macbeth Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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 bastard, 90% driven by his own financial desires, 10% driven to do the best for his local football team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. Get it out lad, go-on you can do better that. You'll find it very cathartic, think of all the hours you have spent crawling through figures :violent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. Get it out lad, go-on you can do better that. You'll find it very cathartic, think of all the hours you have spent crawling through figures :violent I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. Get it out lad, go-on you can do better that. You'll find it very cathartic, think of all the hours you have spent crawling through figures :violent I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. I think people have their opinions on Shepherd now. Those that read N.O know about Macbeths site therefore know the liberties Shepherd took in his tenure. It would probably be a lot of work for the same people to read it and for very little change of opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. Get it out lad, go-on you can do better that. You'll find it very cathartic, think of all the hours you have spent crawling through figures :violent I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. I think people have their opinions on Shepherd now. Those that read N.O know about Macbeths site therefore know the liberties Shepherd took in his tenure. It would probably be a lot of work for the same people to read it and for very little change of opinion. There really are still people who don't know. It needs a round up and for it to be archived so people can look back in years and see what a leach he really was, i'm not really talking about the current members of NO, but the future ones for years to come, just so his legacy cannot be remembered for anything else as a lot of the media still think FS did a good job, was a fan with the club at heart and spent his own money to help the club achieve success, and unfortunately there are still people listening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. I doubt he is. May well still take £10,000 per week in pay, but I suspect he does have some business sense which will be a huge advantage over his predecessor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. not sure I could do a "proper" one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... I've seen something that mentioned Mort earning £1 million, he's replaced Shepherd, Douglas Hall, Bruce Shepherd and Hall's Sister, I think that lot were taking something like £1.25 million out so we've actually made a saving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. not sure I could do a "proper" one Not slurring you past work, just an all in wonder to end the era as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. not sure I could do a "proper" one Not slurring you past work, just an all in wonder to end the era as such. I've started to do a similar, but smaller, analysis on other clubs. It's at www.football-finances.org.uk and will be taking up my time for a few weeks. It's probably best to wait a while anyway. If I did something now I may only be able to see the downside of Shepherd whereas if I wait a few years I may have though of something good he did. May. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? I thought we also paid dividends while making a loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I was just thinking that Macbeth should do a proper financial summary of FS's time at the club, what it cost us, what was spent where, and what we achieved for those prices. Top to bottom, what he got out of it is a great start. not sure I could do a "proper" one Not slurring you past work, just an all in wonder to end the era as such. I've started to do a similar, but smaller, analysis on other clubs. It's at www.football-finances.org.uk and will be taking up my time for a few weeks. It's probably best to wait a while anyway. If I did something now I may only be able to see the downside of Shepherd whereas if I wait a few years I may have though of something good he did. May. Thats fair enough like and a good reason to wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? I thought we also paid dividends while making a loss. Urm, you can't by definition. Dividends are paid out profit.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. You mean philanthropist surely? If so no he's not. but at least he's an employee on a wage decided by his boss. Not a man who effectively owns the club paying himself whatever he wants like the fat man was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? Money then - ours/or rather the club's money Money now - Ashley's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 theres nothing on the freshfields site saying anything about him leaving,last news item was dated 20 july mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 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. It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? Money then - ours/or rather the club's money Money now - Ashley's Are we all getting a free season ticket and free burgers and drinks at SJP? Or did Shepherd get his stake in the club on a golden plate? I think you're kidding yourself if you think the new owner will threat us any less as a way of making a buck than the old one.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think Mr Shepherd and his clan had their fingers in many pies (both literally and metaphorically) Wasn't there evidence of a deal being done with a warehouse that raised the Shepherds a couple of £mill? Wasn't every aspect of the Club separated into different sections (catering etc.) with Fred as a director of lots of imdividual companies? no doubt lifting a wage from each. I'm sure I saw a list of companies Shepherd is/was director of and most where connected to NUFC. I think the near £10m macbeth claims is only part of what he took out of the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Urm, you can't by definition. Dividends are paid out profit.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend Check the accounts for 2000, loss and dividend payment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think Mr Shepherd and his clan had their fingers in many pies (both literally and metaphorically) Wasn't there evidence of a deal being done with a warehouse that raised the Shepherds a couple of £mill? Wasn't every aspect of the Club separated into different sections (catering etc.) with Fred as a director of lots of imdividual companies? no doubt lifting a wage from each. I'm sure I saw a list of companies Shepherd is/was director of and most where connected to NUFC. I think the near £10m macbeth claims is only part of what he took out of the Club. The warehouse was sold between the Shepherds for £175,000 and leased back to the club for £150,000 per year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think Mr Shepherd and his clan had their fingers in many pies (both literally and metaphorically) Wasn't there evidence of a deal being done with a warehouse that raised the Shepherds a couple of £mill? Wasn't every aspect of the Club separated into different sections (catering etc.) with Fred as a director of lots of imdividual companies? no doubt lifting a wage from each. I'm sure I saw a list of companies Shepherd is/was director of and most where connected to NUFC. I think the near £10m macbeth claims is only part of what he took out of the Club. as ever I only used the figures for pay and dividends straight from the club accounts. Any suggested dodgy dealings are difficult to believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Urm, you can't by definition. Dividends are paid out profit.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend Check the accounts for 2000, loss and dividend payment. You can probably compensate losses with profits from previous years. Football is no different from any other business in this respect. Doesn't change the fact that any dividend needs to have been earned as profits before.. As I say, dividends are DEFINED AS paid out profits.. Can't seen how you can question this to incriminate Shepherd. It certainly doesn't make your argument more convincing.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts