Talksport interview with Freddie Shepherd

[Gemmill 46163]

interesting. No doubt some people will stick to their myths and agendas, insisting he still ran the club all on his own because it suits them to believe that when such a thing is impossible, as he only owned less than 30% of the shares.

 

Will you ever grow out of this sort of post.

 

And yes, I know your response is that you'll grow out of it when "some people" realise that you are right. And yes, "Souness", "accountant backing unsustainable spending", "resident financial expert". Yes, yes, very good.

[Christmas Tree 4858]

Who gives a fuck what Freddy Shepherd has to say these days. Nothing will ever change in my mind that when Sir John was involved, we looked like a real force going somewhere. When he took a back seat and Freddy was left in sole charge we were all fur coat no knickers.

 

As someone has pointed out, SJH eventually saw it was only going one way (administration) and got out pdq.

 

Hindsights very easy but investing in a proper football administrator in the mid 90's may have saved the rot.

 

In the end, shepherd was lime one of these blokes who loses his job yet pretends to go to work every day letting the wife dwindle away the savings and getting further into debt to "keep living the lifestyle".

[Craig 6700]

Craig...we had borrowed as much as we could, FMA and SJH had gambled by not spending one year and hoping to still get into the CL...it backfired. We had no other source for credit, no other means to finance and had FMA not be a stupid fucker and took the club off their hands without due diligence we would of went into administration. Of course we would of.

 

Il say it again, for all i hate the fact we went down, its a black mark on our record, it was the best thing that could of happened to the club in the sense it reset the balance. Re-calibrated expectations, dropped a mahoosive wage bill and got rid of MOST of the cocks who were pickin up huge wages and doing fuck all.

 

If we are to be breaking even this season and we have a good summer and a good season next year. We will infact be in a much MUCH better situation.

 

Just my opinion like.

 

The two contradictory comments in bold are why you got the response of 'unsubstantiated pish'. I don't need to comment further, you've done it all yourself

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

I don't think they're contradictory. It's perfectly possible to be of the opinion that a club would have gone into administration under certain circumstances.

[Toonpack 10024]

Craig...we had borrowed as much as we could, FMA and SJH had gambled by not spending one year and hoping to still get into the CL...it backfired. We had no other source for credit, no other means to finance and had FMA not be a stupid fucker and took the club off their hands without due diligence we would of went into administration. Of course we would of.

 

Il say it again, for all i hate the fact we went down, its a black mark on our record, it was the best thing that could of happened to the club in the sense it reset the balance. Re-calibrated expectations, dropped a mahoosive wage bill and got rid of MOST of the cocks who were pickin up huge wages and doing fuck all.

 

If we are to be breaking even this season and we have a good summer and a good season next year. We will infact be in a much MUCH better situation.

 

Just my opinion like.

 

Your opinion ignores the hundreds of millions of debt the club has to ashley, which spiralled following relegation.. Relegation didn't wipe the slate clean one bit. it hastened our financial decline. We're still a loss making club propped up on borrowed funds and technically insolvent.

 

I wholeheartedly agree but, even without the increase in the total "debt" due to relegation, I fail to see where that level of borrowing would have come from without a billionaire owner though. I would add that the lendings are unsecured and interest free unlike almost all other football club owner contributions.

 

Now I know everyone says "he's just protecting his investment" which is undoubtedly true, BUT relegation or no relegation, the investment needed protecting (even with the savage cost cutting we've endured) to the tune of around £100 Million. Without Ashley (or another thick billionaire) who could have protected the investment (club) ???

 

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

[Craig 6700]

I don't think they're contradictory. It's perfectly possible to be of the opinion that a club would have gone into administration under certain circumstances.

 

Try reading it again but this time in context. I said his claim that we'd definitely have gone into administration was unsubstantiated. I get chapter and verse on why he disagrees with my view and signs off with "Just my opinion like." which confirms it is indeed unsubstantiated.

 

If it's his opinion then fair enough, can't argue with it as he's entitled to it but not one of us can sit here and say administration would definitely have happened. A sure sign of financial mess on that scale would have involved the offloading of our better, under contract players for peanuts (i.e. like Leeds in 2003). Didn't happen under Shepherd nor surprisingly it's never happened under Ashley. Another sign would have been the inability to pay players and staff (i.e. like Portsmouth in 2009). Again we've never even come close to it!

 

The only person who has ever talked about this club and administration in the same sentence is Derek fucking Llambias and all that is is some shite PR spin exercise to try to get people onside with regards to Ashley in an attempt to generate ST income.

 

Clubs that have been in financial shite in the Premiership are the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and to an extent, Sunderland - all were in a exponentially worse position than we were.

 

Boils my fucking piss that those clowns play the scare-mongering tactic of suggesting we were close to administration and I pity those idiots who have been taken in by it all.

[Craig 6700]

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems

[NJS 4411]

The only person who has ever talked about this club and administration in the same sentence is Derek fucking Llambias and all that is is some shite PR spin exercise to try to get people onside with regards to Ashley in an attempt to generate ST income.

 

Boils my fucking piss that those clowns play the scare-mongering tactic of suggesting we were close to administration and I pity those idiots who have been taken in by it all.

 

Hall used the same tactic in the early days - "if it hadn't been for us there'd be no Newcastle United" was something he definitely said in relation to Barclays.

[NJS 4411]

Who gives a fuck what Freddy Shepherd has to say these days. Nothing will ever change in my mind that when Sir John was involved, we looked like a real force going somewhere. When he took a back seat and Freddy was left in sole charge we were all fur coat no knickers.

 

As someone has pointed out, SJH eventually saw it was only going one way (administration) and got out pdq.

 

Hindsights very easy but investing in a proper football administrator in the mid 90's may have saved the rot.

 

In the end, shepherd was lime one of these blokes who loses his job yet pretends to go to work every day letting the wife dwindle away the savings and getting further into debt to "keep living the lifestyle".

 

Not a bad view - I always thought it de-railed us a bit when John Hall took a back seat and left it more up to his idiot son and Shepherd.

 

On your administrator point I'd also say Fletcher should have stayed longer despite his obvious complete cuntishness.

[Craig 6700]

The only person who has ever talked about this club and administration in the same sentence is Derek fucking Llambias and all that is is some shite PR spin exercise to try to get people onside with regards to Ashley in an attempt to generate ST income.

 

Boils my fucking piss that those clowns play the scare-mongering tactic of suggesting we were close to administration and I pity those idiots who have been taken in by it all.

 

Hall used the same tactic in the early days - "if it hadn't been for us there'd be no Newcastle United" was something he definitely said in relation to Barclays.

 

tbf it was a damned sight closer to the truth back in late 1991 though.

[Dr Gloom 22188]

Did you have your cock in hand as you heard his dulcet tones Leazesmag?

 

how immature.

 

yeah, pretty much

 

When do you think we will qualify for the Champions League, or even europe, again ?

never under the current owner

 

Will such an achievement motivate you to go to games ?

i go to games now. not sure why that's any concern of yours though

 

I see you are now agreeing with everything I said about Ashley, at last.

not really; i realised ashley was worse than shepherd quite some time ago. probably about the same time as you tbh

 

One day you will also realise the Halls and Shepherd were better than you think.

they are better than ashley; i agree with you there. but i've thought that for soem time now. hope that clears everything up for you

 

.

[NJS 4411]

The only person who has ever talked about this club and administration in the same sentence is Derek fucking Llambias and all that is is some shite PR spin exercise to try to get people onside with regards to Ashley in an attempt to generate ST income.

 

Boils my fucking piss that those clowns play the scare-mongering tactic of suggesting we were close to administration and I pity those idiots who have been taken in by it all.

 

Hall used the same tactic in the early days - "if it hadn't been for us there'd be no Newcastle United" was something he definitely said in relation to Barclays.

 

tbf it was a damned sight closer to the truth back in late 1991 though.

 

It has the same undermining lie though - the club would survive as many like like Boro did however painful the situation would have been - the notion that the ground would be closed and the club shut down with no more football being played is pure fantasy imo.

[Toonpack 10024]

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems

 

You are making my point. By not undertaking due dilligence Ashley exposed himself to the liability, the fact is, that liability was there and it had to be covered by someone, somehow.

 

The act of due dilligence (or lack of thereof) did not create the liability, or in other words, the extent to which the investment needed protection.

[Irrelevant Nick KP 0]

Cairg, I think you missed the point about contradictory statements.

He posted a long article, but instead of putting 'in my opinion...' in front of each sentence, he decided to save time and energy, by only putting it at the end.

I wish more people would write 'in my opinion' like he did. And you should be pleased that he did. It shows lack of arrogance.

[Happy Face 29]

Craig...we had borrowed as much as we could, FMA and SJH had gambled by not spending one year and hoping to still get into the CL...it backfired. We had no other source for credit, no other means to finance and had FMA not be a stupid fucker and took the club off their hands without due diligence we would of went into administration. Of course we would of.

 

Il say it again, for all i hate the fact we went down, its a black mark on our record, it was the best thing that could of happened to the club in the sense it reset the balance. Re-calibrated expectations, dropped a mahoosive wage bill and got rid of MOST of the cocks who were pickin up huge wages and doing fuck all.

 

If we are to be breaking even this season and we have a good summer and a good season next year. We will infact be in a much MUCH better situation.

 

Just my opinion like.

 

Your opinion ignores the hundreds of millions of debt the club has to ashley, which spiralled following relegation.. Relegation didn't wipe the slate clean one bit. it hastened our financial decline. We're still a loss making club propped up on borrowed funds and technically insolvent.

 

I wholeheartedly agree but, even without the increase in the total "debt" due to relegation, I fail to see where that level of borrowing would have come from without a billionaire owner though. I would add that the lendings are unsecured and interest free unlike almost all other football club owner contributions.

 

Now I know everyone says "he's just protecting his investment" which is undoubtedly true, BUT relegation or no relegation, the investment needed protecting (even with the savage cost cutting we've endured) to the tune of around £100 Million. Without Ashley (or another thick billionaire) who could have protected the investment (club) ???

 

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

I'm not defending Shepherd or saying we weren't looking at serious difficulties under his extravagant stewardship.

 

Ashley defenders are polishing a turd even without considering relegation though...to try and further claim relegation has been beneficial when it's added another £50m+ to the debt is backward thinking. Only someone who would argue that finishing 17th makes you happier than winning the champions league could suggest such a thing and is clearly a WUM.

 

The imaginary scenario of us not being able to borrow any more and going into admin under Shepherd was a possibility, but one that has no bearing on the merits of each of the respective tenureships, because it didn't happen. I could equally argue (and have) that the current owners of Man City would have got more time and a more reasonable asking price from Shepherd than they did from Ashley's daft £400m. Would we be worse off if they had bought us? All pie in the sky of course.

 

Who's to say the wage bill would have kept worsening under Shepherd like it did under Ashley too? On the day Ashley bought the last of Shepherd's shares we also signed Viduka. He went on to bring in Geremi, Barton & Smith in his first summer, some of the most costly wastes of space the club has ever seen. The summer before Shepherd had stripped the payroll of Shearer, Bowyer, Boumsong and Viana. Shepherd was tightening his belt much more than Ashley was willing to.

[Craig 6700]

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems

 

You are making my point. By not undertaking due dilligence Ashley exposed himself to the liability, the fact is, that liability was there and it had to be covered by someone, somehow.

 

The act of due dilligence (or lack of thereof) did not create the liability, or in other words, the extent to which the investment needed protection.

 

You're taking my point about 'protecting his investment' completely out of context. I've never said that lack of due dilligence created the liability - of course it was already there. What I'm saying is he bought the club and then because he didn't carry out due dilligence he had to put his hand in his own pocket to protect his own investment - something that clearly irks him and he feels the need to regularly convey this to us through Dekka.

 

The other point of course is there isn't a business in the world that doesn't have liabilities.

[Craig 6700]

Cairg, I think you missed the point about contradictory statements.

He posted a long article, but instead of putting 'in my opinion...' in front of each sentence, he decided to save time and energy, by only putting it at the end.

I wish more people would write 'in my opinion' like he did. And you should be pleased that he did. It shows lack of arrogance.

 

Nkic, you clearly still haven't read it in context.

[Toonpack 10024]

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems

 

You are making my point. By not undertaking due dilligence Ashley exposed himself to the liability, the fact is, that liability was there and it had to be covered by someone, somehow.

 

The act of due dilligence (or lack of thereof) did not create the liability, or in other words, the extent to which the investment needed protection.

 

You're taking my point about 'protecting his investment' completely out of context. I've never said that lack of due dilligence created the liability - of course it was already there. What I'm saying is he bought the club and then because he didn't carry out due dilligence he had to put his hand in his own pocket to protect his own investment - something that clearly irks him and he feels the need to regularly convey this to us through Dekka.

 

The other point of course is there isn't a business in the world that doesn't have liabilities.

 

You said "His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence", sorry if I misrepresented.

 

Bold bit - I would suspect it gets oft repeated because it's one of the few good things he's done and it bears repeating because of it's critical importance in comparison to all the other stuff for which he gets beaten with every other stick that's lying around however tenuous, which I'm sure does irk him.

 

Of course all businesses have liabilities, it's the ability to meet them that makes the difference.

[Holden McGroin 6789]

Well, this has descended into the normal farce.

 

Good work.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

“I hadn’t even heard of the guy (Mourinho) when Bobby wanted to bring him in 2001. Who knows what would have happened if. I didn’t know the guy at the time and Bobby already had an assistant plus he didn’t speak Geordie!”

 

 

aye, bad decision, but a sense of humour ? At least he admits it, what a shame Mike Ashley hasn't got one.

 

These things happen. It only shows how luck plays a part, if Alex Ferguson hadn't agreed the contract with ManU, he would have been appointed instead of Dalglish [who also had as good a record as Ferguson at that time]. If you read Alex Fergusons book, he says he had 3 possible clubs to go to at that time, when he wasn't happy with ManU's new contract offer, 2 were foreign, the other was a major premiership club. As I said, I have known for years that that club was NUFC but it was obviously not to be put across internet message boards !!!!!

 

Of course you did

 

well, I just knew someone would say it.......however, its true. I know someone who worked at the club back then. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not.

[LeazesMag 0]

interesting. No doubt some people will stick to their myths and agendas, insisting he still ran the club all on his own because it suits them to believe that when such a thing is impossible, as he only owned less than 30% of the shares.

 

Will you ever grow out of this sort of post.

 

And yes, I know your response is that you'll grow out of it when "some people" realise that you are right. And yes, "Souness", "accountant backing unsustainable spending", "resident financial expert". Yes, yes, very good.

 

grow out of that ? I'm expecting those sort of replies from others who will NEVER see the situation as it really is/was because of their personality hatred taking over their logical judgement and obvious conclusions.

[LeazesMag 0]

Who gives a fuck what Freddy Shepherd has to say these days. Nothing will ever change in my mind that when Sir John was involved, we looked like a real force going somewhere. When he took a back seat and Freddy was left in sole charge.

 

see what I mean Gemmill ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think they're contradictory. It's perfectly possible to be of the opinion that a club would have gone into administration under certain circumstances.

 

Try reading it again but this time in context. I said his claim that we'd definitely have gone into administration was unsubstantiated. I get chapter and verse on why he disagrees with my view and signs off with "Just my opinion like." which confirms it is indeed unsubstantiated.

 

If it's his opinion then fair enough, can't argue with it as he's entitled to it but not one of us can sit here and say administration would definitely have happened. A sure sign of financial mess on that scale would have involved the offloading of our better, under contract players for peanuts (i.e. like Leeds in 2003). Didn't happen under Shepherd nor surprisingly it's never happened under Ashley. Another sign would have been the inability to pay players and staff (i.e. like Portsmouth in 2009). Again we've never even come close to it!

 

The only person who has ever talked about this club and administration in the same sentence is Derek fucking Llambias and all that is is some shite PR spin exercise to try to get people onside with regards to Ashley in an attempt to generate ST income.

 

Clubs that have been in financial shite in the Premiership are the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and to an extent, Sunderland - all were in a exponentially worse position than we were.

 

Boils my fucking piss that those clowns play the scare-mongering tactic of suggesting we were close to administration and I pity those idiots who have been taken in by it all.

 

I couldn't agree more. And once again, Nick of Poland shows he has a good grasp of English

[LeazesMag 0]

Craig...we had borrowed as much as we could, FMA and SJH had gambled by not spending one year and hoping to still get into the CL...it backfired. We had no other source for credit, no other means to finance and had FMA not be a stupid fucker and took the club off their hands without due diligence we would of went into administration. Of course we would of.

 

Il say it again, for all i hate the fact we went down, its a black mark on our record, it was the best thing that could of happened to the club in the sense it reset the balance. Re-calibrated expectations, dropped a mahoosive wage bill and got rid of MOST of the cocks who were pickin up huge wages and doing fuck all.

 

If we are to be breaking even this season and we have a good summer and a good season next year. We will infact be in a much MUCH better situation.

 

Just my opinion like.

 

Your opinion ignores the hundreds of millions of debt the club has to ashley, which spiralled following relegation.. Relegation didn't wipe the slate clean one bit. it hastened our financial decline. We're still a loss making club propped up on borrowed funds and technically insolvent.

 

I wholeheartedly agree but, even without the increase in the total "debt" due to relegation, I fail to see where that level of borrowing would have come from without a billionaire owner though. I would add that the lendings are unsecured and interest free unlike almost all other football club owner contributions.

 

Now I know everyone says "he's just protecting his investment" which is undoubtedly true, BUT relegation or no relegation, the investment needed protecting (even with the savage cost cutting we've endured) to the tune of around £100 Million. Without Ashley (or another thick billionaire) who could have protected the investment (club) ???

 

There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

 

I'm not defending Shepherd or saying we weren't looking at serious difficulties under his extravagant stewardship.

 

Ashley defenders are polishing a turd even without considering relegation though...to try and further claim relegation has been beneficial when it's added another £50m+ to the debt is backward thinking. Only someone who would argue that finishing 17th makes you happier than winning the champions league could suggest such a thing and is clearly a WUM.

 

The imaginary scenario of us not being able to borrow any more and going into admin under Shepherd was a possibility, but one that has no bearing on the merits of each of the respective tenureships, because it didn't happen. I could equally argue (and have) that the current owners of Man City would have got more time and a more reasonable asking price from Shepherd than they did from Ashley's daft £400m. Would we be worse off if they had bought us? All pie in the sky of course.

 

Who's to say the wage bill would have kept worsening under Shepherd like it did under Ashley too? On the day Ashley bought the last of Shepherd's shares we also signed Viduka. He went on to bring in Geremi, Barton & Smith in his first summer, some of the most costly wastes of space the club has ever seen. The summer before Shepherd had stripped the payroll of Shearer, Bowyer, Boumsong and Viana. Shepherd was tightening his belt much more than Ashley was willing to.

 

they were indeed. As was the appointment of Allardyce, a show of realistation they needed to regroup, like they did in the first few years of Bobby Robson. This has been said before by myself and one or two others, yet seems to be ignored completely by people who only want to beat Shepherd with any stick they can find. Relegation can never be good for the club, the debts have increased and the long term effects of showing we are a selling club with limited ambitions can't be made up while we are falling further and further behind clubs we used to compete with.

[LeazesMag 0]

Claims bordering on the JFK scale quite possibly. I bet it's news to Ferguson too.

 

With all due respect LM, I don't know why they keep interviewing him. He's nothing new to add that's of any substance and every time he does speak a 'ground-breaking revelation' () comes to light.

 

Talksport obviously on a slow news day too.

 

maybe, fair enough, but it was just an interview about the club that I was told about so I looked for it.

 

Alex Ferguson knew about all of that btw, he said so in his book, and he was pretty damn close to leaving manU that summer.

 

What I DON'T know, is if Kevin Keegan knew. They made that approach knowing he [Ferguson] was having contract difficulties, and because they thought KK wouldn't carry on much longer after losing that title race, and in that view, they were right.