Jimbo

Well said.

The change may have been more symbolic than substantive, given the whirlwind events of the past two months, but Freddy Shepherd’s low-key departure from Newcastle United yesterday ushered a shop-soiled era into the past. After a decade as chairman, Shepherd was replaced by Chris Mort, Mike Ashley’s lieutenant, a development that will be broadly welcomed by supporters. While Shepherd’s 15 years at St James’ Park coincided with the restoration of the club to prominence, stadium development, the attacking football of Kevin Keegan, Sir John Hall’s vision for a “Geordie nation” and some galáctico signings, his regime proved flawed and contentious. Disenchantment and underachievement have been growing trends, while the club’s debt soared to about £80 million. Shepherd leaves with the £37 million he was paid by Mort for his 28 per cent stake in Newcastle and is also entitled, under the terms of his contract, to a payoff of £1 million, which equates to two years’ salary. With Kenny, his son – once an influential figure – informed recently that his services would no longer be required, the family’s powerbase on Tyneside has disappeared. Shepherd Sr agreed to remain in his position in the immediate aftermath of Ashley’s takeover, while Mort, a lawyer by trade and a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, who was installed as deputy, conducted a thorough investigation into the running of the club. That process is well advanced, allowing Shepherd to depart earlier than expected. “I am delighted to become chairman of such a fabulous club,” Mort said. “Since arriving at St James’ Park I have been hugely encouraged by the warm welcome I have received from so many supporters. The strategic review of the club is going well and, with the new season fast approaching, we feel the time is right to make this change. I would like to thank Freddy Shepherd for all he has done for the club over the last 15 years.” Shepherd’s input has been limited by illness and his relationship with Sam Allardyce, the manager he appointed only two months ago, was not so deep that Ashley believed it essential. It had been expected that Newcastle would allow the present transfer window to close before dispensing with Shepherd’s experience, but that, too, has not been deemed necessary. New signings were one area where Shepherd struggled to shrug off controversy. From Patrick Kluivert to Celestine Babayaro, it was long rumoured that the chairman – who often sat beside Paul Stretford, the agent and his close friend, at home matches – played a significant part in incoming transfers. It was an allegation that he repeatedly denied. Yet Graeme Souness, a former manager, recently insisted that “one man and one man alone decided what player came to the club and what player left – and it wasn’t the manager. It was the chairman”. Sir Bobby Robson, another former manager, complained that Shepherd was “hostile” to training-ground innovations; under the Halls and Shepherds, Newcastle lacked stability and foundations. There were ambitious moments, from the club-record £17 million arrival of Michael Owen to an alleged bid for Wayne Rooney, yet Shepherd’s reputation was tarnished by some mediocre additions and a perceived alacrity for dismissing managers mid-season. Last season, after matches against Sheffield United and Black-burn Rovers, fans protested against his stewardship. Few will be rebelling now. How the chairman put his foot in it 1998 Caught with Douglas Hall by the News of the World’s “Fake Sheikh” describing Geordie women as “dogs”, calling Alan Shearer “Mary Poppins” and mocking fans for buying replica shirts. They resign from their posts, an exile that lasts ten months, after which they vote themselves back on to the board. 2003 Newcastle finish third in the Premier League. Shepherd says they have “put them [Liverpool and Chelsea] in their place.” 2004 Dismisses Sir Bobby Robson four matches into the new season – Newcastle ended the previous campaign in fifth place – a decision that Shepherd describes as “the hardest thing I have ever done. I didn’t want to be known as the man who shot Bambi.” The subsequent appointment of Graeme Souness proves disastrous. The Scot later claims that “one man alone decided what player came to the club and what player left – the chairman”. 2004 At an international football forum in Dubai, Shepherd courts more controversy. “When we have got 52,000 fans at each home game, the last thing we are worried about is clubs in the third division. There is no sympathy here.” 2007 Shown on YouTube offering to “f***ing carry” Michael Owen back to Anfield after the striker’s apparent reluctance to commit himself verbally to Newcastle. Shepherd sells his 28 per cent stake in Newcastle to Mike Ashley for more than £37 million.

He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though. We aren't talking about a single parent in this case, the solution would be getting off your arse and finding a job, or keeping your cock in your pants and not having 12 kids.

Agreed.

He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up".

I've been doing that since year 10, and it makes me late most of the time. It's still worth it. Nothing like a shower wank. A tragic shame to waste a stiffy.

Was JFK wrong when he said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Look at the example they are being set !!!

I think we were separated at birth.

"I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective. So its fair on society that it becomes better to be unemployed than to be earning your way ?

But its more advantageous to have 12 kids that to work for a living !! thats whats fucking wrong !!

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works. In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision. Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week. Is that £60 each with little or no bills to pay? I reckon I could survive. Well it says... So (if I understand how these benefits work, but I AM guessing) the £44k is not what they get, but covers some of their costs (Housing and council tax) and what's left goes to them. They actually receive 1200 + 560 + 280 = 2040 a month which is £24,480 a year. Between 14 of them that's less than £2k a year each. £33 a week A pittance tbh If you can't live on £24k a year don't have 12 kids ! simple as that.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works. In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision. Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week. Regardless of circumstance, when it becomes more advantageous to take from society than to contribute, I believe it to be wrong.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works. In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

I don't disagree, but it's just all so very wrong. And people moan about immigrants. Yep. I'am all for helping out the most vunerable members of society (no matter where they come from) but they must also help themselves as best they can. There should be some sort of incentive not to have over say 6 children. Maybe the answer here is to put the emphasis on the bairns futures instead of the present circumstances of the parents. give the kids the best education and the best start in life so that they can contribute something back into society when they are older. I just work in the benefits system, i dunno how to sort it out. Anyway - i dont normally get involved in these sort of posts so i'm outahere. Exactly, the system is fucked if it becomes more financially advantageous to have more kids than to work.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever, infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

I don't disagree, but it's just all so very wrong. And people moan about immigrants.

It's the type of highly-desirable family home that is well beyond the reach of many middle-class professionals. A detached period house, with eight bedrooms, a garden, its own driveway and all set in a leafy residential area of well-to-do Newbury, Berkshire. But Carl and Samantha Gillespie - together with their 12 children - have been able to move in without paying the slightest heed to Britain's sky-rocketing house prices. It has been revealed that the couple - neither of whom work and who receive an astonishing £44,000 in benefits a year - have been housed in the £500,000 property by their local council. West Berkshire County Council gave them the keys after their previous council home burnt down in a blaze sparked by one of the couple's children. The decision was greeted with anger and incredulity by the couple's new neighbours, many of whom have spent years working hard to struggle up the property ladder. The Gillespies have been dubbed 'Britain's biggest scroungers' and are the most notorious example of people taking advantage of our generous benefits system. They receive the equivalent of £44,000 a year in benefits, a figure made up of £1,500 a month housing benefit; £1,200 a month child tax credit; £560 a month child benefits; £280 job seeker's allowance and £1,600 a year in council tax. Former book-keeper Samantha, 35, had five children from a previous relationship when she married Carl, who used to work as a door-to-door salesman. They are Craig, 16, Adam, 14, Jack, 13, Rebekah, 11, and Harry, nine. The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya. When asked why they don't work, the couple say that looking after their children is a full time job. And they claim they would earn less working than they do claiming the dole. Mr Gillespie has revealed that he quit a job at stacking shelves at Asda before he had even started, when he realised the £300 a week he would earn would result in a £400 benefits cut. He said: "Some people may think we're a bunch of spongers, but it's not true." His wife added: "I was born to have children, it's what I am here for." However, their MP, Labour's Martin Salter, has said "There is no excuse for any able-bodied person to be long-term unemployed in Reading, where jobs are plentiful. "People who have large families should accept financial responsibility for that decision." Prior to their latest home, the Gillespies were housed in a five-bedroom property in Purley-on-Thames, Berkshire. However, in June last year the property burnt down when one of the family's youngest twins played with a cigarette lighter. Following that they lived in temporary council accommodation and the children were ferried to and from school in a minibus, paid for by the council. Their latest home, formerly a hotel, is estimated to have cost £350,000 to buy and a further £150,000 to renovate with double-glazing, carpets, central heating and furniture. Mr and Mrs Gillespie claim that they want to go out to work but would lose more than they gain. The family said when they were offered an eight-bedroom £500,000 house from the council they had no choice but to take it as previous accommodation had been totally unsuitable. Despite this, neighbours said the family were the 'wrong sort' and shouldn't be there. Mr Gillespie, 34, said: "We're not scroungers and if it was economical for me to work then I would do. "We can just about survive on the money we've got but I can't give my kids nice things that other parents could like days out, and if I were working I could afford them. "The last job I had was in 2000 or 2001 when I was working at ASDA earning £300 to £350 a month. "I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." Mrs Gillespie, 36, added: "All our kids are in school and they want to make something of themselves and not just scrounge and live off the dole. "My oldest son Craig joined the army last week and we're doing our best to make sure the others have careers as well. "If we were scroungers we'd be telling them to either have babies or get straight on the dole, but we're not. "Before we were offered this house we lived in a three-bedroom house which was temporary accommodation. "There were seven boys in one bedroom and five girls in another. In the boys bedroom we had three sets of bunk beds lined up next to each other and you could hardly move". The house itself is a three storey modern brick detached farmhouse style home in a quiet residential street in Newbury. It has its own gate and is set back from the road by a gravel driveway on which are a Fiat Bravo, a Ford Escort, two bicycles, a broken pushchair and a washing machine. Neighbour Betty Giles, 80, said: "It's not right for them to be in there. I live with my son and he's mortgaged up to his eyeballs so it's pretty stiff for him to see them move into such a nice house." Another female neighbour in her sixties, who declined to be named for fear of retribution, said: "They're the wrong sort of people for round here. "Most people on the street are elderly and I think there's only one other family in the vicinity, but nowhere near as big as theirs. "The general mood is that they're not wanted." The family moved in on May 14th. Mrs Gillespie showed me her annual income support form which was £19,775.74 but this does not include housing benefit. Paul and Samantha have eight children together and she has four from a previous relationship, making 12 in total. The children they have had together are Harry 10, Parris Jordan 8, Kesla 8, Mason 7, Peaches 7, Logan 5, Skye 3 and Californya 3. Samantha's children from her previous relationship are Craig 17, Adam 16, Jack 14 and Rebekah 13. West Berkshire Council was unavailable for comment.

Haha ur having a laugh Agreed, Harps I'm sure is a great lad, and has been a fantastic servant to the club, but he's no where near Shay Given.

Fucking hell, good effort dude.

FYP

You drive your car on to the train, you stay with your vehicle during the journey, you can get out and stretch your legs if you wish, takes about 35 mins I think.

I've used it several times, I've always booked in advance but I'm pretty sure you can just roll up.

Reminds me of when I was an apprentice and was told to ask the storeman for a long weight....