NJS

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.

I know I shouldn't but I just laughed long and hard at that. I'm glad to say I don't know anything about any of the fuckers who were at school with me.

I might not have anything nice to say but I don't hate the bloke either - I enjoyed arguing with him and thought he was/is okay most of the time.

Thorn, Hendrie, Beasant and Robertson. I remember speaking to an older lad the next day and he was telling me the toon fans on the bus going to Merseyside were singing we're gonna win the league. Cottee scored after 34 seconds, and that was that. Of them only Hendrie was any good, and they sold him 6 fuckin month later to Leeds and got Frankie Pingel in as his replacement. Thorn wasn't too bad once he got over a bit of rabbit in the headlights phase - he could have gone on to be decent if we hadn't gone down imo.

Possibly - I was trying to go as low as possible to make the point that there was shit amongst the good. The thing about Liverpool is that when the Moores were in charge and like Man U before the Yank, their ticket prices were extremely low compared with the rest of the league. I remember Hall saying he was looking at other clubs to see how they were ran but unfortunately he took the ST pricing model from the London clubs and not the more appropriate NW teams (in terms of fanbase type etc). I think this may explain a lower turnover - I could be wrong. I think if we'd won the league in 96 we would have become a bigger club than at any time in our history but I think in terms of worldwide size the ship has already sailed - Man Utd and Liverpool "own" vast tracts of the rest of the world and I can't see that changing if the latter didn't win the league for another 10 years - their history since the 60s is too much to overcome. Now on a day to day basis I agree with Leazes that Liverpool fans aren't as great as they think and taking away the Irish and Skandos from their crowds would hit them bad but I think to try and deny that they are still a much bigger club than us - especially in terms of pulling power - is very naive.

Agreed. Mort was nowhere near as punchable as that pointy prick. I know things evidently weren't right behind the scenes when Mort was chairman but it's no coincidence IMO that the wheels fell off massively right about the time he was replaced by Llambias. I got the impression Mort did things like transfers and wages in a "standard" football way which Ashley has now decided was wrong and that he and the club were taken for a ride so he brings in someone who he trusts - though obviously not knowing anything about football - to run the business his way.

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ? I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ? 16k compared with the 100m some people took out of the club when they walked away.

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since. My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios. LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact. my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money. I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering. At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush. Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken. I thought we'd got you off mentioning Spurs and Liverpool? The latter have a billionaire owner and are a much bigger club than us despite your arguments on crowds - there's no getting away with it. Spurs have been lucky on transfers - you still don't get that. You mock Villa now because they have "failed" and because they were mentioned as a blueprint but fail to mention they did exactly what you advocate - they heavily backed their manager with 100m, and it failed miserably. You don't mention the Mackems who have spent millions and shown "ambition" for almost no reward and a probable firesale in the summer because the owner is sick of it. Would you rather Ashley say "We're aiming for the top 4" - that would bring a lot more ridicule than you mention as it would take 100s of millions at least - a thing you acknowledge. You should also stop using the magic word of "revenues" - as I said HF proved that's shit. "15 years of the best" is also utter, utter shit - we were good for 6 seasons at the most. As I've said before I did enjoy watching the team when we were "good" but I also enjoyed it when we were halfway decent when nobody expected us to be like in the Gazza years - I always resigned myself to the fact we weren't destined to be a "winner" and I think its you that's deluded to the level that people take the piss. This talk of being as big as you say we are is a load of shit. We have never been one of the top clubs in England (apart from maybe the Edwardian days) for anything like any decent period and to claim otherwise based on crowdsize is exactly the kind of stereotypical shite you criticise. I do think we're bigger than Stoke and Wigan but for the forseeable future there are 5 or 6 teams we won't better and no amount of unrealistic hot air will change that. Unless of course you can tell us all how to achieve that.