The Ronnie tonight carries an article attributing quotes from Freddie Shepherd which appear to be at odds with what the plc Chairman said in his press statement accompanying the Interim Results annoucement on Thursday.

The article says that FS has unequivocally pledged that Bobby Robson will have money to spend in the close season, allaying fears United fans may have had after Thursday's statement from the plc which suggest that the club would be "prudent" in the transfer market in the near future, and that the money men were taking control of the club.

They quote FS as saying "The commitment of the major shareholders Sir John Hall, Douglas Hall and myself remains as ambitious today as it was in 1992. It would be very easy to see why the fans could assume from the statements made during the Interim results on Thursday that ambitions had waned. And while there may be some who do not share the same ambition as the Hall family and myself, we are determined to take a longer term view, and to maintain our commitment to the people of Newcastle and the loyal fans of this football club.
Those fans can be assured that while we cannot guarantee - nor can any football club - success in any individual game or tournament we can unreservedly guarantee that the Hall-Shepherd shareholding will continue to back the medium-to-long term objective on and off the field."

They add that Shepherd sensibly cannot and will not talk about specific figures for a variety of reasons, but that there is no doubt that the Football Club Chairman means to make substantial funds available in the close season.

They further quote FS as saying "Since 1992 this football board have shown that they are 100 per cent committed to the club and we cannot ever be accused of not coming up with the goods for Kevin Keegan, Ruud Gullit, Kenny Dalglish and now Bobby Robson, and we will do what we have to - regardless of what other messages are conveyed from other sources."

They report that like every other Premiership club, United can expect to pick up a cool £30 million a season for the next three years from the television rights of £1.6 billion split among the 20 Premiership clubs, plus the amount the teams themselves will receive from their own individual appearances.

They also report that Robson was with Shepherd at St James's Park yesterday afternoon to discuss potential transfer targets, and the United boss was given the go-ahead to galvanise his scouting team into action over the weekend.

While it is nice to hear such ambitious words coming from the Football Club Chairman at a time when supporters are at a low ebb because of recent performances, one has to seriously question just who is running Newcastle United - Freddie Shepherd or the plc Chairman.
I find it quite staggering that the plc Chairman can make one statement to the City on Thursday, only to find it undermined in the local Press just two days later. Did Shepherd not review and approve the plc Chairman's statement before it was issued?
Something is drastically wrong with the management of this company, and in most plc's this kind of very public disagreement on points of principal would inevitably lead to one of the two parties resigning.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Answers

No matter what FS says, I don't think that Bobby Robson and Newcastle will be able to get the players that he realy wants. If we spend more than £5 m than we sell ( nobby and Dyer) I'll be surprised.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

So we're buying some Pledge to polish the insides of those empty trophy cabinets. Good idea. May as well be neat if we can't get anything else right.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Sorry, Pledge is not in the budget for next season. You'll have to make do with a generic store brand.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Clarky is of course correct. It is quite intolerable for one director to contradict the statement of the Chairman -- that statement being the basis upon investors, present and potential,are expected to base their decisions. Is it little wonder that the City has little faith in the club or its future.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Sheps and Hall at the end of the day ARE the main share holders, what they say goes, and I honestly believe that they are telling the truth when they say Sir Bobby is to be given funds. For Christ sakes, in the past they have shown more ambition than the other 92 league chairmen almost put together, and I can see no reason why they wont continue to do so.

What pisses me off more than anything about the will they or wont they give out the readies question, is the negative slant that some mediums (eg. Talk Of The Tyne)give out. Why do they do this?

Is it to affect our season ticket sales or something? Is it to get rid of the most ambitious(they have shown raw ambition be it but! But they will shape with experience) club board the club has ever had to get in someone like Fender the plc chairman?

I honestly think we should all get behind Sheps and Hall and let them drive the Second biggest club onto becoming the biggest.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Source

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Aaah, word association again. Spring

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Wheres the link to word association??

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

The message directly above mine reads simply "Source". I don't know why else it's there.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

I put it there for a reason, I hope some of the regulars twig?

If your a regular e-mail me, and I'll tell you the score if you're confused. It's nowt important or nowt. So lets just get on with talking aboot WOR DOUG, and Freddies OBVIOUS AMBITIONS.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

T Dan ,one thing that I notice from these reports is that SKY TV are pumping £1.6 billion over three seasons into the premier league . This should efecctively mean that Newcastle UNITED will recieve £85 MILLION (ALMOST £30 MILLION A YEAR) from sky. add to this the £5 - £10 million per season that is likely profit and Nwcastle will be spending bigh in the next few years. The only problem is, every other team in the PL, including th likes of BORO and Coventry will have a similar amount to spend. So although money will be spent it might not get us the players that we want as everyone else will be after them.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Yep I see what you mean the more external money comes into the premiership, the more the proportion of money streams get closer to equalling out. external money= Sky TV revenue. The proportions of turnover would eventually equal out if the pattern continued.

(e.g. Whats the difference in 20million in turnover if Sky were to give every Premier club 100million, like say the mackems have a 136million turnover and the toon has a 156mill turover. Compared to the proportion of 56million to 36 million etc)

Yep this money can have a bad effect too.

It's a bit of a twat when you think about it, because with out the external cash Newcastle and Liverpool etc. would be so cash flow powerful compared to other premiership clubs, like the likes of the smogs, mackems, coventry would just not be able to compete etc.

But I still think at this moment in time the natural part of our turnover e.g. Season ticket sales etc, IS STILL AN ADVANTAGE.

P.S. Freddy is still the man.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

T.Smith

I reckon those odds are probably pretty short, we'll wait and see what comes. ;0)

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

I think we arguing different points here T. Smith, and I'm certainly not questioning or doubting the ambition of Mr Hall and Mr Shepherd.

Floridian has probably expressed my main point better than I did - but you need to understand that the people who appointed Mr Fender were none other than Shepherd & Hall.

Fender has clearly expressed his view to the City and investors as to how he believes the Company should be financially managed in the immediate future; Shepherd is now publicly expressing the view presumably subscribed to by himself and Mr. Hall. Those two differing views appear to be incompatible, and I would suspect that Mr Fender won't be around much longer.

Everyone must form their own view as to which opinion is correct - but please believe me, this is no way to run a business, and whether we like it or not NUFC plc is a business.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Not to belabour the subject, but I must once more point out that once Messrs Hall and Shepherd decided to cash in by taking the club public, they surrendered the right to act arbitrarily, whatever the extent of the current shareholding. As to ambition, I am sure that even the prior dreadful management had ambition. Unfortunately an organization cannot run simply on ambition. The seed money provided by Hall, under KK's management grew into a mighty crop -- a bankrupt club with the inability to raise 6 million was transformed into one when Keegan left into a 150 million behometh with a team playing the best football in the land and on the vying for winning the Premier Division. Mr Shepherd had little part in that transformation -- the accolades go mostly to Keegan and to Hall's foresight. Since KK's departure the club has sunk into woeful mediocrity over which Mr Shepherd has presided. I cannot see any real prospect of improvement while he remains at the helm.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001

Yeah, I agree I put your debate off track Clarky! Sorry about that bud.

But I do agree with your reasoning with a certain Mr Fender. His time has got to be due. He must have heard Sheps, and Dougies announcements recently. So why did he give out cues, and promt journos to stick in the knife? What a wanker. What team is Mr Fender on?? In my opinion his outburst is 'almost' as bad as Mr G. Graham's outburst when he stated Spurs had no money next year, in essence encouraging a negative trade fashion amongst the spurs faithful.

All Mr Fender has ended up doing is to encourage the Journos to try split the club from the fans, by encouraging this strange, VERY questionable assassination of this clubs 'ambitious' hierachy.

Does anyone think the angle - 'lets try hard to make it fashionable for Newcastle fans to bite the hand that feeds them' - has run it's course?

If so, do you join me in questioning people who try to reinforce this paticular angle?