Shepherd: Betrayed by my friends

[OzzieMandias]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

[Guest Knightrider]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

[UV]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this s***, tbh.

 

 

I can't believe anyone is so indignant about a transaction for a service when they have absolutely no idea what is involved. You make it sound like the club just had to buy a shed and fill it up with stuff.

 

So Shepherd was not acting in the best interests of the company, but the other (main) shareholders weren't bothered because they were all mates? Okay.

How would it be ripping off the fans anyway? Surely the evil old board would have just given it away to themselves in their massive dividends?

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

Do you expect Ashley to put money the club doesn't directly make back into it? I don't. If the club's turnover is less than it could be potentially (eg kit & sponsorship deals) due to giving preferential (or cost free) deals to his other companies, the club's transfer and wage kitty will be lower. In this scenario, if we're lucky, he could legitimately say he was "putting his own money in" and be the heroic benefactor chairman even though it was money the club would have legitimately earned itself.

[OzzieMandias]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future ? and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this s***, tbh.

 

 

I can't believe anyone is so indignant about a transaction for a service when they have absolutely no idea what is involved. You make it sound like the club just had to buy a shed and fill it up with stuff.

 

As opposed to renting a shed and filling it up with stuff? If it was easy for Shepherd Offshore plc to sell the thing, and easy for whatever brother Bruce's company is called to buy it, how much more complicated would it be to simply cut out the middle man?

 

So Shepherd was not acting in the best interests of the company, but the other (main) shareholders weren't bothered because they were all mates? Okay.

How would it be ripping off the fans anyway? Surely the evil old board would have just given it away to themselves in their massive dividends?

 

Perhaps you are correct. There is no reason to be annoyed at Shepherd diverting millions of the club's money into a family member's personal bank acccount via this warehouse deal, because if he hadn't done it this way, he would have done it another way.

 

Good thinking. I am now completely mollified.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

Do you expect Ashley to put money the club doesn't directly make back into it? I don't. If the club's turnover is less than it could be potentially (eg kit & sponsorship deals) due to giving preferential (or cost free) deals to his other companies, the club's transfer and wage kitty will be lower. In this scenario, if we're lucky, he could legitimately say he was "putting his own money in" and be the heroic benefactor chairman even though it was money the club would have legitimately earned itself.

 

I'd expect Ashley to put some money into the club in terms of him investing in his acquisition to increase the value of the business.

[NE5]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

What goes around comes around Freddy, you've betrayed thousands of people in your 10 years in control. I'm sure that £50m or so you've trousered from fans' pockets will help you get over your disappointment.

 

Utter fucking nonsense. The money he was paid from Ashley had fuck all to do with supporters.

 

Really cant wait for all the mis-directed anger to rear its head again in a different guise.

 

Aye, fair point, most of it was Ashley's money. Still the point stands.

 

Shepherd made a few million out ofthe fans to be fair. Here is a fact of life though, people make money out of football. Its shocking i know.

 

Given this state of affairs in the world, would you rather a geordie made money out of the club or some yank who uses the term 'soccer'?

 

Can I not have a person regardless of their nationality making money from a successful football club? As I'd choose that tbh.

 

BTW I don't mind people making money from football clubs, I wouldn't have minded FS making the money he has if it wasn't for all the mismanagement.

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

Did you agree with that? I consider that ripping off fans myself.

 

Jobs for the boys and looking after your own exists everywhere in the world mate. Sad, but true.

 

Most people on here would do exactly the same

 

 

 

I wouldn't and I don't think it's jobs for the boys, and even if it was, it still isn't acceptable. You questioned Souness helping out his mates at Rangers over the signing of Boumsong and used that against him, well same thing isn't it? I find the warehouse thing mismanagement of club funds.

 

who is I.T. manager for Sports Direct?

 

I don't care about Sports Direct, I care about NUFC, when I see our Chairman selling a warehouse to his brother than using the club's money as rent at massively inflated prices, I care. It's wrong and a mismanagement of club money.

 

 

brilliant. when ashley employs family, it doesn't matter, when Shepherd did it's nepotism. If Ashley siphons money out of NUFC into one his other businesses, it doesn't matter, when Shepherd did it, is worthy of a public enquiry

[macbeth]

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

at what level do you view things as no longer being "insignificant". I'm not trying to trick you or anything. The £300k per year for the warehouse you suggest is "insignificant". You have often suggested that the Shepherd/Hall salaries of ~£500k per year were okay. You regualrly say that the dividends would have made no difference if they'd stayed within the club, so £4m a year doesn't count either.

 

If that has all happened and isn't worth really getting worked up about, in five years time looking back at what level would you view Ashley as taking out too much? And I know you'll die to compare today with 20 years ago, but dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

[Rob W]

£ 300k  a year seems a lot for a warehouse TBH - it would be a fair whack for a fully fitted office

[NE5]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

dinner what ?

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

[UV]

£ 300k  a year seems a lot for a warehouse TBH - it would be a fair whack for a fully fitted office

 

It's also doubled in less than 1 page too. That's impressive.

 

 

 

Fact is, all anyone is going on here is a newspaper article which doesn't give the source of the numbers it's using and the service it claims is being provided (ie simply storage). If there's any real source of information, then please share it, otherwise I'll consider it clearly nothing but another silly rumour.

[macbeth]

£ 300k  a year seems a lot for a warehouse TBH - it would be a fair whack for a fully fitted office

 

It's also doubled in less than 1 page too. That's impressive.

 

 

 

Fact is, all anyone is going on here is a newspaper article which doesn't give the source of the numbers it's using and the service it claims is being provided (ie simply storage). If there's any real source of information, then please share it, otherwise I'll consider it clearly nothing but another silly rumour.

 

The reported figure was £150k per year, the club accounts say that it is over £300k.

[OzzieMandias]

£ 300k  a year seems a lot for a warehouse TBH - it would be a fair whack for a fully fitted office

 

It's also doubled in less than 1 page too. That's impressive.

 

 

 

Fact is, all anyone is going on here is a newspaper article which doesn't give the source of the numbers it's using and the service it claims is being provided (ie simply storage). If there's any real source of information, then please share it, otherwise I'll consider it clearly nothing but another silly rumour.

 

If everyone was as trusting and gullible, it's hard to imagine how much of the company's money Shepherd and his family might have walked away with.

 

 

[macbeth]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

[Mick]

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

 

He'll not answer so give up, nobody cares what he thinks anyway.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

 

so what the fuck are we going to achieve with an extra £12m over 5 years FFS?

 

like I said, you want some cunt to run the club for nothing, pay off it's debts an all, and we would win the league, you're an amatuer, you even thought people would invest in a plc where the share price never goes up and a dividend never gets paid. total amateur tbh. give up now, you've got your way, now no cunt will ever know what the bosses take out or put in to the club

[ChezGiven]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

 

so what the fuck are we going to achieve with an extra £12m over 5 years FFS?

 

like I said, you want some cunt to run the club for nothing, pay off it's debts an all, and we would win the league, you're an amatuer, you even thought people would invest in a plc where the share price never goes up and a dividend never gets paid. total amateur tbh. give up now, you've got your way, now no cunt will ever know what the bosses take out or put in to the club

 

and then 

[Mick]

 

so what the f*** are we going to achieve with an extra £12m over 5 years FFS?

 

like I said, you want some c*** to run the club for nothing, pay off it's debts an all, and we would win the league, you're an amatuer, you even thought people would invest in a plc where the share price never goes up and a dividend never gets paid. total amateur tbh. give up now, you've got your way, now no c*** will ever know what the bosses take out or put in to the club

 

I feel sorry for your keyboard, that rant reminds me of that cartoon where somebody is dissapearing in a pool of blood and flying body parts while banging away at the keyboard.

[NE5]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.?

 

I would at least expect it to be equalled, wouldn't you ? Otherwise it disproves the theory that Shepherd was "holding us back", wouldn't you agree ? And also suggests that little has been gained from the change of owner, wouldn't you agree ?

 

I would like better, but that is your answer. What do you think ? Or would you prefer the books to be balanced and not be so concerned about the performance on the pitch ?

 

We won't bother saying that the Halls and Shepherd have been our best owners/chairman in the last 50 years, even though its a fact. We will just see if Ashley can do better then.

 

Don't understand why I had to spell this out, its pretty obvious

 

 

[NE5]

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

 

He'll not answer so give up, nobody cares what he thinks anyway.

 

Have you answered my question to you "why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting better crowds than us pre-1992 but aren't now" yet, as you brought this particular angle into the other discussion yourself  mackems.gif

 

I've got another one. Are you happy with our net outlay of 1.7m, the poorest since, eeeer, when exactly ? One of the lowest top league clubs, which hasn't happened since, eeerr, the days of McKeag etc ? If we buy a player or two in the last week before the deadline, will they be "panic signings" [like Shepherd and the Halls] or will they be OK because its not Shepherd and the Halls  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke

 

 

[NE5]

dinnae. I'm trying to find out what your hope would be from Ashley.

 

And what are you on about, what do I want from Ashley, what do you think I want from Ashley 

 

I really don't know. You are one of these people who answer questions with questions, or "it's obvious".

 

You bemoan rightly McKeag's for incompetence, you extol the footballing successes of Shepherd&Hall, what do you want from Ashley.

 

For example if the next 5 were the same as the next 5 would that be okay, both on the pitch and off it. So would 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th and 12th be okay, with a CL qualifier, couple of Uefa qualifiactions, and a couple of Intertoto qualifications, and a FA Cup semi.? Would you also be happy with Ashley taking a net amount of money out of the club, of roughly  £12m ?

 

I asked for an opinion last tie, this time I'm giving you a choice. Take either to answer 

 

so what the fuck are we going to achieve with an extra £12m over 5 years FFS?

 

like I said, you want some cunt to run the club for nothing, pay off it's debts an all, and we would win the league, you're an amatuer, you even thought people would invest in a plc where the share price never goes up and a dividend never gets paid. total amateur tbh. give up now, you've got your way, now no cunt will ever know what the bosses take out or put in to the club

 

Exactly. And he keeps putting in those smillies, he must think I'm his "man for the job" Adam Crozier  mackems.gif

[Guest Knightrider]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

[Guest Knightrider]

What goes around comes around Freddy, you've betrayed thousands of people in your 10 years in control. I'm sure that £50m or so you've trousered from fans' pockets will help you get over your disappointment.

 

Utter fucking nonsense. The money he was paid from Ashley had fuck all to do with supporters.

 

Really cant wait for all the mis-directed anger to rear its head again in a different guise.

 

Aye, fair point, most of it was Ashley's money. Still the point stands.

 

Shepherd made a few million out ofthe fans to be fair. Here is a fact of life though, people make money out of football. Its shocking i know.

 

Given this state of affairs in the world, would you rather a geordie made money out of the club or some yank who uses the term 'soccer'?

 

Can I not have a person regardless of their nationality making money from a successful football club? As I'd choose that tbh.

 

BTW I don't mind people making money from football clubs, I wouldn't have minded FS making the money he has if it wasn't for all the mismanagement.

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

Did you agree with that? I consider that ripping off fans myself.

 

Jobs for the boys and looking after your own exists everywhere in the world mate. Sad, but true.

 

Most people on here would do exactly the same

 

 

 

I wouldn't and I don't think it's jobs for the boys, and even if it was, it still isn't acceptable. You questioned Souness helping out his mates at Rangers over the signing of Boumsong and used that against him, well same thing isn't it? I find the warehouse thing mismanagement of club funds.

 

who is I.T. manager for Sports Direct?

 

I don't care about Sports Direct, I care about NUFC, when I see our Chairman selling a warehouse to his brother than using the club's money as rent at massively inflated prices, I care. It's wrong and a mismanagement of club money.

 

 

brilliant. when ashley employs family, it doesn't matter, when Shepherd did it's nepotism. If Ashley siphons money out of NUFC into one his other businesses, it doesn't matter, when Shepherd did it, is worthy of a public enquiry

 

Big difference, Ashley owns the club, it's his, he can do what the fuck he likes and for you information, if he did do that at NUFC, then no I wouldn't be happy. What he does with Sports Direct however doesn't concern me, I couldn't care less as tbh.

[NE5]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

 

Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life.

 

If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ?

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

 

Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life.

 

If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ?

 

 

 

You had a go at Souness for helping out Rangers, yet give FS a pass for helping out his brother using the club's money, it wasn't his money, but the club's. As a PLC he was Chairman and major shareholder, he didn't own the club though, he was very much an employee like Souness.

 

As for your other question, no I wouldn't try and help my family out, I'd help them out using my own money. It isn't as if FS's brother wasn't drawing a very good wage from the club anyway, he was, and he is a director, a well paid one, of his own company too.

 

I think the word I'm looking for is: Greed!

[NE5]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

 

Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life.

 

If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ?

 

 

 

You had a go at Souness for helping out Rangers, yet give FS a pass for helping out his brother using the club's money, it wasn't his money, but the club's. As a PLC he was Chairman and major shareholder, he didn't own the club though, he was very much an employee like Souness.

 

As for your other question, no I wouldn't try and help my family out, I'd help them out using my own money. It isn't as if FS's brother wasn't drawing a very good wage from the club anyway, he was, and he is a director, a well paid one, of his own company too.

 

I think the word I'm looking for is: Greed!

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.