 |
Site Features |
|
Your Shout: Enemies Within
|
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'
 Write
In... Did you enjoy this article? Did you disagree/agree
with this article? Write in to Newcastle-Online.com and we will publish
your views.
Notes: We read all e-mails but cannot promise
that we will respond, however all e-mails sent in regarding NUFC related
issues, get published on our pages. |
|
|
Toon
Shirts |
|
Sponsors |
|
