Shepherd: Betrayed by my friends

[Guest Knightrider]

HTT being totally hypocritical tbh.

 

with shepherd it's fans money, with Ashley, he can do what he likes (not that you can find out what he does anyway)

 

Vic not reading posts properly again tbh.

 

Reread my post.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

HTT being totally hypocritical tbh.

 

with shepherd it's fans money, with Ashley, he can do what he likes (not that you can find out what he does anyway)

 

Vic not reading posts properly again tbh.

 

Reread my post.

 

oh aye, you wouldn't be happy, but he can do what he likes

[Guest Knightrider]

HTT being totally hypocritical tbh.

 

with shepherd it's fans money, with Ashley, he can do what he likes (not that you can find out what he does anyway)

 

Vic not reading posts properly again tbh.

 

Reread my post.

 

oh aye, you wouldn't be happy, but he can do what he likes

 

Which is correct, no? Giving he does own the thing, unlike FS ever did, which again is correct, no? You don't do yourself justice Vic lad, the light's on but is any fucker home...

[macbeth]

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,

 

No I don't want someone to run the club for nothing. I have never said that, ever.

 

I expect Chris Mort to get paid the going rate for running the club. Freddie Shepherd was paid £500k per eyar, and Douglas Hall £450k per year to run the club, Daniel Levy at Spurs pays himself £750k per year. The going rate for runnign a football club, with an income of £70m-90m seems to be in the £500k to £750k band. So be it.

 

I'd be surprised if there are other £80m businesses out there which pay at that rate, but if that is how football is, we have to accept it.

 

These people are being that to run the business. They should be rewarded if they run the business well. One way would be to set them some target that if they achieve they get a bonus. Newcastle did this with Russel Jones who was on the board when the ground redevelopment was carried out. His salary was £75,000 (seventy five thousand). When the ground was completed, and the whoel prject was successful he was given a £75,000 bonus for doing well. This is perfect. Set a target, achieve it, ctbe rewarded. Spurs had David Pleat on a similar plan. "Basic" salary as DoF of £300k per year, but he got a £750k bonus when the team qualified for Europe.

 

Even our players were rewarded that way. In 2003 the wages jumped from 32m to 45m, as huge bonuses kicked in due to thew CL campaign.

 

There have never been any explanations of why Hall & Shepherd were given £150k bonuses over the last few years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pay off it's debts an all,

 

how come our debts are so big ??  How come we had a £20m overdraft at Xmas 2006? How come the business, as opposed to the new owner has no money to spend? The bit you seem to be missing is the amount Ashley will be having to put in just to satisfy the banks that we can still operate. £35m worth of borrowings needing to be paid off after this amount was given away to shareholders.

Just as a comparison, Spurs have had no debts in 2006. They have not had the fun we had in 2002-2004 but they have run their business so that it is sound, so that they can still go and spend money without having to grovel to banks. Not since 2001 has any one at Spurs put in money to the club, or taken it out. They have run their business with a long term vision. Our club has been run by people with no plan, who equally have not put in, but they have taken out. There should have been no need to take out. We've had £85m more money thro our hands than Spurs, why have we needed to borrow so much on top of that. For me it has been an incompetent board unable to manage the club's money.

 

and we would win the league,

 

we have managed an average finishing position of 9th over the last 10 years, with the only two consistencies being Shay Given and Freddie Shepherd. Not sure why your throwing that one at me. I know 9th is greater than anything the club has ever achieved since NE5 grandad was young, but with the money we have coming in for God's sake we should be able to do better than 9th.

 

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

 

Most of the companies I've worked for have been growing developing companies, that wish to use the money coming into the business to grow and improve the business. When they have become established they will pay dividends. They can't afford to give money away when they have spending requirements. Far better to use your earned money than to give it away and then  go and borrow it again expensively from a bank.

The companies I've worked also have rising share prices, if an investor wishes to cash in on his investment then he can sell his investment when ever he chooses to do so. Far better for tax purposes too. I accept that you do need the business to be growing for this scenario to work.

 

I'm surprised you think a PLC could have directors taking money out or putting it in without being caught. Makes you question the whole Stock Market really.

 

 

 

 

Now if you are suggesting that I expect an owner of a business to want a return, then yes I'd expect he does.

 

Ashley has invested however much to own the business. Most of his investment went to the previous owners, but lots will have gone to try and reduce the debt. I expect he'll be putting the money has spent in as a loan to the business and will be looking for a return on that loan. I'm not particularly happy with this as he will be taking money out of the club. I can't see any other way around it though. He has inherited huge debts somebody at some point was going to have to pay for them. Clearly the previous owners didn't know how to do it, we just have to hope Ashely does.

 

The thing that should not be forgotten though is that the last time we ended up in a mess John Hall lent the club money, and got it back with interest. We didn't care as it was the right thing for the club at the time. Financially it is far worse when Ashley took over, he though has at least been left with a team in the top division. He is taking less of a risk on the football side than John Hall did, but with a £200m gamble rather than a £2m gamble. We are going to have to put with him getting his return, lets hope he's as successful as John Hall, and also that he doesn't have a son he wants to leave it all to.

 

Of course the other way for Ashley to make money would be to invest even more, make it successful, and get someone to buy it off him at a profit.

 

One thing I am sure of is that Ashley of probably has more idea what he's doing than I do

[macbeth]

 

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

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

Net transfers paid on a season by season basis ......

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transf6.gif

 

 

amounts paid to shareholders over the same period shows ...

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/nothin3.gif

 

 

 

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

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,

 

No I don't want someone to run the club for nothing. I have never said that, ever.

 

I expect Chris Mort to get paid the going rate for running the club. Freddie Shepherd was paid £500k per eyar, and Douglas Hall £450k per year to run the club, Daniel Levy at Spurs pays himself £750k per year. The going rate for runnign a football club, with an income of £70m-90m seems to be in the £500k to £750k band. So be it.

 

I'd be surprised if there are other £80m businesses out there which pay at that rate, but if that is how football is, we have to accept it.

 

These people are being that to run the business. They should be rewarded if they run the business well. One way would be to set them some target that if they achieve they get a bonus. Newcastle did this with Russel Jones who was on the board when the ground redevelopment was carried out. His salary was £75,000 (seventy five thousand). When the ground was completed, and the whoel prject was successful he was given a £75,000 bonus for doing well. This is perfect. Set a target, achieve it, ctbe rewarded. Spurs had David Pleat on a similar plan. "Basic" salary as DoF of £300k per year, but he got a £750k bonus when the team qualified for Europe.

 

Even our players were rewarded that way. In 2003 the wages jumped from 32m to 45m, as huge bonuses kicked in due to thew CL campaign.

 

There have never been any explanations of why Hall & Shepherd were given £150k bonuses over the last few years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pay off it's debts an all,

 

how come our debts are so big ??  How come we had a £20m overdraft at Xmas 2006? How come the business, as opposed to the new owner has no money to spend? The bit you seem to be missing is the amount Ashley will be having to put in just to satisfy the banks that we can still operate. £35m worth of borrowings needing to be paid off after this amount was given away to shareholders.

Just as a comparison, Spurs have had no debts in 2006. They have not had the fun we had in 2002-2004 but they have run their business so that it is sound, so that they can still go and spend money without having to grovel to banks. Not since 2001 has any one at Spurs put in money to the club, or taken it out. They have run their business with a long term vision. Our club has been run by people with no plan, who equally have not put in, but they have taken out. There should have been no need to take out. We've had £85m more money thro our hands than Spurs, why have we needed to borrow so much on top of that. For me it has been an incompetent board unable to manage the club's money.

 

and we would win the league,

 

we have managed an average finishing position of 9th over the last 10 years, with the only two consistencies being Shay Given and Freddie Shepherd. Not sure why your throwing that one at me. I know 9th is greater than anything the club has ever achieved since NE5 grandad was young, but with the money we have coming in for God's sake we should be able to do better than 9th.

 

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

 

Most of the companies I've worked for have been growing developing companies, that wish to use the money coming into the business to grow and improve the business. When they have become established they will pay dividends. They can't afford to give money away when they have spending requirements. Far better to use your earned money than to give it away and then  go and borrow it again expensively from a bank.

The companies I've worked also have rising share prices, if an investor wishes to cash in on his investment then he can sell his investment when ever he chooses to do so. Far better for tax purposes too. I accept that you do need the business to be growing for this scenario to work.

 

I'm surprised you think a PLC could have directors taking money out or putting it in without being caught. Makes you question the whole Stock Market really.

 

 

 

 

Now if you are suggesting that I expect an owner of a business to want a return, then yes I'd expect he does.

 

Ashley has invested however much to own the business. Most of his investment went to the previous owners, but lots will have gone to try and reduce the debt. I expect he'll be putting the money has spent in as a loan to the business and will be looking for a return on that loan. I'm not particularly happy with this as he will be taking money out of the club. I can't see any other way around it though. He has inherited huge debts somebody at some point was going to have to pay for them. Clearly the previous owners didn't know how to do it, we just have to hope Ashely does.

 

The thing that should not be forgotten though is that the last time we ended up in a mess John Hall lent the club money, and got it back with interest. We didn't care as it was the right thing for the club at the time. Financially it is far worse when Ashley took over, he though has at least been left with a team in the top division. He is taking less of a risk on the football side than John Hall did, but with a £200m gamble rather than a £2m gamble. We are going to have to put with him getting his return, lets hope he's as successful as John Hall, and also that he doesn't have a son he wants to leave it all to.

 

Of course the other way for Ashley to make money would be to invest even more, make it successful, and get someone to buy it off him at a profit.

 

One thing I am sure of is that Ashley of probably has more idea what he's doing than I do

 

It's OK to get a loan off SJH but on no accounts do you get one from a bank?

 

that pretty much sums up your knowledge of business right there

 

I have no idea where you get off comparing us to Spurs, and talking about fucking targets and performances. Spurs are consequently still worth jack shit compared to us despite their zero debt and plans galore. Their investors are bailing out left right and centre, another bit of knowledge you seem to be lacking.

 

You seem to confuse terms like growth and investment quite badly, and have no concept as to where we would have been capital wise if the club had not spent any money in the poor seasons. Directors get paid, businesses have debts, these are not signs of a poorly performing company. Not paying dividends and a falling share price are. Don't even get me started on comparing a football club to any business you might have been let loose on with your excel spreadsheets

 

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

Net transfers paid on a season by season basis ......

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transf6.gif

 

 

amounts paid to shareholders over the same period shows ...

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/nothin3.gif

 

 

wtf has this load of bollocks got to do with MICK explaining how Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool got bigger crowds than us pre-1992 [his own statement] but don't now

 

Hilarious  mackems.gif

[NE5]

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,

 

No I don't want someone to run the club for nothing. I have never said that, ever.

 

I expect Chris Mort to get paid the going rate for running the club. Freddie Shepherd was paid £500k per eyar, and Douglas Hall £450k per year to run the club, Daniel Levy at Spurs pays himself £750k per year. The going rate for runnign a football club, with an income of £70m-90m seems to be in the £500k to £750k band. So be it.

 

I'd be surprised if there are other £80m businesses out there which pay at that rate, but if that is how football is, we have to accept it.

 

These people are being that to run the business. They should be rewarded if they run the business well. One way would be to set them some target that if they achieve they get a bonus. Newcastle did this with Russel Jones who was on the board when the ground redevelopment was carried out. His salary was £75,000 (seventy five thousand). When the ground was completed, and the whoel prject was successful he was given a £75,000 bonus for doing well. This is perfect. Set a target, achieve it, ctbe rewarded. Spurs had David Pleat on a similar plan. "Basic" salary as DoF of £300k per year, but he got a £750k bonus when the team qualified for Europe.

 

Even our players were rewarded that way. In 2003 the wages jumped from 32m to 45m, as huge bonuses kicked in due to thew CL campaign.

 

There have never been any explanations of why Hall & Shepherd were given £150k bonuses over the last few years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

pay off it's debts an all,

 

how come our debts are so big ??  How come we had a £20m overdraft at Xmas 2006? How come the business, as opposed to the new owner has no money to spend? The bit you seem to be missing is the amount Ashley will be having to put in just to satisfy the banks that we can still operate. £35m worth of borrowings needing to be paid off after this amount was given away to shareholders.

Just as a comparison, Spurs have had no debts in 2006. They have not had the fun we had in 2002-2004 but they have run their business so that it is sound, so that they can still go and spend money without having to grovel to banks. Not since 2001 has any one at Spurs put in money to the club, or taken it out. They have run their business with a long term vision. Our club has been run by people with no plan, who equally have not put in, but they have taken out. There should have been no need to take out. We've had £85m more money thro our hands than Spurs, why have we needed to borrow so much on top of that. For me it has been an incompetent board unable to manage the club's money.

 

and we would win the league,

 

we have managed an average finishing position of 9th over the last 10 years, with the only two consistencies being Shay Given and Freddie Shepherd. Not sure why your throwing that one at me. I know 9th is greater than anything the club has ever achieved since NE5 grandad was young, but with the money we have coming in for God's sake we should be able to do better than 9th.

 

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

 

Most of the companies I've worked for have been growing developing companies, that wish to use the money coming into the business to grow and improve the business. When they have become established they will pay dividends. They can't afford to give money away when they have spending requirements. Far better to use your earned money than to give it away and then  go and borrow it again expensively from a bank.

The companies I've worked also have rising share prices, if an investor wishes to cash in on his investment then he can sell his investment when ever he chooses to do so. Far better for tax purposes too. I accept that you do need the business to be growing for this scenario to work.

 

I'm surprised you think a PLC could have directors taking money out or putting it in without being caught. Makes you question the whole Stock Market really.

 

 

 

 

Now if you are suggesting that I expect an owner of a business to want a return, then yes I'd expect he does.

 

Ashley has invested however much to own the business. Most of his investment went to the previous owners, but lots will have gone to try and reduce the debt. I expect he'll be putting the money has spent in as a loan to the business and will be looking for a return on that loan. I'm not particularly happy with this as he will be taking money out of the club. I can't see any other way around it though. He has inherited huge debts somebody at some point was going to have to pay for them. Clearly the previous owners didn't know how to do it, we just have to hope Ashely does.

 

The thing that should not be forgotten though is that the last time we ended up in a mess John Hall lent the club money, and got it back with interest. We didn't care as it was the right thing for the club at the time. Financially it is far worse when Ashley took over, he though has at least been left with a team in the top division. He is taking less of a risk on the football side than John Hall did, but with a £200m gamble rather than a £2m gamble. We are going to have to put with him getting his return, lets hope he's as successful as John Hall, and also that he doesn't have a son he wants to leave it all to.

 

Of course the other way for Ashley to make money would be to invest even more, make it successful, and get someone to buy it off him at a profit.

 

One thing I am sure of is that Ashley of probably has more idea what he's doing than I do

 

It's OK to get a loan off SJH but on no accounts do you get one from a bank?

 

that pretty much sums up your knowledge of business right there

 

I have no idea where you get off comparing us to Spurs, and talking about fucking targets and performances. Spurs are consequently still worth jack shit compared to us despite their zero debt and plans galore. Their investors are bailing out left right and centre, another bit of knowledge you seem to be lacking.

 

You seem to confuse terms like growth and investment quite badly, and have no concept as to where we would have been capital wise if the club had not spent any money in the poor seasons. Directors get paid, businesses have debts, these are not signs of a poorly performing company. Not paying dividends and a falling share price are. Don't even get me started on comparing a football club to any business you might have been let loose on with your excel spreadsheets

 

 

Well said Vick

 

 

[Mick]

 

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

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

Net transfers paid on a season by season basis ......

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transf6.gif

 

 

amounts paid to shareholders over the same period shows ...

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/nothin3.gif

 

 

wtf has this load of bollocks got to do with MICK explaining how Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool got bigger crowds than us pre-1992 [his own statement] but don't now

 

 

 

I've highlighted why he's posted it as you made a statement and seem to forgot about it. 

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

Net transfers paid on a season by season basis ......

 

http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/transf6.gif

 

 

amounts paid to shareholders over the same period shows ...

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/nothin3.gif

 

 

wtf has this load of bollocks got to do with MICK explaining how Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool got bigger crowds than us pre-1992 [his own statement] but don't now

 

 

 

I've highlighted why he's posted it as you made a statement and seem to forgot about it. 

 

I think you should reply to my comment about the question that you yourself posed, that you are avoiding.

 

As well as that, I also think you should stop hiding behind him. 

 

If we buy a few free transfer players before the deadline, will they be "panic buys" or will they not because Ashley is chairman and not Shepherd  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke.

 

I repeat, again, your own question that you won't reply to

 

"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 

[macbeth]

It's OK to get a loan off SJH but on no accounts do you get one from a bank?

 

Where do I say that ? John Hall lent us money when the banks had had enough. There was no other source of money to save the club from the mess they were in. What I do say is that I can't really understand the logic in giving away £4m and then borrowing £4m from the bank and paying interest on the borrowings (or from John Hall, or Mike Ashley or NE5).  We are at roughly the same situation now. £20m overdraft means the business cannot get any more out of the banks. We needed someonei like Ashley to come in and lend us.

 

that pretty much sums up your knowledge of business right there

 

 

 

I have no idea where you get off comparing us to Spurs, and talking about f****** targets and performances. Spurs are consequently still worth jack s*** compared to us despite their zero debt and plans galore. Their investors are bailing out left right and centre, another bit of knowledge you seem to be lacking.

 

Like who ? Alan Sugar is selling off all his businesses, like Amstrad going to Sky. ENIC who had owned just under 30% for the last 5 years bought this chunk. Who else has been bailing out ?

 

I love good targets. Like "Sam in the next five years I want you to get us to qualify for the CL". Easy to understand target, if you meet it I'll give you a big reward. Or something along the lines of "Mr Academy director I want you to bring through 5 players over the next 5 years who either play 50 games for the club, or raise a total of £5m in transfer fees for us".

 

How can NUFC have had £85m more money in the last 5 years and spent the last three of them way behind Spurs ? I only used Spurs as an example cos I feel we should be able to compete with them, with all our advantages.

 

You seem to confuse terms like growth and investment quite badly, and have no concept as to where we would have been capital wise if the club had not spent any money in the poor seasons. Directors get paid, businesses have debts, these are not signs of a poorly performing company. Not paying dividends and a falling share price are. Don't even get me started on comparing a football club to any business you might have been let loose on with your excel spreadsheets

 

Well NUFC hasn't paid dividends for two years, does that mean it is poorly performing ?

I completely understand the need to invest. What wound me up in the first place was my belief that the club weren't investing when they could. I couldn't understand how we could have 50,000 crowds, huge sponsorship and no investment. Surely you wouldn't run you business to lose the amount of money NUFC have over the last two years. Over £1m per month while showing no sign of progression? 

 

I accept absolutely that football is different. What is different is long-term loss-making. ( a short term investment/speculation is fine, btu we have lost £70m spred out over 10 years, it is normal for us to lose money)  If you lose £12m one year then closer to £20m the next, on a turnover that is reducing all the time then at some point some is going to tell you to stop it.  NUFC reached that point and it was why Roeder got the managers job, it was why we brought in Sibierski and Bernard to the squad. It is why there has been no money to give to the new manager. Banks are not totally stupid. They can see that there is a big risk in chucking good money after bad at a club/business making the losses we are, with little chance of reducing costs.                              

 

 

[macbeth]

I think you should reply to my comment about the question that you yourself posed, that you are avoiding.

 

As well as that, I also think you should stop hiding behind him. 

 

If we buy a few free transfer players before the deadline, will they be "panic buys" or will they not because Ashley is chairman and not Shepherd  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke.

 

I repeat, again, your own question that you won't reply to

 

"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 

 

Not sure whether this is aimed at me.

 

I think that if Shepherd was still in charge there would have been no input of new funds. I also think that Ashley has, as yet, put no new transfer funds in (or if he has we've seen no evidence yet).

 

I think Sam is working on the budget (sic) that Shepherd had in place for this summer.

 

Similarly in that "lets put words into other people's mouths" style.

 

If we re-sign Sibierski and Bernard (or their equivalents) in August will YOU view that as a panic or sensible ? Just as who ever your having a go at can't win, I'm not sure you can either.

 

And the last bit is cos they have smaller stadiums than us . Apart from Leeds who have the biggets drop in league position over that period. Aim higher.

 

Still love ya. I printed out hat quote and stuck it on my PC to make me smile

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

It's OK to get a loan off SJH but on no accounts do you get one from a bank?

 

Where do I say that ? John Hall lent us money when the banks had had enough. There was no other source of money to save the club from the mess they were in. What I do say is that I can't really understand the logic in giving away £4m and then borrowing £4m from the bank and paying interest on the borrowings (or from John Hall, or Mike Ashley or NE5).  We are at roughly the same situation now. £20m overdraft means the business cannot get any more out of the banks. We needed someonei like Ashley to come in and lend us.

 

that pretty much sums up your knowledge of business right there

 

 

 

I have no idea where you get off comparing us to Spurs, and talking about f****** targets and performances. Spurs are consequently still worth jack s*** compared to us despite their zero debt and plans galore. Their investors are bailing out left right and centre, another bit of knowledge you seem to be lacking.

 

Like who ? Alan Sugar is selling off all his businesses, like Amstrad going to Sky. ENIC who had owned just under 30% for the last 5 years bought this chunk. Who else has been bailing out ?

 

I love good targets. Like "Sam in the next five years I want you to get us to qualify for the CL". Easy to understand target, if you meet it I'll give you a big reward. Or something along the lines of "Mr Academy director I want you to bring through 5 players over the next 5 years who either play 50 games for the club, or raise a total of £5m in transfer fees for us".

 

How can NUFC have had £85m more money in the last 5 years and spent the last three of them way behind Spurs ? I only used Spurs as an example cos I feel we should be able to compete with them, with all our advantages.

 

You seem to confuse terms like growth and investment quite badly, and have no concept as to where we would have been capital wise if the club had not spent any money in the poor seasons. Directors get paid, businesses have debts, these are not signs of a poorly performing company. Not paying dividends and a falling share price are. Don't even get me started on comparing a football club to any business you might have been let loose on with your excel spreadsheets

 

Well NUFC hasn't paid dividends for two years, does that mean it is poorly performing ?

I completely understand the need to invest. What wound me up in the first place was my belief that the club weren't investing when they could. I couldn't understand how we could have 50,000 crowds, huge sponsorship and no investment. Surely you wouldn't run you business to lose the amount of money NUFC have over the last two years. Over £1m per month while showing no sign of progression? 

 

I accept absolutely that football is different. What is different is long-term loss-making. ( a short term investment/speculation is fine, btu we have lost £70m spred out over 10 years, it is normal for us to lose money)  If you lose £12m one year then closer to £20m the next, on a turnover that is reducing all the time then at some point some is going to tell you to stop it.  NUFC reached that point and it was why Roeder got the managers job, it was why we brought in Sibierski and Bernard to the squad. It is why there has been no money to give to the new manager. Banks are not totally stupid. They can see that there is a big risk in chucking good money after bad at a club/business making the losses we are, with little chance of reducing costs.                              

 

 

 

so we could have been debt free and finished above spurs the last three years had we not paid the directors, the shareholders or transfer fees for 5 years?

 

totally deluded tbh

 

you basically want us run like spurs, sound finances, fuck all to show for it.

 

sound finances have nothing to do with footballing success

[NE5]

I think you should reply to my comment about the question that you yourself posed, that you are avoiding.

 

As well as that, I also think you should stop hiding behind him. 

 

If we buy a few free transfer players before the deadline, will they be "panic buys" or will they not because Ashley is chairman and not Shepherd  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke.

 

I repeat, again, your own question that you won't reply to

 

"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 

 

Not sure whether this is aimed at me.

 

I think that if Shepherd was still in charge there would have been no input of new funds. I also think that Ashley has, as yet, put no new transfer funds in (or if he has we've seen no evidence yet).

 

I think Sam is working on the budget (sic) that Shepherd had in place for this summer.

 

Similarly in that "lets put words into other people's mouths" style.

 

If we re-sign Sibierski and Bernard (or their equivalents) in August will YOU view that as a panic or sensible ? Just as who ever your having a go at can't win, I'm not sure you can either.

 

And the last bit is cos they have smaller stadiums than us . Apart from Leeds who have the biggets drop in league position over that period. Aim higher.

 

Still love ya. I printed out hat quote and stuck it on my PC to make me smile

 

It isn't aimed at you, as MICK asked the question, it is quite obvious it is meant for Mick.

 

Your reply to the question he asked himself and can't answer is incorrect. It is along similar lines to why did the share issue fail and was aborted and only raised half a paltry requirement of 2.5m quid. Less than Liverpool paid us for our best player a few years earlier. Keep trying. You might get there. Maybe you have a bright idea as to why the share issue failed ?

 

Why would we be operating the budget that Shepherd put into place when we have a new owner ? For one thing, the Halls and Shepherd had proved they would back their managers and wanted success for the club, so don't have to prove it.  So far, Ashley has not shown any sign whatsoever that he wants the same, but keep ignoring that and blaming the Halls and Shepherd for Ashleys reluctance to at least make public his intentions for the club if you like.

 

A photo of your man Adam Crozier may be a fitting sticker to put on your PC

 

 

[macbeth]

so we could have been debt free and finished above spurs the last three years had we not paid the directors, the shareholders or transfer fees for 5 years?

 

we could have been in the position of owing nothing on the stadium, and otherwise nothing else changing. With a chocie of paying off the mortgage, or giving the money away, the board decided to give the money away. The playing side is subject to all sorts of unknowns, the finances wasn't. There is no ifs and buts about the finances. The board collectively planned for where we are now, collectively planned to give away £35m rather than clearing off the mortgage. The poor finishing posiitions may just have been down to bad luck, but the money isn't.

 

 

totally deluded tbh

you basically want us run like spurs, sound finances, f*** all to show for it.

 

you prefer the unsound finances and fuck all  to show for it ?? I don't think so. I'd prefer sound finances, and something to show for it.

 

sound finances have nothing to do with footballing success

 

and demonstrably neither to unsound

 

I like your constant mocking of what you feel my views are. You haven't offered an any alternative. How do you feel a football club should be run (and you're clearly not NE5 so you're not allowed to say "it's obvious"  )

[macbeth]

It isn't aimed at you, as MICK asked the question, it is quite obvious it is meant for Mick.

 

it was the way you quoted my post and then asked a question, you're a sly man you know  

 

Your reply to the question he asked himself and can't answer is incorrect. It is along similar lines to why did the share issue fail and was aborted and only raised half a paltry requirement of 2.5m quid. Less than Liverpool paid us for our best player a few years earlier. Keep trying. You might get there. Maybe you have a bright idea as to why the share issue failed ?

 

Your a funny man.  You ask a question, someone answers it so you change the question. I'm not sure why the share issue failing is connected to Leeds crowds in 1991, whcih was what your original question was about.

 

Why would we be operating the budget that Shepherd put into place when we have a new owner ? For one thing, the Halls and Shepherd had proved they would back their managers and wanted success for the club, so don't have to prove it.  So far, Ashley has not shown any sign whatsoever that he wants the same, but keep ignoring that and blaming the Halls and Shepherd for Ashleys reluctance to at least make public his intentions for the club if you like.

 

Ah, getting there. If Ashley came out and said he always backed his manager, that he wanted success for the club he'd be okay, regardless of what actually happened.

 

H&S have not personally backed their managers, the club have borrowed money from banks to back their managers. H&S have run the club so it loses £1m per month. I'm 100% sure Ashley doesn't want to lose £1m per month on his new toy. All the goodwill NUFC had with banks has gone, as H&S lost £70m in 9 years.

Only the  H&S families use the phrases "back their managers". It is disingenuous to do so. They put no money in for 9 years, took out £35m and they still play the we back our managers. It wasn't them as individuals who backed the manager, it was them as employees who did the backing. If Jimmy Nail had been chairman they could have backed their manager to the same extent and would have been equally entitled to say he backed his manager, as an employee, not as an individual.

 

A photo of your man Adam Crozier may be a fitting sticker to put on your PC

 

He's not as funny as you 

 

 

 

I'm surprised you think it will be quick and easy for the NUFC business plan and budget to shift from how it has been to some new one overnight.

[Guest graemeh72]

"betrayed by my friends"

 

jesus ... I wonder if he now knows how Mary Poppins and all them dogs felt

[NE5]

It isn't aimed at you, as MICK asked the question, it is quite obvious it is meant for Mick.

 

it was the way you quoted my post and then asked a question, you're a sly man you know  

 

Your reply to the question he asked himself and can't answer is incorrect. It is along similar lines to why did the share issue fail and was aborted and only raised half a paltry requirement of 2.5m quid. Less than Liverpool paid us for our best player a few years earlier. Keep trying. You might get there. Maybe you have a bright idea as to why the share issue failed ?

 

Your a funny man.    You ask a question, someone answers it so you change the question. I'm not sure why the share issue failing is connected to Leeds crowds in 1991, whcih was what your original question was about.

 

Why would we be operating the budget that Shepherd put into place when we have a new owner ? For one thing, the Halls and Shepherd had proved they would back their managers and wanted success for the club, so don't have to prove it.  So far, Ashley has not shown any sign whatsoever that he wants the same, but keep ignoring that and blaming the Halls and Shepherd for Ashleys reluctance to at least make public his intentions for the club if you like.

 

Ah, getting there. If Ashley came out and said he always backed his manager, that he wanted success for the club he'd be okay, regardless of what actually happened.

 

H&S have not personally backed their managers, the club have borrowed money from banks to back their managers. H&S have run the club so it loses £1m per month. I'm 100% sure Ashley doesn't want to lose £1m per month on his new toy. All the goodwill NUFC had with banks has gone, as H&S lost £70m in 9 years.

Only the  H&S families use the phrases "back their managers". It is disingenuous to do so. They put no money in for 9 years, took out £35m and they still play the we back our managers. It wasn't them as individuals who backed the manager, it was them as employees who did the backing. If Jimmy Nail had been chairman they could have backed their manager to the same extent and would have been equally entitled to say he backed his manager, as an employee, not as an individual.

 

A photo of your man Adam Crozier may be a fitting sticker to put on your PC

 

He's not as funny as you 

 

 

 

I'm surprised you think it will be quick and easy for the NUFC business plan and budget to shift from how it has been to some new one overnight.

 

:sleepy1:

[Guest zeta87]

HE HAD FRIENDS?! (GASP)

[womblemaster]

why are you bothering to talk to ne5.  Takes too much medication these days to make any sense, or even listen to anyone else, but the voices inside the head!

[Guest MIKELMAN11]

"From where I saw it, the whole thing had been done behind my back.Neither John nor Douglas had been in touch to inform me of their intentions. I was not aware of Ashley's interest in the club. His name had never been mentioned.

 

Freddy ' NO MATES  mackems.gif ' the club wasnt going anywhere under freddy so its a easy to see why they sold there shares .

[NE5]

why are you bothering to talk to ne5.   Takes too much medication these days to make any sense, or even listen to anyone else, but the voices inside the head!

 

Where have you sprung from.

 

I remember your illiterate posts from a while back.

 

 

[Rob W]

There is a basic problem here tho'

 

as supporters we want ALL the cash spent on the club but we also expect rich guys to put up money  - and then take nothing out

 

if I had £ 100 million in the club as an investment I'd want it to make at least 5% (and that is being very very generous)

 

thoughts?

[macbeth]

There is a basic problem here tho'

 

as supporters we want ALL the cash spent on the club but we also expect rich guys to put up money  - and then take nothing out

 

if I had £ 100 million in the club as an investment I'd want it to make at least 5% (and that is being very very generous)

 

thoughts?

 

the previous owners made ~500%, not counting the money they made on subsequently selling shares. So if Ashley is the same he'll be looking to take out £500m 

[Mowen]

"betrayed by my friends"

 

jesus ... I wonder if he now knows how Mary Poppins and all them dogs felt