There is no footballing vision in this club. There is a commercial vision of concrete, good real estate, and 52,000 loyal fans buying shirts and tickets. But no footballing vision.

When you become a PLC you shift power to those people who have no interest in NUFC. NTL has no interest in the Club: they have interest in NTL, and as long as 52,000 continue to buy tickets and shirts they are happy. As long as we stay in the Premier League -- this is the end of their commitment.

So, in the world of PLCs you need an individual at the top whose vision for the club is not compromised by this -- who can act as a counterweight to this: a Ridsdale, for example; someone who has a footballing vision for the future and strives for it, despite all those interests that are merely profit-driven.

We haven't got a leadership with that sort of vision. Shepherd went along with the PLC and wrote off the season before Christmas. Like almost everybody else who has exercised leadership over the club, with the exception of Sir John Hall, his interests are in the balance sheets first, corporate backers second, the bank third, pacifying irrate fans fourth, and, last, footballing success. He doesn't have a vision of a club that might dominate Europe, but of a profitable company. They are not the same. While BR begged around Europe for players to borrow to shore up the defence, or to give us a striker, other teams buy top quality players. While they have 4 or 5 top quality strikers on their books, we have two, both injured for long periods, as we drop points and slip down the table.

There will be no new signings before the end of the season. Shepherd says it's because of the transfer system and tries to pacify the fans with the specious claim that he can't be irresponsible with the fans money. He, of all people, knows the appalling insincerity of this -- the moment the fans pay their money at the turnstiles or buy their shirts, he knows it's the shareholders' money, not theirs. The bank has more influence over the club than the fans have ever had.

The danger of this strategy is plain to see. If you're not going forward, you're going backwards. Players want to get away from an unsuccessful side; they look around at each other for someone to blame and morale plummets; and good new players turn down the club in favour of more successful sides.

The only vision Shepherd has is that of a balance accounts and rising share prices. While others build a decent side that can take on Europe we will end just above the relegation zone; while others have 2 or 3 players called up in the England squad, we have 1 or none.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

Answers

Good morning and welcome Bryan,that`s my Frosty bit over, when I read your title and the first line, There is no football vision at our club my immediate thoughts were, `great without knowing who, someone is about to explain more clearly than I , my thoughts on this subject matter. Reading your piece has spelt it out how diverse the thoughts of football followers can be , to explain, I am at first a football man, more bootroom than boardroom , the plc`s ,flotations etc were above me and I tended not to get involved in the many debates on here at the time, at the same time I read the views of the likes of Clark`y and Jonno to name but two and inwardly stored for future ref.

I have no doubt Bryan that you will get a response ,during SJH and since, the financial backing of the board to our managers cannot be found wanting except of late in the term of Bobby Robson.

What can be found wanting is the wilful waste of that money by a succession of managers and in this group I place at the head the fans favourite KK . A chance to start aknew, a vision of football for the future, a power in the land, in Europe, not for one season but established for season after season challenging for honours. He wanted instant success, spurred on by the fans , swayed by the media, so charismatic but tactically a nonentity he backed by SJH put the icing on the cake but neglected to have a base, he had no plan for the club, We/They still talk about The Keegan Years , the entertainers, like Floridean said the other day , if he had the sense to realise that his center half and right back were puddings we might just have won something. Please don`t remind me , he left a team that were 2nd in the div as a argument, I sincerley believe Dagleish had a "Vision" for the future of Newcastle but the way he set about tackling this was spectaculary inefficient , enter Ruud, was always going to be a short stay visit , the cake has crumbled, Now enter Bobby , saved us I agree, lets build from that, no money availible, new stadium,plc, the end of the line , Acuna,Bassedas,Cordone, Quinn ,hey he is a nice guy. gettin on a bit tho , can we afford to give him his head in the football market!!!

Gerard Houlier after a couple of seasons of medicrocity has by his own devices backed by the board financially shook off that old worked in the old days Liverpool bootroom image and is not far off from putting out a very good team in which any player injured or suspended can be replaced by one equally as good and will supplement and be able to adapt to their general game plan. At Newcastle we panic buy, he`s a good lad, reasonable, no thought whether he will fit in to the team pattern (LOL) or not, this has been the norm for years,

We both have a vision of football at Newcastle , I suspect if we cross our eyes, where the lines meet, there lies the answer.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2001

For their over-reported faults, the fans over reacted & hounded out the lads with the vision & guts to back their vision (OK perhaps not so much Hall jnr). We have the opportunity to lay down some foundations with Bobby, he'll be here for at least two more years so we can plan now for his successor. For me this can't be Shearer & should be an ex-Keegan lad, for me Barry Vennison would have it.

I think it's wrong to blame the notion of the PLC. If you don't like the demands of the existing shareholder, BUY SOME SHARES have your say, put your money where your mouth is. This is why I won't slag the board, I'm not risking millions of my money, the likes of Hall did when a lot of us could rather not take the risk. That's why the INUSA with Kevin Miles are so Hypocritical.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

"...the fans over reacted & hounded out the lads with the vision & guts to back their vision ".

Just remind me again Dave LF exactly who it is that you believe we (ie the fans) "hounded out"?

Bryan - well constructed post. I'd like to give a little time to considering a response.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Interesting post Bryan. As the fabled 'Board Hater' I feel moved to respond.

I totally agree with your basic premise that Club Management lacks vision, and have made the same point on here ad nauseum. However, while agreeing with your basic premise I have to disagree on some points of detail.

The Club is really a 'plc' in name only - a ruse that was used entirely to raise capital from the public by selling off a minority stake. The two principal shareholders - Shepherd Offshore et al, and the Halls/Cameron Hall Developments - still hold the majority of shares and retain a firm controlling interest. This means they can effectively do as they wish - and indeed they do, as witnessed by their action in vetoing the formation of the proposed Supporters Trust at the AGM, and indeed in holding the AGM 300 miles away such that the majority of private shareholders could not vent their displeasure at the company's financial performance in the relevant reporting period.

The plc has been shunned by the City financial institutions with only one - Legal & General - retaining a significant shareholding at 3.6%. So, other than needing to comply with certain legal and financial reporting dictates, the Club is run essentially as a private company by the principal shareholders.

NTL own 9.84% of the shares, and have made a long-term loan to the Club that could convert into equity (ie. shares) at some point in the future. There is a services agreement with NTL which gives them rights to provide certain services, principally relating to media/communications issues. While there are clearly significant commercial links with NTL, I don't believe they are represented on the Board, or have any real influence over the day-to-day running of the Club.

As majority shareholders, the Hall family still exercises very significant power within the Club, and would need to be in agreement on any significant strategic actions. However, I do not believe they are materially involved in the day-to-day running of the Club, which is very firmly in the hands of Mr. Shepherd, and his new Chief Executive, David Stonehouse.

All that is intended to demonstrate that IMO there are absolutely no "bogeys in the cupboard" - be it 'The City' or NTL - preventing the present executive management from managing the Club as they see fit. Any lack of vision relates exclusively to the present Management, and should be viewed strictly in that light.

The Management are not City whiz-kids, faceless accountants, or corporate backers - they are basically fans of NUFC, and in my experience, very genuine in their intent and efforts. As shareholders they quite naturally wish to protect the share price and improve the Balance Sheet. However, those interests are not necessarily exclusive of the best interests of the supporters - many of who are sharholders - as the better shape the Club is in financially the better it is able to effectively compete with Manure, Arsenal etc.

The Club has backed successive managers massively in the transfer market, and invested enormously in the stadium. The end result is that the Cub is heavily in debt, and undoubtedly is struggling to continue to bankroll the present Manager who is becoming increasingly frustrated. IMO we are facing a major task in restructuring a playing squad that is nowhere near good enough to compete with the top Clubs, and in ensuring an effective transition to the next Team Manager/Coach. In other critical areas of the business, we have made minimal progress with the much-delayed Youth Academy, which might alleviate the transfer spending in the medium term, and still have pathetically inadequate training facilities for the senior playing squad.

Management must manage - and be judged entirely on their performance record. The present Chairman should, and will, be judged accordingly - don't for one second believe that deficiencies in this regard can be explained away by plc-induced constraints, or any other peripheral fluff.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

Absolutely right Clarky. It is no good blaming the Plc, especially when there is a certain naivete which holds that Hall had no part in it or did not benefit from the decision. It was his decision and the reason was so that he could make a killing. He was always telling us that football was a business -- it is. and Newcastle United by virtue of the family holding is to all intents remains his. He did had the vision to see the vast potential -- just as he did a piece of waste ground south of the Tyne. If he is as altruistic as some would suggest, why does he not sell some of his shares and donate his proceeds to the club. It might even prove a good investment if it was used to good purpose and success on the field, as in KK's day, raised the value of the club.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

I agree totally with you Clarky & Floridian, Hall's never pretended to be anything else than in it to make money, we all the chance to be part of it in 1991 but none of us backed his vision. I wouldn't xpect anyone to sell their shares & donate the money to the club but if anyone wanted to buy a large share of the club, they'll have to make the owners a decent offer just as Hall et al did in 88,89 & 90. If we're talking vision, at the moment the squad needs major surgery, we mayy as well wait for some of the better lads to come through from the u17's & Shola etc.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2001

I'd like to thank all those who've replied to my original message, particularly Clarky for such a well-informed and helpful response. When I post messages on the BBS, my aim is not necessarily to take issue with anyone; it is, first, to give vent to my own anxieties and, second, to learn - only in this way can I alleviate these anxieties. You all know a lot more than I do. And, I assume, you live a lot closer. So when I see the club I support doing so badly, it helps to find out what's being said in and around the club.

In response to Floridian and Dave, if I interpret you correctly, my gripe is not about motives: about who's in it for the money and who isn't. Frankly I'm not bothered if the club is run by someone who just wants to make money, as long as he has a vision of creating the greatest side in Europe; nor am I worried if he just sees it as a creative challenge, as long as his vision is the same; nor even if he's a devoted Newcastle supporter and whose only motive is to make the club the best there is.

My gripe is about vision. Yesterday I was driven to download the article written for the Daily Telegraph (I never though I would allow those two words to appear together on my computer screen) based on an interview with David Stonehouse, Newcastle's chief executive. Today I find it reported on the NTL site, along with an expression of the same sentiments I gave vent to in my first message. Here's a man guiding our club who says we're "doing fine" because we're set to achieve our "ambition to attain mid-table stability in the Premiership." Satisfied with this season's achievements, he says, "We do not have to get into the Champions League, mid-table stability is more important and we will cut our cloth accordingly."

This is the poverty of vision at the club. This is the mind of an accountant. Charles Handy once described accountants as "society's inspectors, conditioned to look backwards rather than forward, to be cautious in their estimates, to shun risk…It is a way of thinking entirely appropriate for auditors, but not always best for the leaders of growing businesses."

As someone said on the NTL site, if we had bought just 2 good players last October/November, as many other clubs were doing to strengthen their squads irrespective of the doubts over the transfer system, we would have 8 or 9 points more. We would still have a chance of European competition next season, rather than scrabbling about for the rest of the season for the ten points we need for safety. As it is with our injury crisis deepening every week, we are likely to find ourselves buying players anyway, only now not with enough deliberation, but in crisis - and we all know that the worst form of management is crisis management.

No wonder supporters of teams like Derby are chanting from the terraces "Can we play you every week?" And the consequences of this attitude in footballing terms is disastrous. As I said in my first message, if you're not going forwards you're going backwards. Losing breeds losing, as winning breeds winning. But you can't convince anyone of this who only sees a static set of figures on a profit and loss account.

Fewer players want to stay with an unambitious and unsuccessful club e.g. Domi, and no doubt Dyer will not resist the entreaties of other more ambitious clubs, like Leeds, for long. Players blame each other for their collective failure, they fall out, they breed dissent, until the morale in the dressing room has plummeted to new depths. We've had our fair share of this over the last three unsuccessful and unambitious seasons.

Even more serious, you can no longer attract good players, if you are not at least in Europe. Even if you are in Europe, if you don't get to finals and big occasions, your chances of attracting good players are nil. In contrast, success breeds success. The better players want to play for the ambitious and successful clubs. When you're winning the players look to praise, not blame, their fellow players, and the morale of the team is strengthened.

But it takes a footballing mind to appreciate this - and a mind with vision. Sadly, we have neither. We're being run by bankers and accountants, whose only vision is a balanced set of accounts.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

My loathing of Shepherd has been a gut feeling as much as anything, starting from the Spanish farce, but even if none of that had been true, I'd still have been wary of him.

I can appreciate people trying to take a balanced view before condemning anybody, but I'd find it very difficult to go against my initial gut feeling, and would probably ignore evidence against it.

It's even beginning to look like more and more people on here are thinking along the same lines as I do. The sooner Shepherd hoys his hand in, the better it will be for the club, I reckon, ignoring the 'devil you know' argument.

Okay, most of this 'dissent in the ranks' has been triggered by the crap that's being served up on the pitch, but this hasn't happened all of a sudden. The style has been the same for donkey's years, and I know it'll trigger howls of "Aw naw. Here he goes again", but the Keegan years had me in raptures, and until we get back to those sort of results, I'll find it difficult to be even tolerant, let alone happy.

Thanks Clarky for explaining the boring business logic of the situation - I've never really been interested enough in the whys and wherefores to dig it out for myself. The hows and whens have just about been all I care about.

Short sighted and maybe even immature, but the wheeling and dealing going on in the background have never loomed large in my considerations. If they ain't doing it on the pitch they ain't doing it anywhere, and because all the likes of us can do is make noises that are never heard, or at best provoke symptom relieving fixes, there doesn't appear to be any other option than to see everything short term.

I'll be over the moon when we win well even if only on my terms, and well and truly peed off when we play like we do now. I deserve better. So Freddy, if you read this,

GET THE BASTARD SORTED OR BUGGER OFF

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Another excellent, thought provoking thread - it's always good to hear from someone new, even if it's just because things are expressed slightly differently again. The one thing we are all seemingly unanimous in, is frustration. I have to admit, though, that my frustration is more resigned than others, who feel the need for immediate action. Perhaps I'm too negative and 'unambitious'. But reading, for example, Stonehouse's comments in another way, he doesn't say that mid-table obscurity is a long term aim. He just says that some sort of stability is needed. The fluctuations between relegation battle, to brief spells at the top of the league, makes it impossible to assess where we really are and what needs to be done. I sense the renewed panic stricken cries of 'do something', and I share with them to an extent, because I hope they (management) are doing 'something'. But I don't expect that 'something' to be particularly visible or even to bear immediate fruit. That's not to say I'm not uneasy, because I have no real way of judging the competence of those doing the 'something', and the last thing we need is a sense of lacklustre complacency and lack of vision (which is another way of interpreting Stonehouse's remarks).
But perhaps it's time to step back a little. We have had a bad patch of games, where the players collectively don't seem to have gelled as a team, with either lack of desire or total lack of confidence cited as the reasons. Some also think that lack of ability has a large part to play. Personally, I think most of my frustration comes from the fact that I think we DO have the ability - perhaps not enough to be challenging with Europe's best, but nonetheless more than the sides that keep beating us. So what does management (plc and coaching) do? throw money at it? NO.
We haven't had a ridiculous analogy for a while, have we? I see the problem as being akin to a game of cards, say poker - our hand at the moment might consist of decent cards, but together they don't total anything much - a pair of queen's perhaps (and that's just the midfield ;-)). Do we wack on a huge stake, junk whole lots of cards and hope that the new cards we pick out will magically complete a full house or royal flush? Or do we keep the stakes low, until we have a solid base of cards to start gambling with? There are other courses of action as well. We could 'bluff', and try and get as much out of the 'average' cards as possible - I suppose we should always do a bit of this, but there's a limit to how much stake you'll keep on wanting to put in. Or we could cheat, fiddle the pack. How do we guarantee getting better cards, that together make up a winning hand? Make sure we have our own deck of cards that we draw from and can chose which cards we want. And for me this is an analogy with a good youth academy. Whilst we're waiting for the dodgy pack to arrive, we'll have to make do with bluffing, combined with canny card exchanges where we reckon we've sussed what the chances are of getting the card we want. We might get lucky, but we should also be resigned to losing the odd hand and need to be careful not to throw all our money after average hands so we stay in the game and don't get relegated to playing on the streets rather than the plush casino that is the premiership. Looking at it another way, if anything, it's sometimes easier to 'bluff' with a crap hand, as Sunderland are showing this season ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Nice discussion. A couple of comments.

The Sir John vision included the building of a new ground, which would have meant less debt. The people of Newcastle couldn't get behind that vision and it failed. We are to blame for not backing that.

The Keegan years were half right (yes half wrong too). The first team blossomed and bloomed, that was what Keegan was supposed to do. The chairman should have been pushing harder on the youth/training pitch etc side of things. A chairman should have the big picture.

Without a doubt success breeds success. We will never attract quality until we are playing in Europe again. Sunderland are in this chicken and egg situation and their fans are mighty upset at the thought of not getting good players cos they aren't in Europe and can't get into Europe because they can't attract quality players.

Every signing must either strengthen the squad or strengthen the first 11. It has to be a combination of both of these as the squad ages and changes. We seem to have slipped into only buying squad players, and rarely adding to the best XI. We now have a squad of equal ablility, and they're all poor.

We cannot change the board anymore than we could a dozen years ago. I recall cutting out a piece from McKeag in the Journal in which he had a go at John Hall. One of the points in it was that he felt we could become one of the top sides in England, never as big as Liverpool of course, but on eof the top few. I could have screamed at him. We all seem to have a vision of greatness, we know what we want, but we believe the board, who ever they are don't match our ambition.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Agree with the direction of the discussion, however after Saturday stuff the vision, audio will do for now!!!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Not if they kok it up and make us listen to the hakkems. :-))

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Hence the statement above!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001

Interesting slant on the Stonehouse comments Windy. Quite plausible, especially when you realise they were written in the press. Do the words context and out of come to mind?

Perhaps there was another phrase which got left on the floor - short-term?? Dunno.

Of course, there are business which are very very successful, but aren't the world's biggest. Not everybody can be a MicroSoft (spit), Exxon or Honda. Same with football. Many clubs see success as keeping their heads above the water and surviving in the EPL - I'd suggest the likes of Derby, Soton and maybe Leicester are in that group. They don't have the catchment area that clubs like those in the major conurbations do. Without checking figures, I dunno what our catchment is, but we've proved that we can fill a 52,000 stadium regulalry, so the customer is definitely there in our case. But enough of them won't continue paying if the produce is substandard for long.

Short-term stability, yeah. Long-term mediocrity, nah.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001