madras

On what grounds ?. You'll have to defend that. Typical that now the case is over you revert to type and have to find yet another scapegoat.

sad isn't it ?

do you think he/they'll make it ? do they show enough just as footballers to make you think maybe the positional thing at that age doesn't mean so much but they have talent enough to make it ? cheers binnsy (and others) btw for keeping us in touch with the kids.

well lets see if we go back up what our turnover is comparitivly and how much we spend to achieve it.

Well it can't be any darker. Can it? you know NUFC "the light at the end of the tunnel.............is the light of an oncoming train" hopefully it would be a settling period. no mad spending we can't afford.

isn't that to have the same turnover. don't mistake high turnover with good finances. No I'm not talking about the state of either clubs overall finances. Rather the total amount of cash the club brings in. Everything else is dependent on good management rather then billionaires after all. Basically I was just saying that to match what we can spend, wether that's on wages, player transfers or whatever else, Short would need to subsidise them by £40m. thats turnover and you have to remember the ammount we had to spend to generate that huge turnover we had.

isn't that to have the same turnover. don't mistake high turnover with good finances.

different though as i wouldnt claim so much that would jeapordise my workmates employment.

just me or is conor newton a new name to these parts ?

Access to massive funds is what i said was required, Target of the mega rich is also what I said... It was a genuine question. Man City, Chelsea, who else has a mega rich owner or is being targeted by them? how much is randy lerner or ellis short worth ?.....even than that isn't the question. it's how much are they prepared to spend on the club ?

What about the public humilation for Keegan when he was haulied very publically, to London for a meeting with Ashley. Does that perhaps tell you any more about whether all was rosy prior to the 30th of August ? it tells me he wasn't happy about not seemingly being able to spend ,was it "wheellbarrows" or some such sum of money and, as would happen at most clubs he get told off for it. as benitez did when he whinged about not being able to buy gareth barry.

it's actually a canny risk. i'm surprised we haven't had more interest. how much of the money is his ? how much risk is he carrying ? and with a little more investment he could sell us as a prem club in a year. ashley meanwhile could be thinking "i've lost over 100mill already,if they don't go up i'll lose more. edit....canny as in crafty.

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? then keegan can publish it.

Are you still trying to get digs in at Keegan? Dear me. For the 574757489th time, Keegan is a man of honour and principle - he COULD quite easily have said NOTHING and reamined at the club and seen his contract out which in total was worth £13 million. How anyone can seemingly support the lying shithouses who have dragged our club through the dirt is bryond me. if keegan were a man of honour and principle he'd have gave 1 straight answer about why he left the first time round and he wouldn't have stabbed ray wilkins in the back. unfortunatly he's just like us mere mortals and will sometimes say what suits as opposed to what is.

What's the problem then? If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him. If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him. We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered? because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal. And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening? He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. and thats what i'm saying. i don't think it's beyond reasonable to want to know what the other straws were and i'm surprised they weren't published to strengthen the case.

What's the problem then? If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him. If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him. We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered? because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal. And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening? He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. Ashley and his wide-boys are rotten to the core. Can't believe some still appear to support Ashley / slag Keegan. unfortunatly typical that you as so many others do see that one has to equal the other.

What's the problem then? If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him. If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him. We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered? because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal.

thats the point, they should know and we should have found out. i'll ask again, could the answers to those things i listed change your perception as to what was happening at the club ?

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more. Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered. come off it dave. as far as most are concerned the report has answered everything. It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it. What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me. no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know. for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know..... keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london. wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it. keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini. keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value. keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers. keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money. would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ? yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently) If that had all happened do you think the tribunal would have still found in Keegan's favour? There were obviously other things going on, that's why they vindicated him over the Gonzalez issue ('the final straw'). If there weren't other things going on, why would they vindicate him? of course it would have found in his favour as the gonzalez case was proven regardless of anything that happened before. dave, if your lass is in a strop wityh you and declares that is the last straw i'm pretty sure you'd be concerned as to knowing what the other straws were.

and still nobody wants to address the clause in the contract saying that keegan would be responsible for "first team fitness,selection,motivation,tactics"

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more. Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered. come off it dave. as far as most are concerned the report has answered everything. It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it. What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me. no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know. for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know..... keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london. wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it. keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini. keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value. keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers. keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money. would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ? yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently)

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Gonzalez deal was the focus as it was seen as the 'final straw'. Doesn't matter whether the gonzalez signing was a loan or permanent one - its the situation surrounding that deal that was the final straw - i.e. Wise told KK to look him up on Youtube - he was signed when KK said no - the whole reason for signing him as a financial deal/sweetener for two agents. so were others signed when he said no..if so,who ? and surely a permanent signing would carry more weight than a loan. do you think even in that situation had keegan been a llowed a free hand till then,given an abramovich ammount and the club were doing great the situation would have turned out like this. thats why the background is vitally important and to just say "the final straw" whilst not given details as to the other straws seems a bit of a cop out.

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more. Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered. come off it dave. as far as most are concerned the report has answered everything.

i'm still very surpised no-one is bothered about the details of the other transfer details and what went on. as right now it seems to be painted that the gonzalez deal was the standard, if it were surely the main point of the findings wouldn't have been a loan signing.

Just like Pedro to Liverpool, Gazza & Waddle to Spurs then. He left because we were going f***ing nowhere (well we were going down) with Ashley in charge & JFK running the show. Pretty much this. Think he realised it was now or never for his move in Jan, as he probably thought Citeh would go out and just buy another keeper if they couldn't get him. not bothered about the way he engineered the move then ? trying to take as much money from a club already on its arse and one that made him a probably a multi millionaire. this move had the hallmarks of everything that is dispicable about football. you'd think if he was that desperate for the move he'd have handed in a transfer request at the start of january so as not to risk his dream move.........i wonder why he didn't ?