Keegan Awarded £2M Damages

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

He doesn't even deserve that the greedy @#$%&. He didn't give a toss how substantial damages would have affected the club.

2m against what he was asking for is quite a light award. i hope this is the end of it and neither side appeals.

and i hope kk doesnt get too upset having apparently knocked back 4m in an out of court settlement offered by the club.

can we get back to football? (not for long, knowing this club...)

Least it is a lot less than he wanted.

a quick scan down that link shows he wanted 8m+ to pay up his contract, then 16m+ in damages to his credibility as he says he wouldnt be able to get another job following his experience at the hands of nufc.
i'm getting angry just thinking about that, can hardly say how wrong that would be, and he loves the club...

asking for his contract paid in full, can understand if he felt he was in the right. use that as a start point, negotiate downwards. but to ask for three times his contract to be paid out, on such pathetic grounds...what a piece of work

yeah but the whole thing is a farce he left Newcastle because he didn't want nacho ffs

this players agent had good contacts in south America so we would have got some other gems from that region in due time

what was the big deal anyway... even if he was just to be a squad player what harm could that have done

and judging the way it went last season we were crippled with injuries and ironically nacho too lol

Keegan is stupid in my opinion and broke a lot of Geordie hearts and left the club in turmoil.

He should have stayed until the end of the season until we were safe atleast.


He's The Next Ronaldo (Sir Bob R.I.P)

Keegan - Hero to Zero.

2m instead of the 4m they offered him, serves him right for being greedy

This will get the media of our backs again, spredding@#$%&saying we could go into administration etc ... why is it all the media really hate us ?

Listen, I don't appreciate his asking for a number that would have crippled the club. That's awful, and he's gone down a notch in my estimation.

But to claim that the damage to his reputation is not significant is not fair, either. Newcastle supporters on this board who were over the moon at his appointment immediately saw him as the man who walks away from everything after he left. The opinion of the wider football world was even less forgiving. Now we know that he was having players forced on him, something no self-respecting manager would accept. And all as a shady wink-and-nod to some South American agents (I'm guessing they're the sort of classy characters that helped bring Mascherano and Tevez to England).

Can't believe the people on here taking the position that he deserved nothing. You're all siding with Ashley.

Quote:

tunyc
Can't believe the people on here taking the position that he deserved nothing. You're all siding with Ashley.

totally with you on that 1

It is all Ashley's fault, he brought in KK and knowing KK he wants money to buy players and do it his way, rightly so. Instead Ashley tries to be a cocky wide c@nt and think he can change the rules on somebody who won't put up with it.
In the football world KK deserved comp, ok we are gutted as the club is skint, but he was right to get it.

Ashley is a pr@ck who has destroyed the club

I'm not saying Keegan didnt deserve something because he did BUT what he was demanding was ridiculous.

The Bloke is a serial quitter (he should advertise Nicotine) so quite how he can say his reputation was "damaged" is beyond me

Perhaps now the club can move on and I hope Chris Hughton can expect some cash to spend in January

At last....we might just be able to concentrate on the footie now!

Quote:

gnd27
At last....we might just be able to concentrate on the footie now!

Fully agree, we can now look forward to the next game and hopefully get 3 points. Typical jounalists that want to write stuff that makes us look bad, now it is over, we can get a good win, play well and put this behind us

He deserved something but he was demanding an unreasonable figure which would have crippled the club. I'm glad its over with.

i missed all the fun today. bah.

does anyone really see the position of being disappointed with keegan as simply the same as backing ashley?

i dont back keegan in this, but i dont back ashley or wise or any of the clowns who have passed through in the last two years. is that so hard, or does it just suit an argument to see anyone criticising keegan as an ashley man?

kevin keegan put out teams that made me feel differently about the club, in a way that no other manager did. it felt special, exciting, exclusive, it was alchemy, magic, he made something out of nothing and made us all feel a part of it. the possibilities were suddenly endless, we were all giddy and dizzy and drawn in like moths to a beautiful flame. i say this a as one who went to games in each of the five or six seasons before he arrived, when the gallows humour of the gallowgate starved all who came of any ambition for the club, we were limping and listing and for anyone who thinks we are in trouble just now we came much closer to the final whistle than we have lately. much closer. i will always have those memories, they keep us all warm when skies are grey, greyer, black. but they are memories, and the old saying about meeting your heroes is useful here, as today we learnt more about OUR kevin, the man who should have had a statue outside of st james a long time ago. we learned that this whole thing was about his petulant stance over a pragmatic move by the struggling owners of a struggling club. that he threw in the towel over nacho is hard to take. that he then built a case looking to pay him a wage until the age 65 is harder. that he then played yet again that tired old tune of love for the region, city, club, fans is a polish on a turd.
they wanted to bring a guy in for reasons that would benefit the club long term, is that the worst thing he could accuse them of? this guys agents may have had a lot more up their sleeves given a chance, but that chance was taken away by him @#$%& off the day after the window closed throwing the club into a tailspin that we havent yet recovered from.
obvioulsly it all comes back to the way the club has been run since june 07, and just as obvious, to me at least, is that ashleys plans were binned somewhere around lunchtime on day one when a bank rang and asked when he would be sending them their 100m. since that point, we have been fighting fires, limiting damage, comprimising ambition as befits a club flirting with finacial ruin. one guy who would have known more about this all along than we know yet is keegan, yet he rocks up asking for 25m.

compare alan curbishley, who left west ham, another club facing finacial problems, for the same reasons at the same time. he didnt sue, when players he wanted to use were flogged without his knowledge. i have read the document linked at the top of this page, he would also have benefitted had he claimed constructive dismissal. forget keegans point of principal, curbishley acknowleged that a daft game had made him rich and walked away without crying to the courts.

rambling now, good time to stop typing...

Long post but bang on LMK. Its not a case of backing Ashley over Keegan. He would have been paid at least a million when he signed on again and until he quit then gets two mill damages he didnt deserve.

If its true that he asked for 25 mill then he is a little Bas%ard and I have lost all love that I had for him. Boo Whoo, I dont have a stupid amount of wedge to spend and dont get my own way. He walked and deserved nothing but still got a kings ransom. The funny thing is that I dont think the money he got will dig him out of the whole that the "SOCCER CIRCUS" got him into.

Asking for 25 mill when 50 odd people lost there jobs at St James when we got relegated amazes me. No dignity, no class. F*%K OFF.

Great read LMK. Spot on about how Keegan made the fans feel. This whole saga has been one big mess since the start and I'm just glad its over!

Bring on kick off!!

The claim was by Kevin Keegan against his employer, ultimately Mike Ashley.

I don't like the implications for the club of a 25M-pound claim but then again, perhaps it's just a negotiating tactic as it were? In any case, when one suggests that Keegan was totally in the wrong and deserved nothing, as has been claimed here, one does indeed endorse the position of Mike Ashley-or any other owner who similarly constructively dismisses a manager.

That he "threw the towel in over Nacho" is a sign that the man had principles that he was willing to stand for-all too rare in today's game. I suppose he doesn't belong, and to me that's a shame. Also proves that his saying he wasn't really interested in getting back into football because of the bullshit that comes with running a team today wasn't a lie. Kinda makes it hard to believe that he was brought here, and induced to sign a contract, while knowing that those above him would be making such "pragmatic moves" as forcing unknown players on a manager who has achieved more than almost anyone currently managing in England. What have Wenger and Ferguson said about the situation KK was in? That they'd walk. Guess they're bottlers, too.

However it stirs the emotions, the juxtaposition of KK's claim and the hard times that have fallen upon many is irrelevant. He's not taking this money from common people who are out of work. He's taking it from Mike Ashley. The only reason this club is hurt is because of Ashley's involvement with it, period.

Well said

can anyone tell me how to put into type the noise one makes when one bites down on ones fist and utters a half scream of desperate frustration?

i'll edit later and put it here.

i would love to get right into this, but today i havent had a second to myself, and am only logged on whilst zapping a tikka masala before heading out to meet the mrs at a wedding. gah!

if i log on later the spelling will be even worse than last nights semi-sober 1am rambling, so this may have to wait even longer.

suffice to say i am not backing mike ashley, the only way i'd do that is to back him off a cliff.

toodles

He tried to cripple my club to the tune of £25m, for that i will never forgive him. He still made his point and got £2m so why try to take us all for £25m. To Keegan we are all just pound signs. Thanks for the memories Kev, now please leave us alonw and never come back.

i can accept a lot of what you say tunyc, without agreeing mind, but i just cant see what principle was being fought for by keegan leaving like that. it was ego, nothing more worthy.

yeah, the 25m figure was tactical, but the tactic was designed to take the absolute maximum from the club, which is why he is getting criticized. like a few said at the time, he had the choice of leaving at the worst time for nufc, or softening the blow to the club and the fans by working through to the next window, or 40 points, or the summer. he hit us where it hurt, and the fact he was held in such high esteem previously was behind the strength of feeling when he dropped us in it.

ashley has made lots of mistakes, lots and lots, but it would be hard to understand the owner making moves to deliberatley harm the club. he would be throwing (more)money away. keegan walked, the day after transfer window, and set about hitting them for cash and as much as possible. i cant stand footballers kissing the badge when they score, cos you know they are holding out for millions in wages and threatening to leave. keegans statement on friday felt just like that, but after the player had signed for another club!

long term, i'll try and just remember the good stuff, for now though, i'm with rodders

I agree with rodders and lmk on this. Keegan knew how hard this would hit our club if he got the 25m as wanted. For someone who apparently loved and understood the club so much why would they make such a large claim when a smaller offer had already been offered to him and he could of got his point accross. In my opinion Keegan knew if he got awarded 25m it would have ruined the club, was he thinking of all the supporters who have praised him over the years ? No he wasnt he was thinking of his own pockets.

I am sorry to have to say this, but i am amazed and gutted at the majority on here slating KK. For one thing, the "£25m" was never a realistic sum, it was there because this was a legal battle and the only credible sum to ask for in court. I would also hasten to add that this was clearly not about money in my opinion, if it was, KK could have shut up, sat back for his contract, and watched the cheques come in.

He was not trying to cripple the club, he was seeking vindication against that fat useless tw@t and his cockney henchman who have disgraced our club. I say bravo for being THE ONLY person to have done anything constructive in protest to our current outlaw owner and his cronies. How anyone can read the arbitration findings and listen to Rat-face Wise on TV, and still slam KK, is simply beyond me. When England went to war against Germany in WW2, it wasnt because we wanted to cripple the German people, it was because those in charge were wrong, and something needed doing. A bit over the top for an analogy I know, but its the same principle.

I am with eggs and tunc on this one.

If i was the manager and seen in the same way with the fans as kk and that happend to me and my control over the team was being taken from me i woulda done the same would you not? newcastle fan or not it should make no difference to how kk is viewed by our fans (even tho it will) for getting his court settlement as we all know he was found to be correct and the club have addmitted lying to the fans/public as a pr exercise why on earth would any put up with that@#$%¬ me thats for sure and any of you lot who say different are just telling porkies.

Put yourself in the blokes shoes for ffs how on earth can you take his actions as wrong?

he acted for himself, dont anyone kid themselves he had our interests at heart.

if he had wanted to limit the damage to the club, but make his point, he would have told them on september first that he would not be manager during the next transfer window if nothing changed in the meantime. and stuck to his word. but no, he acted in temper, with pride and was motivated by no such nonsense as exposing anyone! its a big bad world, and football is full of sharper operators than mike ashley, kk knows this and would have happily worked for them - on his terms.

lots of damage has ben done to nufc over the last few years by more than one person. we all have different ideas over when it started and whose motivations have been purer than whose. i dont put all the blame at kk's door, far from it, but he cant be let off with none as that is a completely blinkered view.

if it was sam allardyce, what would people think? harry redknapp?

Of course he acted in his best interests as i tried to point out in my other post and any self respecting person would of done the same i suppose the only thing you can blame kk for is not seeing through the boards shady lies and under hand tactics and taking the job on impulse which he admitted just about said as much in his first press conference

souness has more than once remarked that his hand was forced at st james. most famously, he tried to persuade the board to buy anelka and boa morte for a combined 11m, having scouted and agreed deals with the selling clubs. freddy shepherd refused to do either deal, but then went out and signed two players souness hadnt been interested in, owen and luque, for three times as much.
is this letting the manager manage? who got sacked when these players didnt work out?

did anyone sue anyone?

Do we know if he had total control written into his contract over transfers ? i aint so sure and i do remember souness calling the owen signing his greatest transfer scoop ever!

what have contracts got to do with owt, senyab?
you mentioned the report into the kk case, which outlines the managers job, including the right to identify players to buy and sell. what is the difference? why are you now talking about souness's contract? is anyone wondering about fergie or wenger, who apparently 'wouldnt stand for that', what does their contract say? i dont buy it. souness put up with it because he was being paid a fortune (and made positive noises about owen when he was in the job, of course, should he alienate him by talking about anelka??!?!), and when he was sacked due in part to the lack of impact made by owen or luque, he took it, and his pay off, on the chin. keegan thought he could call the shots, and thought the club would back down. it may be yet another mistake by ashley NOT to back down, but it was also a wrong move by keegan to push things so far.

Keegan should have full control of which players he brings into the senior squad, what happens if the board brings in players who are sh@t but looking to pull off the amazing deal years down the line. The player brought in could be a trouble maker and disturb the starting 11. First team players get f@ck#d off, this effects the first team and we go on a losing streak. The manager gets sacked and looks like a c@nt.
Managers should have full control of players or coach's brought in or kept. KK was right to walk and stick 2 fingers up at Ashley or he becomes a yes man who Ashley and co can bully. KK was never going to get the 25m, he did it to scare Ashley. He would have known the pay out was going to be around 2 or 3 million, and he has proved that Ashley is a lying tw@t.

do you remember when sir bobby tried to buy boumsong, late in the summer, just before he was sacked?
did you find it coincidental that the club still wanted boumsong three months later, even though they had a new manager?

take ya flamin blinkers off, it happens, the club wanted that player, just like lots of clubs chose players. is sir bobby a coward? yes man? undignified? unprincipled?

i think this one has gone just as far as we can go, if you just dont want to believe anything bad about the fella, good on you. it shows character, but naivety also. i liked him too, still do, but the guy is human with human failings. these showed through in this incident/series of incidents which lost him his job. i'm not after stoning him, but the statue outside st james is off.

other dirty dealings and shenanigans will surface from time to time at other clubs, and ours again no doubt at all. just because these are the ones that come to light, when they do i wont kid myself that they are exceptions. its a mirky world, headed for the gutter, and every one of the managers, owners, agents and players knows it. some of the fans havent cottoned on yet. an innocent in the mould some imagine keegan to be wouldnt last five minutes.

I am personally happy for Kevin Keegan. He was completely mistreated by the board. They lied to him and bought and sold players behind his back- there is no way a manager can carry on with those kind of shenanigans. I think we all agree on that.
What this court ruling proves is that Kevin Keegan walked away for the right reasons. Keegan, in the face of masses and masses of criticism from us Geordies, did not stick the knife in to the press and tell everyone what was really going on. He kept his silence for a whole year and acted like the absolute man of integrity he is. It upsets me to see people having a dig at him for taking this to court- it was a moral case, not a financial one. If he was bothered about the money he would have hung around for the sack.

Quote:

lostmekeys
what have contracts got to do with owt, senyab?
you mentioned the report into the kk case, which outlines the managers job, including the right to identify players to buy and sell. what is the difference? why are you now talking about souness's contract?.

All i was saying is that maybe he did not have the same rights in his contract as kk and therefore could not issues ultimatums as kk did

Quote:

lostmekeys
lots of damage has ben done to nufc over the last few years by more than one person. we all have different ideas over when it started and whose motivations have been purer than whose.

You're suggesting that the blame should be spread broadly. I wholeheartedly disagree. It's like the army-when something goes horribly wrong, it's necessarily the responsiblity of the highest ranking officer involved.

Everything that has gone wrong at this club over the last couple of seasons can be traced directly to one Mr. Mike Ashley.

As far other managers go, I actually do think Curbishley was shafted at WHam-no hypothetical examples needed.

And as for the Souness thing, you're in danger of sinking this debate into the bog of relativism. Because one NUFC manager was screwed around once upon a time does not make it right for it to happen again, nor does it make it immoral/unethical for a later manager to hit back.

I also don't appreciate you're calling out people for their sentimentality when it comes to Keegan, but then you use people's sentimental unwillingness to criticize Robson as a hammer on your opponents. The Boumsong situation was completely different from this one-as much as he sucked at the Toon, Boumsong came in with a European top-flight track record. It's believable that the club actually wanted him and if there's a disagreement between the manager and the front office, what can you do? Nacho came in with five appearances on loan with Monaco. Nobody at the club wanted Nacho for his footballing abilities. That's fact. An absurd situation.

But your position is solid rhetoric, I'll admit. Demosthenes would be proud.

Finally, I find your simultaneous indignation at KK's claim and acceptance that "shenanigans" go on at football clubs completely dissonant.

FAO: TTID-or, you could bring in a bunch of dreck looking to grease the palms of agents and get your club relegated. Oh, wait...

tunyc, welcome back to the thread!

i'm suggesting no-one comes out of it well, and i'm suggesting that keegan chose a different response to a common situation to that chosen by many managers before him. i'm further suggesting that he did it for no noble reason, in reply to those who say he was doing it for the greater good, or his own high principles.
in the times yesterday, caulkin wrote about other managers at newcastle accepting this situation. he came down in favour of keegan, i disagreed. its a good read all the same, from a good writer.

there was no crime against keegan, no problem that couldnt have been overcome, if the greater good was his aim.

[quote lostmekeys] do you remember when sir bobby tried to buy boumsong, late in the summer, just before he was sacked?
did you find it coincidental that the club still wanted boumsong three months later, even though they had a new manager?

take ya flamin blinkers off, it happens, the club wanted that player, just like lots of clubs chose players. is sir bobby a coward? yes man? undignified? unprincipled?

i think this one has gone just as far as we can go, if you just dont want to believe anything bad about the fella, good on you. it shows character, but naivety also. i liked him too, still do, but the guy is human with human failings. these showed through in this incident/series of incidents which lost him his job. i'm not after stoning him, but the statue outside st james is off.[quote]

I don't have the blinkers on Kev, but with kev you know what you are going to get. It is his way or no way. Give him cash and he will build you an exciting team that plays football that the fans want. Would Man U or Arsenal buy players when Ferguson or Wenger didn't want them and stated it, would they f@ck. Just because the toon have done this before doesn't mean it is right, so I won't sl@g the guy off.

LMK not even going to answer the Sir Bob part as we all know the answer

but sir bob worked within such a system, winning and losing internal battles. keegan built his case around just one battle, and its one i think he could have lived with. thats just me, i think compromise is important in working relationships ttid, particularly when the stakes are so high.

its a shame it went so wrong, particularly when it was such a small straw which broke this camels back. i can see it, a relatively small argument growing out of control with pride and ego an both sides. who lost most? ashley? kk? wise?

or us?

Agree we lost most and I am the one who is happy to sl@g anybody off, but not Kev on this one. Had Kev put up with this one then what happens next time he keeps quiet and it goes on then he becomes a yes man. He knew things wouldn't change under Ashley or Wise so thought f@ck it.

We can't do it but Kev could so he did. To me good on him. Even though I am f@ck#ng gutted on where we are

TTID - no-one said keep quiet!
make a case to the owner, every right move kk made would have strengthened his hand, fight for the right to do it your own way, but fight on the terms of the big boss. he should have backed himself to justify his 3m+ wages by making the most of what he had on the pitch. i dont think for a minute that he was completely excluded from player buying talks, but he lost a few arguments when looking at players that summer. he couldnt handle that, and rather than build a case for a freer hand in future, he quit. that is his right, but i wont applaud it. an alternative path for him would have been to outline his plans ahead of the next window, describe his squads weak points and what he would do to fix them. if it was clear that he wasnt getting anywhere, leave at the start of the next window.
i dont think he expected to be allowed to leave, his bluff was called and it cost us all. this is why there was no strategy to his exit, as he didnt expect it to be his exit

i am gonna give up on this one !!! lmk ttid tunyc senyab are heads and brick walls come to mind i value everyone's opinions and this thread has made some interesting reading but don't see anyone changing their minds on this one

I agree with that lmk. As far as I'm concerned Keegan quit at the first hurdle. If everyone did that in life nothing would ever get sorted.

In the hospital I work in you often have to speak up to get the best for your patient. You stand up and be counted not quit the job.

I'm sure others on the site have had things go against them at work, did you all quit cos' it's the principle that counts. I don't think so.

Got to agree with LMK on this one. It was a good point about Ashley calling his bluff. Remember its not the first time he did this. People on here might not remember this but he walked out on the town after only a few days/weeks when he was brought back by Sir John Hall. If I remember right he spat his dummy out about the either lack of funds or players he wasnt allowed to sign. Funny that.

I wouldnt trade the model that took Newcastle back up all those years ago but I think its been proved that spending well beyond your means can create a monster. Whether it was paper talk last summer but Keegan was trying to look at players like Henry and the like. PLayers who would have still cost a fortune in fee and wages.

Well said senya, End of.

fair play senyab/annie. it does come down to personal opinions, not just of keegan/wise/ashley each as a person but also how we each think we would react in their shoes. i guess we wont ever know that bit though.

Quote:

lostmekeys
i dont think for a minute that he was completely excluded from player buying talks

*sighs*

We'll just have to agree to disagree. What I get from that ruling is that in at least one case, KK was completely excluded. I would not believe that any manager had a say in the signing of a player who wasn't wanted by anyone for his abilities. If,in this case, KK did have such a say, the player was signed and then he makes a stink about it...well, I'd say it's time for the white jacket and padded cell for the man.

Either that, or he's a very, very cynical manipulator. I suppose that's possible, though it's much easier for me to believe that of Ashley & Co.

But thanks for the shout, glad to be back!

cant help it, sorry everyone. i'm a bad man for spoiling.

but.

tunyc- as to your last post..

in principle, do you understand the stated aims of the gonzalez deal as being a potential benefit, or hindrance, to the first team squad at nufc?

i mean the intention, through signing this guy on loan, to strike a relationship with these agents who could have then helped us to bring young talent to the shop window of the premier league via newcastle united.

Quote:

Biffins Bridge
It was a good point about Ashley calling his bluff. Remember its not the first time he did this. People on here might not remember this but he walked out on the town after only a few days/weeks when he was brought back by Sir John Hall. If I remember right he spat his dummy out about the either lack of funds or players he wasnt allowed to sign. Funny that.

The signing was about bringing in Killer, and he was right, how could he take the club forward when they were going to be tight b@st#rds, Sir John clicked, trust in Kev give him cash, don't p@ss him off, let him make the decisions and he will deliver good football and make us a good team. Ashley should have done the same

What way is that to go on if you dont get your own way you throw your toys out of the pram. It might have worked the first time but who was to say it would have the second.

I ignore children who go on like that, talking is the adult way.

It's a benefit, sure.

I really don't know-is this sort of arrangement common? Do other clubs of significant standing do this?

Quote:

Biffins Bridge
What way is that to go on if you dont get your own way you throw your toys out of the pram. It might have worked the first time but who was to say it would have the second.
I ignore children who go on like that, talking is the adult way.

KK works on emotions and that is why the players loved to play for him, concede 3 score 4 like how it used to be when you were younger. More managers should have his view, so many have a stick up there @sr# and are to straight laced

Quote:

tunyc
It's a benefit, sure.
I really don't know-is this sort of arrangement common? Do other clubs of significant standing do this?

agents are the most powerful people in the game, it does go on, and when done by a more discreet, professional set-up than ours is beneficial to both agent and club. for our manager to suggest this is an undermining, when the deal was never about the player, is a bending of the truth. its not like he was told to make a space in the team for the winner of a penalty kick competition in the car park

I think the difference is degree, lmk.

Consider the situation with Bent at spuds. He may have been wanted by the board and not the manager, but no manager could make the claim that he was brought in despite the fact that everyone at the club agreed he'd never make the first team.

I don't think KK is an idiot about the realities of managing a club; he had been around the block a few times before this went off. His claim that this particular situation is beyond the pale seems reasonable to me.

but tunyc, you agreed the nacho deal was intended to benefit the first team, why is that so different to the bent deal? and if its a principal we're discussing, why does it matter which player was brought in, if the problem is having any player bought against the managers wishes? look again at siuness, he didnt want owen or luque, same principle, surely?

in fact, linking souness to owen and luque for 30m, and (remind me, which spurs boss 'bought' bent?) to bent for 16m, meant those managers were judged against the success or otherwise of some very expensive players, this lead to both managers being out of a job, to some extent, when the players didnt have the impact the managers would have needed from such high profile players.

Oh, come on lmk. Acquiring Nacho may or may not someday benefit the first team by helping to get in some hypothetical south american players (not exactly known for immense success in England, or for ease of acquisition). Adding Bent, a former PL-leading scoring certainly strengthens the first team, regardless of any disagreement within the squad about specifically how good he is.

You're refusing to admit that it makes a difference between the two scenarios that Bent is good enough for the league whereas Nacho was not, period.

nacho wasnt meant to be used in the first team though, so whats the big problem? i say the principal was whether the manager picked the transfer targets. also, jol (i think it was him?) wouldnt have had the luxury of sending spurs record signing to train with the reserves, would he?

i dont think this one deal significantly undermined the manager in itself, i still think there was a personal problem between some big egos which couldnt be solved, and i also think that that is a shame for our club, rather than for the proud little men involved. i have a bit of a problem with the idea that keegan comes out completely clean in some peoples eyes, but thats just me.

Quote:

lostmekeys
but tunyc, you agreed the nacho deal was intended to benefit the first team, why is that so different to the bent deal? and if its a principal we're discussing, why does it matter which player was brought in, if the problem is having any player bought against the managers wishes? look again at siuness, he didnt want owen or luque, same principle, surely?

There are differences Nacho is sh@t, and Bent can score goals and has done it before in the premiership, however both deals are wrong as the gaffer needs to decide who comes into the club. even though Souness was a sh@t manager they were wrong to bring in Owen and Luque.

How can you fully judge managers when other people bring in players, waste there trasfer budgets, bring in players that the manager may not want and may not even be able to play the system that they want to play

yes, all well and good, but you are starting to see that it is NORMAL for this to happen.
our manager went to war using the 'shock horror' idea of interference into his transfer plans by the club as his excuse. i say it was just a little bit phoney, and that in fact he wanted to frighten the club into letting him do his own thing, and it backfired so he had to see it through.

Things don't change unless you stand up to the man, it may happen but it is not right,it doesn't happen at Man U or Arsenal so why should it happen here, the great clubs take time to build up, stick and back the managers and let them bring in the players that they want

Don't understand what Keegan did wrong. Which was it:

a.) that he expected to control transfers

or

b.) that he stood up for his rights after being constructively dismissed

Just can't get my mind around that. We know what Ashley, Wise, Llambias did to get their reputations for being @#$%& around here. But what, again, was it that KK did that puts him into that same category? It seems to me the only argument you have is that you, and other managers, would have put up with the@#$%&that he would not. And for that he's equal with Ashley when it comes to culpability?

no
no
no

i havent made ashley equal with keegan, i have simply refused to let him (keegan) off scot-free. oh, and i cancelled his statue, officially.

he built a case around 'interference', though the deal he made most reference to was nothing to do with that seasons first team pool, and you said it yourself - it could have been a benefit (possibly) to us.

repeating myself again, but i think he was bluffing the owner to get wise to back off. he didnt expect this to happen.


so i'm saying 'C'

I don't know. Seems to be a bit revisionist. I'll try to find the notices from the time, but I don't recall Nacho being touted as "some kid who we got on loan to play with the ressies and who won't figure in the first team at all."

no, that all came out from both sides in the tribunal.

does that matter? my opinion is based on current facts, and will change when/if facts which currently arent known come to light. i certainly feel harder towards kk since the findings of the tribunal came out, and even more so since reading his statement.

dont colour me as an anti-keegan though tunyc, i have been careful to point out that part of my disappointment comes from the high esteem i have held him in since being very young. if it was anyone else it would have been easier to take, if you get what i mean. 'human failings' as i called it further up the page. who doesnt have those?

I'm not coloring you as anti-Keegan. What I am trying to do is understand why your final position is that KK shares in the blame for this when the tribunal found that, in fact, Keegan had been constructively dismissed. That's a fact.

Quote:

tunyc
I'm not coloring you as anti-Keegan. What I am trying to do is understand why your final position is that KK shares in the blame for this when the tribunal found that, in fact, Keegan had been constructively dismissed. That's a fact.

frustrating that you would have me start again after two weeks of posts tunyc.
i dont think there should have been a tribunal.
i think the situation could have been diffused or put on ice, given the timing - end of window/start of season.
i dont like hearing kk tell us how hard it has been for him, as a guy who loves our club, to do what he has done over the last 14 months.
i dont like knowing that he went in for 25m, to maximise the payout when a supposed principle was at the heart of the matter.
i dont like reading in the tribunals findings that this was mainly about the clubs behaviour regarding a player who wasnt meant to be in the first team squad, for all intents and purposes relating to keegans claim.
i dont like the feeling of being let down by one who used to be 'one of us', even when he was at other clubs, he was ours really. not any more, for me at least.

it's normally you who complains about us going round in circles tunyc, no?!

Quote:

lostmekeys
i dont like reading in the tribunals findings that this was mainly about the clubs behaviour regarding a player who wasnt meant to be in the first team squad, for all intents and purposes relating to keegans claim.

Well, you know Nacho is the greatest player in the world. Uruguay lost to Argentina last night because they didn't have Nacho in the squad. If Nacho was there, it would have been a 6-0 thrashing.

Quote:

lostmekeys
yes, all well and good, but you are starting to see that it is NORMAL for this to happen.
our manager went to war using the 'shock horror' idea of interference into his transfer plans by the club as his excuse. i say it was just a little bit phoney, and that in fact he wanted to frighten the club into letting him do his own thing, and it backfired so he had to see it through.

"Will I have the final decision on team selection and transfer targets? Yes, it will be down to me," said the Scot.

"That is the normal remit of a manager and we will be working that way."

quote mcleish on the new brum board

seems a funny thing for him to say senyab. especially when we all now know it isnt normal, except for pr purposes.

and why say it at all if its so self-evident?

(who bought shevchenko for the special one by the way?)

Yes but its well know that chelski had a director of football who basically went and fetched in whoever big abramovich wanted not the manager its aways been that way there since he got that club that's why they have European managers/ coaches who have worked most of there careers this way

So, lmk, basically what you're saying is that as long as the tribunal's findings were something you disagree with, you were never going to accept them, right?

I'll let it go at this point, but I have to say that I don't understand your position at all.

wrong, tunyc! i havent said or suggested that. i have said time and again that this should have not gone as far as a tribunal, if we are to take at face value keegans 'feelings' towards the club.

Understood.

OMG



HOWAY THE LADS !

HOME---------AWAY
G W D L F A P---G W D L F A P
4 1 1 2 2-2 4---2 2 0 0 3-0 6

Whats your view on it then pal.

[news.bbc.co.uk]

West Ham lost thier case as well

Quote:

Biffins Bridge
Whats your view on it then pal.

that KK was right to quit and nicely got the truth out in the open by demanding £25m (which he knew MA wouldnt pay)



HOWAY THE LADS !

HOME---------AWAY
G W D L F A P---G W D L F A P
4 1 1 2 2-2 4---2 2 0 0 3-0 6

Quote:

TOONTILLIDIE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8340584.stm
West Ham lost thier case as well

just saw that - never heard there was even a case aainst them until last night. how come we were in the paper daily regarding the case against our club, but not them?

anyway, slightly embarassing given what i said about him above. ho hum.

Quote:

lostmekeys

Quote:

TOONTILLIDIE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8340584.stm
West Ham lost thier case as well

just saw that - never heard there was even a case aainst them until last night. how come we were in the paper daily regarding the case against our club, but not them?

anyway, slightly embarassing given what i said about him above. ho hum.

Difference being the papers love to sl@g off Newcastle, and West Ham just kept quiet. Where we love to let more slip to newspapers everyday

Quote:

MagFinnPie © ™

Quote:

Biffins Bridge
Whats your view on it then pal.

that KK was right to quit and nicely got the truth out in the open by demanding £25m (which he knew MA wouldnt pay)

Ahh, and there was me thinking he demanded 25mill to get as much wedge as he could. Silly me.

I suppose thats why he knocked back 4 mill "HUSH" money to then only be awarded 2 mill. It was the truth that counted most.

BO$£%*KS

exactly.



HOWAY THE LADS !

HOME---------AWAY
G W D L F A P---G W D L F A P
4 1 1 2 2-2 4---2 2 0 0 3-0 6

Actually, that makes perfect sense, lmk...