NJS

Did the course a few years ago - all well and good till the end when someone asked what happens if you do that and it isn't a heart attack - you'll probably kill them being the answer which makes you wary about stepping up. Like most people I'd hope there was someone there who'd step up.

Im more than happy to include that stat, you do realise that the 2008 figures are Shepherd dont you as these would relate to the 2006/07 financial year, just as 2010 relates to 2008/09 (ie pre relegation) And I cant see how relegation can be ignored as a factor unless you're now seriously stating that on field factors should not be taken into account when talking finances???? This whole argument is based on the chairman/owners abilities to raise revenue. As a football club, the bulk of that revenue would come from the on field activities. The whole point myself, LM and others are making. If Shepherd had got us relegated (which he didnt) then I would have included the figures from that. Income increases with the quality on the pitch, Shepherd knew that and worked towards that, at first he was successful and we hit CL and reaped the rewards, later on he wasnt but he still strived for it. The very thing that many on here are arguing he shouldnt have done. Ashley does the opposite, hopes to stay in the league on a shoestring. Its easy to see who was the most successful at raising income. Fair point on the figures relating to previous years which I accept and apologise for. I don't think I've ever tried to deny that there is a complete link between football and financial performance - in fact what I've been arguing agsinst is the attempt by some (more LM than you) to abstract that to one of pure business competence where I don't accept that Shepherd was somehow "better" then Ashley. By this I mean in day to day activities not directly related to the football like raising sponsorship and/or reducing costs. What I'm also trying to argue against is a polar view where everything Shepherd did was "great" and everything Ashley has done has been "shit". My view is that there has been good and bad elements to both regimes. I think attempting to reign in wages and to rely more on non-credit revenues is a laudible aim - even if it causes me pain to say that given my overall view of him and I think the "unambitious" definition of intent is one I'd call realistic though disappointing. I also think LM's view that "all" we have to do is run the club like Shepherd did to ensure success is fucking stupid in 2011. I think comparing methods not allowing for how football and finance has changed in the last 5 years is daft and isn't as black and white as even you suggest.

PP: As I've said relegation was 100% his fault imo but you can't honestly quote figures which are blatantly down to that and then say they illustrate something else ie something generally different in the business. Quoting any figure for 2010 is pretty "unfair" in that context surely? I think you also ignored the point that on that basis in 2008 the rich list figure (not position) was higher than any previous figure.

Name a club that has borrowed money and spent it on players in the last 3 years.

I went on a few training courses at a place called Learning Tree 3 or 4 years ago - 3/4 day things with an exam at the end on a Friday afternoon - you get a nice certificate which really counts for nowt but the actual courses are pretty decent. Anyway I remember one where a lad didn't bother with the exam as he said that he'd vowed after leaving university never to take another test in his life - pretty weird attitude I thought.

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ? What a div. Well stop using it as an arguing point then. More finance savvy people than you are I have posted in this thread on both "sides" but you keep cherry picking phrases that "make your point". Its obvious you don't understand what they mean as HF's posts regarding turnover and revenues which gennerally prove that have been completely ignored. So if you say Shephed ran the club from a financial point of view better than Ashley either put up or shut up. Others who think he did have posted and made good points which I accept. You haven't. The FACT is that the club has gone down the football rich list, and its a FACT that they now harbour lower expectations. Its also a FACT that many people said that "anybody would be better than Fred", its now a FACT that this has not proved to be the case, so shut the fuck up yourself unless you can disprove all of the above, especially now he is 4 years into his "plan" [whatever the "plan" was] Explain the basis of the rich list if its so important. You keep forgetting btw - I hate Ashley more than I hate Shepherd - I just don't revere the latter either.

From what source? ask Mike Ashley, he's the expert who would automatically do better than Fred. He's the person who has made the decisions which have led to it, so ask him what decisions he made ? You made the statement, its up to you to justify it.

I'll give you one simple one, he wouldnt have stood by and allowed us to get relegated as Ashley did so there you go £60m. I have no actual figures so I could argue it was 5m plus and you could argue its a tenner however under FS we were moving into the Asian market and creating deals and tie ins with Australasia and the likes. All of which work towards increasing awareness of the brand and the subsequent sales of merchandising that goes with it. Man United do it so well and Im farily sure that a few years ago we were in the top 3 or 4 of recognised names when it came to these markets. You cant go into a public square in Japan without seeing a Man U top and this is one of the things that Shepherd was working on. Another simple proof of it is in the richest clubs list, where are we in that now? 2007 - 13th $260m 2008 - 16th $300m 2009 - 19th $285m 2010 - 20th $198m So since the end of Shepherd (which would be the 2008 figures) we've dropped 4 places and $102m Man U meanwhile have stayed top and upped their worth by a further $35m. I accept relegation - though Shepherd appointed a manager who I think would have relegated us in 2007-2008 - probable money in January or not. The Asian thing is pretty much a non-starter for me - There's no way we would have got anything off the ground to a significant level against Man U and Liverpool in Asia - I'd say peanuts. I don't know the basis of the the rich list but a. I'd assume relegation was a factor which as I said I accepts and b. in absoute terms by that list we were worth more in 2008 - a year after the sale.

From what source?

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ? What a div. Well stop using it as an arguing point then. More finance savvy people than you are I have posted in this thread on both "sides" but you keep cherry picking phrases that "make your point". Its obvious you don't understand what they mean as HF's posts regarding turnover and revenues which gennerally prove that have been completely ignored. So if you say Shephed ran the club from a financial point of view better than Ashley either put up or shut up. Others who think he did have posted and made good points which I accept. You haven't.

If you can't define what they are and how much they raise then stop using it as an arguing point. You have repeatedly said Shepherd maximised revenues - either put up or shut up - its that simple. If he was doing 10 things that Ashley isnt which amount to more than £5m then I will gladly apologise and concede the point. If you name some things which make a difference of £97 then I'll feel free to tell you where to go.

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me. maybe you don't give Fred enough credit or is Ashley simply a tosspot ? Either way, what you are saying here is that Shepherd [and the Halls] had more about them than Ashley ? Not really what most people predicted is it ie "anybody but Fred" - and I'm not saying YOU personally said that, you may have done, but it doesn't matter, it is what the majority were spouting at the time. Nobody has ever said anybody is a "genius", only that they were a good board and far too many people took the ambition they showed for granted, which looking back was naive although plenty STILL can't bring themselves to admit it. Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why some people don't get this. No - I'm saying that even if he did have clever ways of raising money - which of course you can't define as "exploiting revenue streams" is just one of your magic phrases you quote with no backup - then theres no reason that Ashley wouldn't or couldn't do the same. At the worst it would have been recorded in the accounts even if it was something Ashley hadn't thought of before. Ashley may have failed on many counts but I can't see him ignoring money.

Muscle is healthier than fat - though I think going too far is a waste of time. People should note however that it does weigh more than fat so it is possible to think you've gone a bit wrong if you do tone up a bit.

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

I can see a bit of leeway around the edges of things like these but people are suggesting significant amounts which I'm not convinced by.

We were doing an install at work in October after work and had kebabs from a Syrian place at the bottom of Shoreditch high St which was the best kebab I've ever had. Voted Indians.

Can someone (PP?) define the revenue streams which Shepherd exploited that Ashley hasn't?

So the club figures prove that the only way to survive is to have owners who guarantee loans or running costs with their own money - something Hall & Shepherd never did apart from one very early stage when I remember Hall guaranteeing an overdraft with Barclays briefly. In fact I'd say the motivation to sell was probably advice that that's the way clubs were heading and they didn't fancy it. Of course you can spend beyond your means as LM advocates but the results can be summed up by Portsmouth and Leeds who never seem to get a mention in LM's take on football finances. I wonder why that is?

If they had 5 or 6 points less I would have been quite hopeful but 38 plus the fixtures they have left should be enough unfortunately. I enjoyed listening to Allardyce sticking up for Bruce as well.

He made his debut in the last game of 85/86 I think but 86/87 was when he really arrived.

One good thing in 94 minutes

I'm not saying it's wrong to have the ambition you talk about - I'm saying that expecting it based on our history is wrong - we have never had the "right" like Liverpool think they have to succeed just because of their past glories. There was nothing wrong with the ambition shown by the club under Keegan and Robson - the reason I don't mention Hall is that I think the desire was driven by the managers and the fans given a taste of it more than the owners who only ever in my view cared about money - though Shepherd less so than Hall and his absolute cunt of a son. The thing is both before the emergence of Sky and the boom of football we had owners made up of small local businessmen who simply could not have funded any kind of sustained splurge on players. You still can't answer the simple question of where any money could have come from because there were no possibilities. Other clubs like Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs all had much richer owners. As far as I can remember there were no rich benefactors available pre-Hall and even then his first attempt at raising money through flotation was an abject failure. You talk about the sale as if it was forced and they were ready to continue on with the same ambition - if that's the case why did they spend 3m trying to find new owners? They knew the game was up by 2007 and needed to get out. Things have now moved on again and you still can't come up with an actual suggestion as to how any stated ambition is achievable. So here's the question again - how would you suggest the club show ambition?

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful. I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key. Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs. Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately. sigh. Who doesn't understand the times ? NUFC were one of the biggest clubs in the country pre and post WW2 man. Westwood etc dragged the club down into the also rans, just like Mike Ashley is doing. Joe Harvey was a top man-manager but would have done much better with a board like Liverpools [at the time]. This is the times. The big clubs who attempt to reach their potential have ALWAYS been the most successful, and always will be. The key phrase is "attempt to", if you don't attempt it you don't achieve it. NUFC do NOT belong among the also rans of ANY era of football, they belong with the top clubs and always have. Bloody hell.... Edit. by the way, it was ManU and Munich, not Liverpool I meant Man Utd would have dominated the 60s and beyond but for Munich. We were relegated in 1961 - and even after promotion did nothing in the league - a pattern which we have repeated with the odd blip throughout our history. We do have a proud history overall but saying Westwood dragged the club down is bollocks - from what? Compared with clubs that you seem to think we are above we always have been also-rans - we may be towards the top of the next level of clubs but suggesting we have only been robbed of our rightful place at the top by a couple of individuals is ludicrous.

Even as someone who is pro-FFS, that is my only issue with Leazes, as I wrote in more depth last week. a blip on the pitch, appointing a poor manager ? Is that a long term decline, when you retain the ambition, desire and understanding of how to be successful ? Big difference. You could say that after the blip of Gullit and Dalglish on the pitch, relatively speaking after the previous high standards and we did reach 2 FA Cup Finals, the first few years of Bobby Robson was a catch up period too....but they re-grouped and bought Robert and Bellamy to top off the rebuilding. If Mike Ashley, or anyone else with limited ambitions, had been owner, we would likely have sold Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books instead. HUGE difference in outlook isn't it ? My point about decline Stevie, is that it is a decline, because it is rooted in the aims being set differently ie lower. And the revenues have consequently and predictably fallen as a result. Edit I've said this before actually. I hope this is the last time somebody asks, one or two people may not agree because it suits their irrational hatred of a personality, but in my opinion it is correct and makes perfect sense, particularly as the facts show it to be true and our current chairman [whatever his title is] only confirmed it this week. By 2007 Chelsea had come along and Villa and Liverpool were spending more - your re-grouping would have hit a brick wall even if he could have funded it (which would have been impossible).

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful. I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key. Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs. Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.