David Icke - Son of God

How exactly?

You got me... I'll bear that in mind when I want a meeting with the Chief Exec of HMV, I've spent a fortune in there over the years! Aye, because shopping at HMV is exactly like supporting a football team Don't be such a bloody gonk.

Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it shouldn't happen at all. Questions needed asking. I don't particularly think there was any call for him to lose his rag when he found out NUSC were in the room, or have a go at those for attendance who were making notes. It smacks of unprofessionalism. He clearly turned up expecting to be met with a bunch of yes men who would tell him how he could shift a few more burgers at half time but got cornered by a concerned set of fans wanting answers.

Complete bollocks save for that last bit. Llambias sounds completely out of his depth. He has no right to be 'shitty' with anyone, especially the fans who are putting/have put money into the club - NUSC included. Your summarisation of the clubs recent conduct in the transfer market is laughable.

Llambias sounds like a totally odious, unprofessional arsehole by all accounts.

That's the most baffling thing. They're effectively spit polishing the club with the view to attracting buyers yet Llambias seems to talk in the long term. I really do hope MA wants to offload ASAP but I fear we're going to be in the second tier in a few seasons time still finding ways to cut costs.

It's because the club is being ran by non-football people. How does that explain it, like? Because the club is being ran by businessmen who have no understanding of how to run a football club. Surely what's happened in the last 12months is example enough for that? Ashley running SportsDirect is one thing - but a football club is an entirely different animal. Problems occur when businessmen believe that they are the same. Thats a myth that i've never understood and doesnt really stand up to any form of scrutiny. The Glazers are not 'football people', yet are running Man U pretty successfully. Success in business preceeds ownership of a football club and is the reason why owners are there, more so nowadays. If you mean that football clubs needs to take risks and invest in players then the phrase 'Speculate to accumulate' is a relevant business insight not something football club ownership taught the world. The Glazers have owned and ran sports clubs before though. They do have some grounding in the field. Yup - weren't they involved with American Football, before they purchased the Mancs? And whilst the Mancs have been successful, it's just as well as The Glazers have saddled the club with a very large debt. If The Mancs go through a dip (for example when Ferguson leaves) - they could be in big trouble. Man United are more than capable of coping with the massive level of debt they have as they're the biggest club in the world. Even if they do have a season or two where they fail to win any tin pots they've got enough money coming in from elsewhere to see them through.

It's because the club is being ran by non-football people. How does that explain it, like? Because the club is being ran by businessmen who have no understanding of how to run a football club. Surely what's happened in the last 12months is example enough for that? Ashley running SportsDirect is one thing - but a football club is an entirely different animal. Problems occur when businessmen believe that they are the same. Thats a myth that i've never understood and doesnt really stand up to any form of scrutiny. The Glazers are not 'football people', yet are running Man U pretty successfully. Success in business preceeds ownership of a football club and is the reason why owners are there, more so nowadays. If you mean that football clubs needs to take risks and invest in players then the phrase 'Speculate to accumulate' is a relevant business insight not something football club ownership taught the world. The Glazers have owned and ran sports clubs before though. They do have some grounding in the field.

I don't really understand what's meant by 'proper supporters club'? Some people are always going to dislike NUSC for whatever reason and I suppose that's fine, each to their own. Some people are going to fawn over it relentlessly. That's life. I like to think i'm in the middle. I'm a card carrying member but I recognise that it still has huge flaws that will hopefully get ironed out as the months and possibly years role on. NUSC is still a baby, it isn't even a year old and it's being ran by people who are effectively learning on the job. It's not the well oiled machine it could be with time and experience but it's a damn sight better than nothing at all, which was the alternative. They do get lumbered with the tag of being a single issue pressure group because they're very vocally opposed towards the current regime but I know for a fact they do a lot more than sit around just slagging off Ashley, Llambias and Wise. Unfortunately the way the club is being ran is the banner issue so stories of how NUSC have given supporters legal advice and tried to winback VAT charges aren't going to be as publicised. The thing everyone has to remember is that these people are supporters. These people have invested a lot of time and money into the club over the years and it hurts like hell when they see it going down the swanny just as it does for you and I. Okay, you may not agree with the tone of the article or the opinions voiced in it but they deserve a modicum of respect for going there and holding those in charge to account. Now Thompson House are all pally with Llambias we're not really going to get much out of them in the way of mind blowing exposés so it's fallen at the feet of supporters to do just that.

It's like this board then.

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes. With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything. If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million? Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out. It's looking likely it's going to be settled out of court, with MA parting with some cash. If Keegan is liable why may about MA be giving him £4 million? Sensible answer please. Eh? Then i do apologise for all my responses in this thread. I was going on publically available information which suggests that the tribunal will go on for a few months and that both parties are fighting their corner. Can you quote me something that suggests i should update this assumption? Where is the information which suggests they will settle? Where is the information which quotes 4m? "The Journal understands that, while there is a preliminary hearing between the two legal teams to discuss the case early next month, it is highly unlikely an agreement will be reached then." I thought it was still all up in the air. Llambias is the one saying a settlement is very close.

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes. With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything. If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million? Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out. It's looking likely it's going to be settled out of court, with MA parting with some cash. If Keegan is liable why may MA be about to give him £4 million? Sensible answer please.

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes. With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything. If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens. I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co. People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here. You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic. How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of shite. If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens. I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co. People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

Fucking hell This place really is laden with idiots.

Probably because clasically that's what managers do

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Show us where he lied. after a brief search, When Keegan was asked about reports linking him with a return to Newcastle as director of football under then-manager Sam Allardyce, he said: "It's absolutely impossible to give Sam a job at Newcastle and then go and fetch someone who is going to be some sort of threat, it doesn't work. "Sam would be a fool to let it happen and the guy who goes in would be a fool to accept it. "The chairman, who is not a fool, would be a fool to go and do it, too. It doesn't work." But Mort was quick to play down that speculation, saying of Wise's role: "When we interviewed Kevin for the manager's position we said we wanted a particular structure in place with someone experienced working with the board, particularly on recruitment and developing the Academy. "At that time we had narrowed it down to two or three names and we gave those names to Kevin. He knew the structure and the individuals involved and we wanted to make sure he was comfortable with it." "I think it's positive," Keegan said, "as long as I can get on with my job and I get all the help I need as it has been put to me. You'd be a fool to say, 'I don't want that'. "I talked with Dennis before the game and he wished us all the best. I knew he was one of two or three names put forward. "There's been no deception, it's been very open. I'm fine. I pretty much know, from conversations we've had, what Dennis is going to do and the idea, in principle, is very good, to go and look for new players, to bring a lot of youngsters in. "I'm all for the changes, it's not a problem, I approve of them. We had this discussion when I took the job. "They want somebody on the board who understands football and Dennis Wise, whatever anybody wants to write about him, understands football. I know Dennis and I think it'll work very well. He'll report to me." Wise, the former Chelsea captain, will be joined on Tyneside by Tony Jimenez as vice-president (player recruitment) and Jeff Vetere, who joins from Real Madrid to take up the position of technical co-ordinator. "This is all part of the vision that recently helped us to secure Kevin Keegan's return to the club as manager," Mort added there's more about him wanting to break world transfer records even though he knows we cant. i'll find them later. feel free to dismiss these or twist to suit agenda. How are those quotes incriminating? called himself a fool, mort says keegan knew the system keegan now claims he didnt know about and he wanted wise here. i see you chose dismiss. No mention of what the 'structure' is, just a vague mention from Mort that one is actually in place. The majority of people assumed that said structure was that Wise, Vetere and Jiminez would identify players and that KK would have the final say and that's how it was presented be people at the club too. Ashley coming out and telling fans the Keegan buys the players and Wise is only concerned with bringing in half a dozen youngsters a season and then saying the complete opposite once Keegan had walked is ten times more incriminating. MA stitched himself up with that'un. would they just say "oh there'll be a structure you'll have to abide by, more on that later"? he knew what is was and agreed to it. simple. maybe that was the original plan until keegan started asking him to break world records, which we obviously cant do? How do you know that he knew? Were you there? If he knew then why apparently did Mike Ashley not know, considering it is his club? As for the 'world record transfer fees' and bids for shit players, haven't some members of both the local and national press confirmed that story was put about by Jiminez?

To go and look for new players. Not the same as buying them with so much as a by-your-leave

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Very much in the same way Mike "Yes, Keegan has full control.....oh wait, no he doesn't" Ashley lied. It seems pretty clear to me that due to the fact it's being settled out of court your man Mike and his pals have realised that they're the ones who'd be over a barrell if it went any further. True dat. Word. They're f***ed if Keegan comes out and confirms to us what we're already thinking. Not true necessarily. The exact sequence of events that led to Keegan going is known only to those who were directly involved. It would come down to a court having to believe someone's word against the other party, and thats in both the constructive dismissal case and the breach of contract case. How can anyone predict who a court would believe in those circumstances? Both parties are on risk of losing, which is why a settlement is the way it is going. I think any court would find for Keegan with the evidence that is in the public domain. Mike lied, kids. Mike lied... NO! Dont say that, the Mike Ashley Fan Boys will cry!!! At the very least I hope to have destroyed the semi-on the constantly nurse for the debt, or lack of it. "Phwoar! Look at the books. There's not a red mark on 'em!"

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Show us where he lied. after a brief search, When Keegan was asked about reports linking him with a return to Newcastle as director of football under then-manager Sam Allardyce, he said: "It's absolutely impossible to give Sam a job at Newcastle and then go and fetch someone who is going to be some sort of threat, it doesn't work. "Sam would be a fool to let it happen and the guy who goes in would be a fool to accept it. "The chairman, who is not a fool, would be a fool to go and do it, too. It doesn't work." But Mort was quick to play down that speculation, saying of Wise's role: "When we interviewed Kevin for the manager's position we said we wanted a particular structure in place with someone experienced working with the board, particularly on recruitment and developing the Academy. "At that time we had narrowed it down to two or three names and we gave those names to Kevin. He knew the structure and the individuals involved and we wanted to make sure he was comfortable with it." "I think it's positive," Keegan said, "as long as I can get on with my job and I get all the help I need as it has been put to me. You'd be a fool to say, 'I don't want that'. "I talked with Dennis before the game and he wished us all the best. I knew he was one of two or three names put forward. "There's been no deception, it's been very open. I'm fine. I pretty much know, from conversations we've had, what Dennis is going to do and the idea, in principle, is very good, to go and look for new players, to bring a lot of youngsters in. "I'm all for the changes, it's not a problem, I approve of them. We had this discussion when I took the job. "They want somebody on the board who understands football and Dennis Wise, whatever anybody wants to write about him, understands football. I know Dennis and I think it'll work very well. He'll report to me." Wise, the former Chelsea captain, will be joined on Tyneside by Tony Jimenez as vice-president (player recruitment) and Jeff Vetere, who joins from Real Madrid to take up the position of technical co-ordinator. "This is all part of the vision that recently helped us to secure Kevin Keegan's return to the club as manager," Mort added there's more about him wanting to break world transfer records even though he knows we cant. i'll find them later. feel free to dismiss these or twist to suit agenda. How are those quotes incriminating? called himself a fool, mort says keegan knew the system keegan now claims he didnt know about and he wanted wise here. i see you chose dismiss. No mention of what the 'structure' is, just a vague mention from Mort that one is actually in place. The majority of people assumed that said structure was that Wise, Vetere and Jiminez would identify players and that KK would have the final say and that's how it was presented be people at the club too. Ashley coming out and telling fans the Keegan buys the players and Wise is only concerned with bringing in half a dozen youngsters a season and then saying the complete opposite once Keegan had walked is ten times more incriminating. MA stitched himself up with that'un.

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Very much in the same way Mike "Yes, Keegan has full control.....oh wait, no he doesn't" Ashley lied. It seems pretty clear to me that due to the fact it's being settled out of court your man Mike and his pals have realised that they're the ones who'd be over a barrell if it went any further. True dat. Word. They're f***ed if Keegan comes out and confirms to us what we're already thinking. Not true necessarily. The exact sequence of events that led to Keegan going is known only to those who were directly involved. It would come down to a court having to believe someone's word against the other party, and thats in both the constructive dismissal case and the breach of contract case. How can anyone predict who a court would believe in those circumstances? Both parties are on risk of losing, which is why a settlement is the way it is going. I think any court would find for Keegan with the evidence that is in the public domain. Mike lied, kids. Mike lied...

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Show us where he lied. after a brief search, When Keegan was asked about reports linking him with a return to Newcastle as director of football under then-manager Sam Allardyce, he said: "It's absolutely impossible to give Sam a job at Newcastle and then go and fetch someone who is going to be some sort of threat, it doesn't work. "Sam would be a fool to let it happen and the guy who goes in would be a fool to accept it. "The chairman, who is not a fool, would be a fool to go and do it, too. It doesn't work." But Mort was quick to play down that speculation, saying of Wise's role: "When we interviewed Kevin for the manager's position we said we wanted a particular structure in place with someone experienced working with the board, particularly on recruitment and developing the Academy. "At that time we had narrowed it down to two or three names and we gave those names to Kevin. He knew the structure and the individuals involved and we wanted to make sure he was comfortable with it." "I think it's positive," Keegan said, "as long as I can get on with my job and I get all the help I need as it has been put to me. You'd be a fool to say, 'I don't want that'. "I talked with Dennis before the game and he wished us all the best. I knew he was one of two or three names put forward. "There's been no deception, it's been very open. I'm fine. I pretty much know, from conversations we've had, what Dennis is going to do and the idea, in principle, is very good, to go and look for new players, to bring a lot of youngsters in. "I'm all for the changes, it's not a problem, I approve of them. We had this discussion when I took the job. "They want somebody on the board who understands football and Dennis Wise, whatever anybody wants to write about him, understands football. I know Dennis and I think it'll work very well. He'll report to me." Wise, the former Chelsea captain, will be joined on Tyneside by Tony Jimenez as vice-president (player recruitment) and Jeff Vetere, who joins from Real Madrid to take up the position of technical co-ordinator. "This is all part of the vision that recently helped us to secure Kevin Keegan's return to the club as manager," Mort added there's more about him wanting to break world transfer records even though he knows we cant. i'll find them later. feel free to dismiss these or twist to suit agenda. How are those quotes incriminating?