't have much time, particularly in the transfer market.

 

We may be run far more efficiently and prudently in the future but whether that actually means we have a improved playing squad remains very much to be seen. 

 

So far any improvements in this football club have come by way of Allardyce, I await some actual tangible action from Mort and Co with baited breath.....

 

Cracking, sensible post.

 

 

[NE5]

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?

 

Cos we already had an overdraft. There is also a line in the accounts saying "New borrowings" and it says £11m next to it.

 

We took the "i-must-get-to-work-otherwise-i'll-not-be-able-to-earn-money-i-better-buy-a-ferrari" approach

 

If we'd bought a Ferrari, i think we might have done a little better last year. Quite sensibly, the club invested £10m against future earnings growth to ensure we styaed in the prem and realised the increased revenues of £30m.

 

Sensible business all round.

 

the only reason it was sensible was that the club was in such a mess that they just HAD to do it. There was no continued, planned-for growth, no steady building, it was a panic situation both with Owen then with Martins.

 

The hope has to be that Allardyce will have the confidence to build it up, to build a club, rather than build a signing. For Shepherd to be say that he was most proud of signing Shearer and Owen suggested that he was satisfied with trophy signings , rather than trophies.

 

Please explain how, and which club has qualified for the Champions League, made bigger money, and won trophies on the back of it, without buying players in this price bracket and of this calibre ?

 

You're talking absolute tosh mate.

 

A team of 2m or 3m quid players may satisfy your desire to look after the accounts first and foremost, but it sure as hell won't give us a half decent team.

 

 

[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 was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

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.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

 

Getting into a debate with you reminds me of http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6017/wheelvd4.gif

 

I've left the question you've asked at the top in the original post, I've answered it by showing the other teams who are considered to have been reasonably big clubs at that time, I've shown how our attendances stood up to them and I've shown some of the bigger clubs at this time who were also doing reasonably well at that time.

 

I could have cherry picked and shown quite a few teams who were playing in the top division and had worse crowds than we did, I could have cherry picked like you do and use the shittest teams as an example, I haven't.  One club was in the top 8 in 1991 and the 4th division last season, last season that averaged 1,000 less than they had then, I don’t think that’s because they feel the club they support is almost as good as the one who played in the top division, times have changed.

 

You asked the question, it's tough if you don't like the answer, I'll leave it up to others as to which one looks stupid.  Like I’ve said in the past, our crowds have always been some of the best in the country and all clubs attendances have improved since those times with a few exceptions.

 

[Dave]

What is the point of you ?

 

[NE5]

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 was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

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.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

 

Getting into a debate with you reminds me of http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6017/wheelvd4.gif

 

I've left the question you've asked at the top in the original post, I've answered it by showing the other teams who are considered to have been reasonably big clubs at that time, I've shown how our attendances stood up to them and I've shown some of the bigger clubs at this time who were also doing reasonably well at that time.

 

I could have cherry picked and shown quite a few teams who were playing in the top division and had worse crowds than we did, I could have cherry picked like you do and use the shittest teams as an example, I haven't.  One club was in the top 8 in 1991 and the 4th division last season, last season that averaged 1,000 less than they had then, I don’t think that’s because they feel the club they support is almost as good as the one who played in the top division, times have changed.

 

You asked the question, it's tough if you don't like the answer, I'll leave it up to others as to which one looks stupid.  Like I’ve said in the past, our crowds have always been some of the best in the country and all clubs attendances have improved since those times with a few exceptions.

 

 

Most people with half a brain will understand perfectly what I asked you, and will see that you aren't answering because the answer is crystal clear.

 

You have named teams who at one time got bigger crowds than us. I have in addition to that named a number of teams who were above us for long periods.

 

Please explain why the teams you named that got bigger crowds than us pre-1992, are not now getting bigger crowds than us ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Most people with half a brain will understand perfectly what I asked you, and will see that you aren't answering because the answer is crystal clear.

 

You have named teams who at one time got bigger crowds than us. I have in addition to that named a number of teams who were above us for long periods.

 

Please explain why the teams you named that got bigger crowds than us pre-1992, are not now getting bigger crowds than us ?

 

 

 

When did Port Vale, Plymouth or Hull finish above us?

 

Oxford finished 1 place above us and they did that for one season, hardly a long period. 

 

Swindon did it randomly twice, so not really a long period again.  You're getting closer to "long periods" with Oldham who managed it 3 times.  You've mentioned Watford, in 1983 Watford finished above every team in the league except for Liverpool, does whatever you're going to say applies to us also apply to all of those other teams/clubs?

 

I can't be bothered looking at the others as I'm sure some will have finished higher on the very rare occasion.

 

[NE5]

 

Most people with half a brain will understand perfectly what I asked you, and will see that you aren't answering because the answer is crystal clear.

 

You have named teams who at one time got bigger crowds than us. I have in addition to that named a number of teams who were above us for long periods.

 

Please explain why the teams you named that got bigger crowds than us pre-1992, are not now getting bigger crowds than us ?

 

 

When did Port Vale, Plymouth or Hull finish above us?

 

Oxford finished 1 place above us and they did that for one season, hardly a long period. 

 

Swindon did it randomly twice, so not really a long period again.  You're getting closer to "long periods" with Oldham who managed it 3 times.  You've mentioned Watford, in 1983 Watford finished above every team in the league except for Liverpool, does whatever you're going to say applies to us also apply to all of those other teams/clubs?

 

I can't be bothered looking at the others as I'm sure some will have finished higher on the very rare occasion.

 

 

Yet you complain on the way you do when we have an odd poor season - by new standards - in the premierhip. You're still a joke.

 

Please explain to all of us how the teams that YOU mentioned that were getting bigger crowds than us prior to 1992, aren't now doing so ? [which you declined to reply, surprise surprise]

 

Please explain also how NONE of those teams that you have "replied" on, don't finish above us anymore or even come close ?

 

 

[Mick]

The rest of the article has very little to do with us.

 

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2135757,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=5

 

 

On Tuesday afternoon Freddy Shepherd finally parted company with Newcastle United. The Chief Geordie of all the World had a somewhat chequered time of it during his reign as chairgadgie at St James', what with the fake sheikh, bulging bonuses and so on. But when this was put to one of his loyal servants in the local press corps the response was predictable: "You know, the supporters at Newcastle don't care about any of that stuff as long as the team is playing well."