Isegrim

Oh, looks like I got über-wooshed then.

I wouldn't mind if he really had "earned" his money due to good performances. Unfortunately looking at this report and keeping those photos of him at various parties in mind I can't help but getting the feeling that an unprofessional life style and poor performances as well as continuous injuries go hand in hand. Ledley King is a model pro, never touches a drop. Yes and there a were and are serial boozers who have had fantastic careers and performed well regularly. But those exceptions are not really the point, are they?

I wouldn't mind if he really had "earned" his money due to good performances. Unfortunately looking at this report and keeping those photos of him at various parties in mind I can't help but getting the feeling that an unprofessional life style and poor performances as well as continuous injuries go hand in hand.

Funny that Schalke have debts of about 130m Euros...

I believe thats how Chelsea worded their decision to appoint Carlo Ancelotti. It's probably from the book "Club managment for beginners, Chapter: Manager appraisal". Because it has been their standard line for every manager so far...

I can't see any reason for the sportsdirect.com naming thing other than to piss off the fans. The philantropist in me says the have to do it intentionally because I hope for their own sake that they are not that thick.

Which was renamed/rebranded to the HSH Nordbank Arena two years ago and will be the Imtech Arena from next year on because due to the current banking crisis the sponsor cancelled the deal. The result? The stadium is more than often referred to by its old name not only by the fans but also by the media, though latter quite often speak of the (non-existent) HSV-Arena...

More excuses. If all these terrible ideas were rather Llambiarse's than Ashley's then the latter is even more useless in making decisions - otherwise he would have sacked this clown long ago.

So he has let us get relegated, put us on the market with clearly no intention of selling and now in November having gone for the cheapest option as manager has decided to turn the corner. And you think the changing of the stadium name is a show of bottle and leadership? That is crazy Bobyule and I don't believe you are being serious. What I'm getting at is that ever since he's taken over, it's like he's been reacting to events rather than shaping them. We've been stumbling from one unsatisfactory situation to another without him really getting a grip. The Allardyce sacking, the Keegan appointment, the Keegan walk-out, the first decision to sell, the first decision not to sell, the Shearer appointment, the second decision to sell - it all feels like he's been controlled by outside events and forces. His one real attempt at imposing his own ideas - the Keegan appointment with Wise as DOF - was flawed from the start through being a half-way house between his own ideas and what he thought he should do to please others. He saw Keegan as a way of getting the fans onside whereas he should really have picked a manager who was going to be comfortable with the long-term strategy and management structure that he believed in. I hope that this latest set of decisions represents him facing up to the situation and showing a willingness to stick with his job through thick and thin, despite media pressure and public unpopularity. Time will tell on that. Poor old Mikey, he only made poor decisions decisions to be popular. If only he had stuck to his own remarkable ideas - like buying a club without doing due diligence - instead of listening to all those other poor advisers (who actually seem to have a clue). Ashley has brought everything on himself on his own. Every poor decision has ultimately been his own - whatever advice he was given. The idea of renaming the stadium is only the latest. His decision making is poor because he isn't thinking things through very well - like announcing one unpopular decision (keeping the club) with another one (offer the name of the stadium for sale). The amount of excuses and new dawns you find for this feckless regime is ridiculous.

So M4TT, how do you think a working relationship between Keegan and Ashley (and his Cronies) would have looked like considering the totally different and clashing understanding of the duties of a manager?

I think words morals/values/principles are easily interchangeable in this circumstance. And in essence I agree with what you are saying (they are now even proven facts), problem is how did taking what he saw as the high road help us the fans? Who he was supposedly looking out for, he claims? As I said I find his principles very strange, misplaced maybe even selective. Just totally oblivious to the bigger picture. The words aren't interchangeable in this context. Keegan's stance was about the principles of managment. Something he needed to work successful. In this context he was totally underminded by his employer - as you agree. So it was more about working ethics than general ethics. I can't see too much misplaced in this. It is easy to say, he should have backed down for the "greater good" or the fans on "moral" reasons like the love for the club. It's pretty obvious from the verdict that this wasn't a possibility any more. The situation in getting bossed around by numpties was unbearable by then. As romantic as it sounds of Keegan backing down for the love of the club for all to live on happy afterwards, I don't think this was on anymore and I find it pretty moronic to hold it against Keegan.

I can't really believe that is true for the latest set of events. Even if he truly still believes this then, as said many times, his morals/values are pretty misplaced which is not acceptable either. Ah, it's moral now. It was about principles and I can't see anything wrong in a manager having the principles to be allowed to the job in a way it is suited to him which was fundamental to him accepting the job. He's also holding the moral high ground in regards to refusing to sign players to do favours to dodgy agents though.

If the unpublished evidence was in any way, shape or form damaging to Keegan, what do you think the chances of Ashley et al releasing it to the press would be? A million, trillion per cent? Virtually nil, I'd say. What could he gain by carrying on the battle? Nil? Nil??? From the camp that described lies as "public relations exercises", were repeatedly leaking false accusations to discredit the opposition, published baffling announcements like the "fact" (in capital letters of course) one and who offered the club for sale with emails to be sent to the web administrator? A camp that got totally discredited by shown up as being totally clueless, something that might also affect Ashley's already dubious business reputation in general? That's ridiculous.

Some people are behaving like there is a queue of billionairs lining up to invest in Newcastle. The club is on the market for a year now and they have not shown up. Maybe they will show up in future. But the first step will be to make the club attractive again. Winning promotion isn't the only thing, but also removing the (media) tag of being uncontrolable. To gain this, I'd rather take an owner with little money but the right intentions but an disgruntled, incompetent fat tw*t who might have the money but is lacking positive intentions and brain cells.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ? It doesn't fit into his world view so it has to be ignored. Others have bad luck with Keegan it is lack of ability. Instead of judging the actual achievements under the circumstances and in this kind of style looking for the flaws is a bit simplistic and unfair if you ask me, espercially when persisting on those stupid myths of the 12 point lead and the poor defensive record. I am not sure or rather seriously doubt that any other manager would have been able to achieve the same with Newcastle in these years. A more pertinent question is why Ferguson and Hitzfeld have won so many major trophies and Keegan hasn't won any. I'd say that was more than luck. Hitzfeld needed a couple of years and an amount of funds that nearly bancrupted a club that is still suffering from this more than 10 years later... I am not saying that Keegan is a better manager than the likes of Ferguson, Hitzfeld or Wenger. But he did a damn good piece of work during his stint in the 90s that even without winning a trophy was a success in itself that wouldn't have been achieved by many others - if at all. Devaluing this is ignorance at best.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ? It doesn't fit into his world view so it has to be ignored. Others have bad luck with Keegan it is lack of ability. Instead of judging the actual achievements under the circumstances and in this kind of style looking for the flaws is a bit simplistic and unfair if you ask me, espercially when persisting on those stupid myths of the 12 point lead and the poor defensive record. I am not sure or rather seriously doubt that any other manager would have been able to achieve the same with Newcastle in these years.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time?

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff

Compared to the drivel you normally read (like in this abortion of a thread) it is rather Pulitzer material tbh.

Have you been on another planet for the past 12 months?! Perhaps the club should launch a counter claim. so it took 1846 posts to get back to square 1. So, why did Curbishley not sue West Ham then, eh? Eh?

Even worse, he even wants 3m!!! OMG!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/11/premierleague-portsmouth

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Alan-Curbishley-opts-for-tribunal-over-West-Ham-departure-article53590.html ?

Even if Mike Ashley puts the club into administration because of it, as has been suggested in the .com article and we lose 10 points because of it? If Mike Ashley is rather prepared to put the club into administration and lose 10 points than back it and protect his investment with the necessary amount of money then he is a really sad individual tbh.

Some people sit on very high horses. Blind following the club isn't any better than having apparently his head stuck up a Messiah's arse. Some people do as if the club can do no wrong and should get exculpated just for the greater good. If the arbitration panel finds that Keegan is entitled to the money then he had every reason to sue the club (represented by its owner). Because if the club is going to get found guility of constructive dismissal then he it gets found guilty in shockingly mistreating its most important employee. In that case of gross misconduct I think this person is even more entitled to his compensation than a manager who gets the boot for his (arguably) poor performances. And that has nothing to do with failing in the "love for the club". In the same way I think every fan who gets mistreated by the club has the right to seek legal actions and fight for his rights. Be it "Save our Seats" or - for example - because of an hypothetical accident and the club's liability for premises.

It's just a shame Keegan didn't have the benefit of your tactical genius and have us sit back and defend for over half an hour at Liverpool who scored more goals at home than anyone else that year. He could at least have pressed ALT+F4 tbh