Out of interest I looked at Saturday's FT and banged the following numbers into a spreadsheet (Current Price, 12month high, 12 month low,) and worked out the % fall from the high and the % fall from the bottom)- WAKE UP at the back there!

The following results ensued ranked by biggest fallers so being at the top of this table is bad news:- Club Price High Low % off top % off bottom
Chelsea 31.5 98.5 31 -68.0 1.6
Aston Villa 200 575 195 -65.2 2.6
Leeds 11.25 28.75 9 -60.9 25.0
Man Utd 184 438 173 -58.0 6.4
Newcastle 35 76 31.5 -53.9 11.1
Celtic 138.5 257.5 136.5 -46.2 1.5
Sunderland 416.5 635 248 -34.4 67.9
Sheff Utd 12 17.5 10.5 -31.4 14.3
Spurs 51 73.5 47.5 -30.6 7.4
Leicester 50 67.5 34.5 -25.9 44.9

The moral of this story is (learn how to format tables in HTML-Ed ) that football is a crap investment these days, but some of you may be surprised that our fall from grace is not as bad as several and better than Manu's among others. I've always argued that the share performance can't be judged in isolation from the rest of the sector, and these figures bear out the fact that The Toon is faring not much better or worse than most.It would be interesting (yawn-Ed ) to check similar figures over a longer time period - but I can't be arsed.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Answers

you're just talking telephone numbers Jonno.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

So the Board's of Chelsea, Villa, Leeds and Manure are all a bunch of incompetent bar stewards as well then ;0)

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

So the Board's of Chelsea, Villa, Leeds and Manure are all a bunch of incompetent bar stewards as well then

That's the inexorable conclusion to be drawn DB!

Our board is not beyond criticism by any means. There are those who blame them for everything in sight, there are those like myself who feel they've made a number of mistakes but their ambition and heart are in the right place and changing them is not the answer to our current malaise. Nobody will ever be able to prove this argument one way or another, but plainly, this table illustrates IMHO, that the failing share price cannot necessarily be held up as an example of poor performance because it seems to be in line with the whole football sector.

The Toon has to start climbing the table which is mainly down to the manager and the players he chooses. The board can create a good environment(training, academy, medical etc), generate funds for transfers and wages, etc, but my contention is that these things will be marginal and what happens on the pitch is really all that matters and we've been getting that wrong for a long time now.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

The majority of their business is based on a "Funny ole game"

How could they ever expect to succeed? After the quick bucks are made people are not going to look at these as reasonable investments, hence the scarcity of institutional investors.

Couple that with our recent turnover of managers, who can influence the fortunes of the club tremendously, and they were never going to prosper.

If clubs knew what they do now would they go public again?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

That's the problem I believe, what does 'public' mean. Means nothin in our case more than 60% is held by two families, NTL will one day, if they can't do sums very well, own 9.9% and me and Jonno own 367/400000 or whatever the number is

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

It's nearly all down to what happens on the pitch now. The big owners are not going to sell their holding (why should they?), the institutions left in aren't going to sell for the same economic reasons (again why should they). If the fans had faith in Bobby B they'd be buying shares now, they aren't so what does this tell you?

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

"........what does 'public' mean?"

It means that the two families you mention made many millions of pounds - much of it from the pockets of gullible supporters. That's what it really means.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

Jonno is at least partly correct - the sector as a whole is very much out of favour, and even manure's share price is depressed.
The reason for this is that professional investors cannot see how the Club's can continue to make adequate profits. They have essentially squeezed the TV rights dry, and there is serious concern now that 'pay-per-view' will not be a commercial success. The main reason for the profit squeeze, of course, is the rocketing wages of the players, and the Clubs seem to be utterly powerless to control this, or even slow the growth.

It won't come as a big surprise to hear that I don't believe this is the full story in our particular case. It has been extensively reported that the City have largely abandoned NUFC beacuse they don't believe it is professionally managed as a plc, and the Club's shares are effectively viewed as "toxic waste".

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

whoa clarky laddie, can't let this opportunity to challenge you go begging. specifically, you wrote:

It means that the two families you mention made many millions of pounds - much of it from the pockets of gullible supporters. That's what it really means.

i'd interpret this as the view that the hall's made some extra cash at the expense of the poor suffering fans.

maybe they did, but fair play to them.(you may recall how poorly nufc was run during the westwood and mckeag eras)

i remember the days (20 years ago) when us fans would say stuff like

"if only somebody would invest in nufc and put a decent team out they'd make a fortune because the potential support is there" or words to that effect.

basically that's what the hall's did. they saved a club that was going out of business and into div 2. within 3 years we were in europe. surely, they should be rewarded for taking the risk. of course, the IPO was at a time when footy shares were overvalued. if it was your business would you sell a chunk of it at any other time?

i'm not saying that nufc plc is a beacon of corporate management competence or that i'd touch the shares. but, the hall's put their money where our mouths were.

also note that they still own a big piece which gives them incentive to maximize their return. right now the only way to do this is to deliver some level of "success" on the pitch.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

..and given the very real possibility of qualifying for european football earlier this season they did.....

that's right. nothing. sat fiddling while Tyneside burned... They have done some good things but not for some time. Until i see players in the new training centre, youngsters kicking a football at the academy, players LIKE Rivaldo pulling on the B&W and sheer indignation at comments like: "We don't need to qualify for Europe", maybe i'll stop moaning...

;-)

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

THe Halls made huge amounts from the flotation undoubtedly, but this is sometimes said as if the whole thing were some grand plan to screw the fans which it manifestly was not.

In the early days of Hall's involvement he tried to float the club (at a market capitalisation WAY below what it went for in 96) and too few people were interested. I had my own share application refunded at the time. When the float came in 96, as I say at the start of this thread, the football sector was seen as a licence to print money and investors were piling in. Not the Halls' fault - they just benefited from a most remarkably fortuitous bit of timing. I think it was just a matter of weeks before investors, as opposed to fans, realised their mistake and the sector has fallen ever since. As the Halls own more shares than anyone, THEY ARE THE BIGGEST LOSERS since the float, a point which often seems overlooked in these debates.

To me, the failure of the club in recent seasons is all too obvious. List the transfer incomings since Des Hamilton and look to see how many were value for money. There are a few, but there is only one standout brilliant buy (Dyer) and there is an awful lot of dross which has not performed. Try the same exercise for the KK era starting with Kilcline and the answer to the Toon's fall from grace is IMHO, blindingly obvious.

Choosing the players for the squad, either by buying or by training youngsters is most of what this game is about. Any faults to be laid at the door of this board are that they have chosen the wrong people to make these decisions, and yet very few of us would have disputed the choices of KD, RG and increasingly BR, all of whom had track records. And my main point, at the start of this thread, is that the current share price, sometimes held up as an example of board incompetence, is a very poor measure of our success or failure.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

Football and finance - never easy for fans and investors to both be happy. At the moment neither are. But just a few points..
The 1 year period you use Jonno, lessens the relative downside of Newcastle United's share performance. Most of the damage was done over a year ago, and whilst other clubs were relatively unscathed.
Looking at this as positively as possible, I do believe that we have held back financially over the last few years (stadium apart) although we haven't frozen the cash-flow totally. And I suppose it's this factor that us as fans are generally disatisfied with. But there's no obvious guarantee that player investment will either get results on the pitch or put us in a better financial position off it. It's a risk in the current uncertain climate and we rightly or wrongly backed away from it. The jury is out on which approach was better, but personally I would prefer to be in our position rather than Chelsea's. Our stadium is built and financing off it ring- fenced to a large degree. We took most of our financial hits on player failures last year. We need to invest in the youth academy - but wisely and with open eyes. And most importantly we need to have the patience to build the playing side and start getting the results. Hopefully this will be easier in a falling market, where clubs that have been buying top players suddenly realise they can't afford it and start off-loading. Hopefully off-loading the promising young players to ease their financial burden without endangering their relationship with the fans by selling star players.
I'm not a Board apologist, and don't feel much confidence in their abilities, but I do think they could be worse..a lot worse. Doesn't say much for football management though, which is probably why the whole sector isn't doing well in the eyes of the market.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

The 1 year period you use Jonno, lessens the relative downside of Newcastle United's share performance

I'm not so sure - as I say I can't be bothered to check but with the exception on Manu I think most football shares have been a disastrous investment.

never easy for fans and investors to both be happy

Actually, they should both have the same feelings most of the time. Investors and fans must be pretty unhappy at Chelsea, Toon, Spurs, Villa etc. The only way to get shares to go up would be to get the team winning so the moods of both fans and investors would improve in tandem. I suppose you can get the same thrill/disappointment by backing your team on the fixed odds every week.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

George Best,

Jonno is arguing that the fall in the Club's shares is down exclusively to market sentiment towards the sector. I agree that this has materially contributed but that there are other reasons. I believe some of it has been a consequence of the Club's steadily deteriorating on-field and financial performance, but also a result of the actions of certain Directors who caused the City Institutions to largely abandon the Club - effectively leaving its shares marked as 'toxic waste'.

The value of the major shareholders' ownership has indeed suffered because of this, but at least partly as a consequence of their own actions and their stewardship of the company. The other people who have suffered significantly because of the City's disaffection with the Company have been the supporters who invested in the Club in the flotation, and have been rewarded with their very own slice of toxic waste.

I agree with you that SJH saw the Toon as as a good investment opportunity and turned a modest investment into a massive financial coup for the Hall and Shepherd families - and good luck to him. In doing so, he rescued a football club heading for oblivion, and I actually believe it is entirely possible that this was his initial motivation. However, SJH is not a philanthropist, and quickly realised the investment opportunity before him with the development of the PL etc.
I also firmly believe that if SJH had stayed directly involved in the running of the Club that much of what has subsequently happened would have been avoided, that all aspects of the business would today have been in better shape, and that the shares would be worth a good bit more. I can't prove it, of course.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

By a very quick reckoning based on the three year charts, you're right that we're not the worst performers. The diasparity of results is greater though. Sheffield United as you might imagine come bottom with an approximate 73% loss in value over the period. Villa surprisingly with 71%. Chelsea 66% and falling :-), NUFC 65%, Celtic 60%, Leeds 45%, Spurs 32%, Sunderland 16%, Leicester 11%, And ManU were the only one's with a positive - 28% increase over the period. If I go to 5 years, NUFC has a worse performance than Sheffield U over a similar period - ie 75%. More than anything it shows we were overvalued when we floated.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

we were overvalued when we floated.

Couldn't agree more. It's one of my main arguments. It's so easy for critics of the board to point to the fallen share price to "prove" their point. I'm suggesting it proves nothing of the sort. Not that their critique of the board is necessarily wrong, but that the share price doesn't prove it.

I agree with you to a large extent Clarky. Mind, I don't attribute the whole of the share price fall to market sentiment but a substantial amount of it. Yes I think the club could have done better in recent seasons (and the share price ought to be a bit higher than it is) but I attribute most of our failings to poor management of the team rather than the club. As I say there have been mistakes (the SOS issue, poor PR, slow development of academy). I'm not sure if the biggest mistake of all wasn't the redevelopment of SJP. The £50m spend on that is a risk and a drag on our finances. Had we gone for greenfield the cost would have been much less (SOL cost £25m and £10m received in grants). God knows how long it would have taken though to find a site, get permission, etc etc. (On the plus side SJP is beautiful and superbly located).

I hope things are soon to start moving forwards again. The transfer system is now resolved(?), the stadium is complete and financing in place. There are less unknowns than there were so hopefully there is every chance that we will get going again. The interim finacials should be out next week so we should get some idea of the cash position.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2001

What is more galling than anything is the "myth" of the size if the investment that the Hall/Shepherd familes now have.

When they originally bought in it cost them about £3 mill to get control and then they put another £5 Mill in (plus about £30 Mill of bank debt) to develop the ground and buy players.

The club floated and they all trousered about £75 Mill and have now been left with a shareholding worth (even at todays prices) about £10 Mill and the club has even more debt on its balance sheet than before AND doesn't get the benefit of its season ticket revenue as that is securitised to pay off the bond.

This club is currently living off TV money (declining because of low league position and not in Europe), merchandise/shirt sales (declining) and non-league gate receipts from cup runs, etc, (declining).

The club is currently being run on fresh air and NUFC is going to have to sell Dyer and others to pay for it all.

Unless someone comes in and takes this club off the stock exchange and puts a lot more private money in the foundations for a vicious spiral of decline have been sunk and the club is financially teetering on a precipice.

Nufc is not in as bad a shape as Leeds, for example, but Leeds are currently supporting their wild expenditure with success. As soon as the success goes they will be in very large difficulties, a lot worse that NUFC.

The sooner that Hall and shepherd go the better it will be. They are blood sucking leeches who are scum. Yes - they have a shareholding in the club but all the money they put in they have taken out and then some and are still left with a resdidual stake worth millions.

I can't believe that anyone here would give them the time of day. They called my mother a dog and all of your wives, sisters and mothers dogs.

Fuck em

BTW: Does David Stonehouse ever speak?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Someone bought 300,000 shares in the Toon just before close of trading today. At a cost of little over £100,000 this is a tidy sum to invest. Interesting.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

OTT, crazy horse!

Are you a mackem with a vested interest????

If you are a mackem please come back in pre-season when Sheppard and Hall have again shown ambition. ;)

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001