Newcastle-Online.com reader and forum member ‘Ezekiel 25:17′ writes in to the site to readdress the balance of criticism that Freddy Shepherd has been the recent target of, on these very pages and the forum. Citing that forces within should also be culpable to criticism…

It’s not hard to forget that for so many years, up until about fifteen years ago, we had all been exposed to seasons of woeful football, underachievement and general incompetence from chairmen and directors whose running of Newcastle United Football Club seemed reminiscent of the way they might manage their own private trust funds.

I remember, in particular, wondering exactly what had become of the £2 million (then a sizeable fee) we were paid by Liverpool for Peter Beardsley, and why we always seemed to have to let our best players go to clubs like Tottenham Hotspur, in the cases of Chris Waddle and Paul Gascoigne, for example, a club which, at the time appeared, and undoubtedly was, infinitely more ambitious.

Since the revolution in our fortunes, brought about by Sir John Hall’s investment, drive and business acumen alied with the talents of Kevin Keegan, we have enjoyed not only top flight status, but have pushed to be considered among the elite and, while the fact that Sir John has recouped a lot of money (more than he ever invested) through the flotation of the club may have left some with a bitter taste in the mouth, I do believe that without him we would now be closer to where we were in the mid-1980s than the mid-1990s.

And, in any case, can anyone really demand that such a risk be taken for no reward? Suddenly, under Kevin Keegan we would have been disappointed to finish outside the top three and were accustomed to beating the likes of Tottenham Hotspur by at least five goals (and on occasion six).

Under the tenures of Dalglish and Gullit, I would guess that many of us held our collective breath as we seemed to be sinking beneath the waves upon which we had been so comfortably riding.

I recall John Beresford’s ominous prediction that it would take at least five seasons for the club to recover from the damage inflicted by Dalglish’s mismanagement. Yet, our demise was arrested and we enjoyed three consecutive top five finishes under Bobby Robson and began to look as though we might be ready to challenge the leading clubs once again.

I was among those who thought that the club was ready for a change in 2004 and watched disappointedly as Liverpool dismissed Houllier as the season closed, while we chose to dismiss our manager four games into that which followed. And I was absolutely devastated at the appointment of Graeme Souness and considered Freddy Shepherd guilty of incredible incompetence and narcissistic egoism at the time, driven primarily by a fear that we might, once again, approach that brink we had so narrowly avoided in the late 1990s.

Now that Souness has departed, and in our optimism that disaster may have been diverted, it appears that many, quite understandably, warn that disaster may strike in the future so long as that constant, whenever disaster has loomed or an incompetent decision has been made, remains at the club, namely the chairman, Freddy Shepherd.

However, I wonder if such warnings, though not without merit, are just a little severe, for if it is just to demand that the chairman accept a substantial proportion of blame for years when we have underachieved, is it not equally unjust not to credit him for the years when we have enjoyed success?

We have not won a trophy, perhaps, but we have qualified for the Champions’ League and the semi-finals of both domestic and European competitions. I suspect that for many of us, not enduring relegation and seeing multi-million pound players arrive at the club rather than leave, is achievement enough when set in a larger context.

So, the new era of Newcastle United, where the club is expected to challenge with the very best, is still one to celebrate. The club facilities have improved dramatically, and whether this was the brainchild of the chairman or not, it has been completed under his charge. I do believe that it is fair for fans to berate the chairman for his mistakes and I have criticised him in the past for both the managerial appointments he has made and the timings at which these have taken place.

Though I can’t help wondering how we might have viewed him had Bobby Robson succeeded Kevin Keegan, I do believe that he has a job to get right in appointing appropriate managers and when they fail to deliver so does he. But, equally, when they do deliver, then so does he. Some may argue that any credit afforded the chairman in this area should, in fact, be limited.

They may argue that we have not spent as heavily, in net figures, in the past few years as Liverpool, for example, a club believed to have a similar turnover and similar ambitions to ours, and thus, feel that the claim that the chairman has ‘always backed his managers’ to be baseless. Well, here I would urge caution.

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Despite being European Champions Liverpool have not spent (net) as heavily in the last season as we have done and I would be reluctant to accuse them of lacking ambition or support for their manager.

Even so, critics of Shepherd would argue that one season alone is not sufficient to undermine their position and here I would make two points. Firstly, the fact that the club chairman may force his managers to balance the books, so to speak, is for me cause for celebration rather than concern. This is, it appears to me, the only way to run any business.

I admit that at times I have been concerned at the timings of transfer money being made available or otherwise, but simply put, I would suggest that in attempting to compete with the heavyweights who reap the rewards of Champions’ League football, the chairman will initially allow a struggling manager to spend money to rectify the problem, rather than resort to firing him. And, as all the ‘experts’ will have you know this is perhaps the best course to take as stability, they believe, is vital.

In any case, I do want a chairman who has control over the finances and who, perhaps, limits transfer funds when overspending has occurred. Secondly, Newcastle have debts that Liverpool do not, incurred to no little extent due to stadium expansion and improvements in facilities.

Arsenal, I would suggest have made few, if any, large purchases recently due to the financial burden of building their dubiously named Emirates Stadium. Further, as I understand, while Liverpool’s directors do not take money in the form of that most odious dividend, they have the luxury (for want of a better word) of not being required to do so by virtue of running a private company. Unfortunately, the directors of Newcastle United plc do not have that choice, and while they undoubtedly benefit, being the majority shareholders, other shareholders, among whom are institutional investors, expect, and have, an equal right to benefit from their holdings.

Admittedly, however, our directors do appear to declare rather large dividend payments and this is seen, by some, as the underlying cause for a shortfall in investment in playing staff. The dividend and directors remuneration, of course, is the heart of the whole thorny issue and here there is a point, I think, worth considering.

Freddy Shepherd is clearly visible - and I am not referring to his exaggerated girth, nor to his frequent, ill-advised ponifications to the media. He makes decisions and is vilified by the press and the fans that devour their invective. He takes the criticism. But if this is, on occasion, justifiable, it is not justifiable that he does so alone.

Freddy Shepherd was not alone in falling victim to the clandestine activities of the News of the World, but was accompanied by another major shareholder in Newcastle United plc, one Douglas Hall. Hall is legally entitled to all the dividends the company wishes to declare, of course. But, I can’t help but wonder how far these dividends assist him in supporting a financially struggling Cameron Hall, and whether they are of such inflated proportions for this very reason.

I merely speculate on this point of course, but I do wonder why it is always the name of Freddy Shepherd that appears to so readily loom large in critics’ thoughts and rarely that of Douglas Hall. Should our chairman attempt to block dividend payments? I’m not at all certain that he is able. Maybe there would be a case for him to do so, although the level of confidence among investors might suffer and should that filter through to the club’s creditors, I fear the consequences.

In any case, it is perhaps worth reflecting upon whether he may actually to be doing Newcastle United a favour by relieving Douglas Hall of his shares, as he has been recently. However, I personally find a much more disturbing issue to be that of Douglas Hall’s salary. And a large salary it is, too. Is there anyone out there who can enlighten me as to why this should be the case? What does he do, exactly?

The only time he appears to have taken an interest in executive affairs was to, allegedly, poke his head into Freddy Shepherd’s office and demand that Bobby Robson be fired, before scuttling back to Gibraltar. Alarmingly, it would appear that his tax planning accountant, Timothy Revill, is also a director of Newcastle United plc and chairs the remuneration committee that determined Douglas Hall’s £450,000 salary, while being paid handsomely for the privilege.

The arguments over the record of Freddy Shepherd will no doubt continue and I for one will be reticent to give him my unqualified support should the next manager equal only the achievements of his less than successful predecessors.

However, while debating the financial constraints placed upon the club, I fear that a major source of concern centres round the perplexingly seldom discussed contribution, or otherwise, of one Douglas Hall.

By ‘Ezekiel 25:17′