UV

His lawyers should have told him to use the Gerrard defence. Then no doubt he too would have got off scot free with the judge saying he could "walk away with your reputation intact".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/2790342/Sports-Direct-scolded-for-closing-sale-ploy.html There was a Streetwise Sports near me (which just happened to have exactly the same stock and "sale" items as the Sports Direct shop at the other end of town) which was "closing down" for 2 years minimum. It did eventually close down, but so did half the shops in town anyway so it was probably just closed because of the credit crunch, not because it originally planned to shut.

Like what, in your opinion? Going off the rest of your post and many others lately, things seem pretty positive. Like how it's all money grabbing Keegan's fault of course Dave.

You should get your profile changed to "Comedy Writers Group" I'm sure the players are all thinking "Phew I'm glad the possibility of a takeover and any chance of investment in the squad has been put to rest, now we can move onwards and upwards with Mike & Derek running the club off the field, and Chris on it. We surely can't fail now with this winning combination. This year the Championship, next year competing for the Champions League." Not even footballers are that thick, regardless of what they say in the press. This news must be a massive kick in the guts to any players in the squad with any ambition (however deluded that might be) to achieve anything in their career. I think a lot of them will have been straight on the phone to their agents, and even if Ashley isn't planning another everything-must-go sale in January I fear we're going to struggle to keep hold of a number of the better ones. I don't think Ashley will put up much of a fight to keep anyone if decent offers come in either (I'm sure he'll be assured by whichever agency he's using to advise on transfers that they can be replaced for less as they collect their 10%).

ouch stats don't lie. That easily replaceable lad we sold who's really slow, can't get past a man, and can't cross or shoot got 7 goals & 9 assists last season. You mean the one that did not want to be here? the one who never did that for us? No, I mean the one who was frustrated he didn't get the postponed raise he'd been promised after he got 4 goals & 11 assists in 06-07.

ouch stats don't lie. That easily replaceable lad we sold who's really slow, can't get past a man, and can't cross or shoot got 7 goals & 9 assists last season.

Didn't just walk out on him tbh, walked out on us. Should have just went public with the story then Ashley would have had to either fire him or back him. Anyone with any sense would blame Keegan as well as Ashley. The above response spells out what he should have done. I know how much I love this club, Keegan says he loves this club, I know that I would NOT have done what he did and would have done something like what is suggested above. Someone who loved the club and the city and the supporters (in his position) would do a MILLION things, would do ANYTHING . . . rather than walk out on the club and supporters so soon after he came back to 'finish unfinished business'. I know that genuinly blind and almost obsessed Keegan lovers CAN NOT accept that he is even partially to blame. They just never will, which is a shame. If Keegan had of waited until he was sacked, he would have been entitled to even more money !!!! And you would have still been having a go at him for that as well, how about looking at Ashleys part for putting Keegan in the postion where he had to do what he did ? Why?? We all know that Ashley is to blame for this . . . THAT is not at issue. What IS at issue is that there are some people who do not think that Keegan shares some of the blame. I repeat (!!!) he should not have resigned, he should have done what has been suggested - if he really loved the club as he says he does. So you accept that Ashely forced Keegan to walk by lying and undermining him on transfers, but Keegan should have stuck it out and waited for a even bigger fat wedge for getting sacked !!!! Have i got this right, because if i have then that would have been even worse for the club. As it stands he got a small payout (how much did fat sam get for getting sacked) and shown to the world how badly Ashley has been running this club. Keegan should not have done what he did when he did it. There are no further add-ons, assumptions, perspectives, variations etc, etc, to what I say, nothing about pay-offs in the (then) future - NOTHING. JUST - Keegan should not have left when he did. That is it!! Of course. He should have stayed on as a disgruntled employee boosting morale by letting everyone know he wasn't in charge of signing the new players and slagging off Wise & Lllambias in the press until he was eventually sacked for it. Things would have been so much better. If only...

Agree with that tbh, in my previous post about not having high hopes for Barry I neglected to acknowledge this. Although it's not a popular view on here to favour owners who will have more than just a financial interest in the club (and some even consider it a negative) I think it's a massive positive. It's not just like he's a local and therefore expected to be a supporter either, he actually has been involved in the club giving money to fund the academy. In the absence of a mega-rich sugar daddy, I'd rather have someone like Moat give it a go than a Glazer/Hicks-Gillett/Ashley/random consortium who are only in it for the money.

Not disparaging what Wenger's done at Arsenal at all - his track record with signings is superb - however when people point to Arsenal and say look what you can do with no money they never take into account the fact that Arsenal have the third highest wage bill in the premiership, double most non-CL clubs (over £100m in 08). That academy and holding on to the best that comes through it doesn't come cheap.

Still not convinced it's anything more than an exercise in PR tbh. Even if true there's not much point in speculating until details are known, however if things are as we are led to believe and I had to be drawn on it, my gut instinct is that I'm not hopeful for much from him. IMO the amount of money required just to get us back to where we were pre-Ashley as a comfortable mid table club is more than the club can generate itself without an exceptional manager or a good number of years (3+) just getting by in the bottom half of the premiership and hoping to avoid relegation. Even the latter scenario would require a good manager, and I have serious doubts that Shearer will be a good manager let alone an exceptional one. (This is also in the best case scenario that we get promoted this season otherwise it's a whole other ball game). It's one thing being able to be a self-sustaining mid-table-occasional-Europe team, and quite another thing being able to get back up there. Having said that, anyone who will at least attempt to run the club in a reasonable manner and appoint a credible manager is preferable to Ashley, and worth the risk of future monetary problems. Unless they're mega rich they'll be bought out by someone else wanting to chance their arm within a few years anyway.

It is a lot like. For them it's completely unsustainable. Pre-Ashley we were running at around £10m average. Obviously there's been inflation in player prices to go with the extra TV money, but their turnover finishing 6th in 07-08 was only £75m (£25m less than us). Back then their wage bill was £50m, but it must be significantly higher now, probably high 60's, low 70's. Their gates are lower than ours even now and they're unlikely to break into the top 4 in the next couple of years unless at least one of the big 5 have serious financial problems. Lerner's not going to keep throwing money at them, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some reigning back to be done at Villa Park.

I dunno about great mind, seemed to me thy wanted a mid table side bring young talent on and flogg it. We would have never acheived anything under these as they would have sold every bit of talent. We'd have become a feeder club. How long would it have been before fans got pissed off if hey started flogging our young talent regualry, they made a massive assumption that NUFC fans will turn up 50k a week no matter what management do. Wrong Agree completely that this was the real operational plan as opposed to the "exercise in public relations" plan. The sale of the likes of Milner and N'Zogbia show that the build a young squad line was pure bullshit. Just keep the club ticking over while the value of the asset rose as more outside money bought into the game. IMO the DoF structure (with a powerful DoF, not the chief scout with a fancy title version) is only a good idea if you're prone to chopping and changing manager every year or so (as those excitable foreigners do) as it gives some semblance of stability within the footballing structure of the club. If the aim is to have a long term manager, then a strong DoF can only be a hindrance to that. There WILL be clashes between the two - it's inevitable - and if the DoF always wins, the manager will eventually leave or get fired. In either system the intention is to have a long term constant presence at the top in charge of transfers to avoid a wasteful merry-go-round of players, however IMO the continental one is a poorer system as it just makes it harder to see who's at fault. If you have a shit DoF, you're typically going to have to go through several managers (who may have been good left to their own devices) before you realise what the root cause of your team underperforming is, ie the poor quality of players brought in by the DoF. It's far easier to just blame the manager for not being able to get the best out of those brilliant Argentinians you bought, after all just look what they did in Spain on this Youtube compilation!

Added the bit in bold. That's the key. If it was that easy everyone would do it. Not so much, more capable. Martin O'Neil is currently doing the exact job at Aston Villa and was doing the same job at Leicester for a long time. If someone knows about football they can with time become a good manager. You don't think £94m net spend in 5 years (most in the last 3) for two 6th place finishes is "throwing money at it for a few years"?

It's not about the money for Mike though, he'll only sell to someone he's sure can give us what we want and of course what we want is: he's only looking out for our best interests.

Brilliant, well constructed argument. There is a massive difference between going ahead with a transfer when the manager has categorically stated that he didn't want it to, and suggesting players you've been offered to the manager who they go along with. Going into the specifics of the examples you cite. Duff - IIRC according to Roeder, Duff was suggested to him after he was offered to Shepherd and he was very happy to get the player. I can't find the interview now, but I believe he then went on to say something like "I think he would have signed him anyway". From my recollection it was said in a joking way, but regardless is hardly evidence that he would have done so in that hypothetical situation. I personally don't think he would have, and it was certainly a long way from being tested: "I can't tell you how pleased I am about getting a player of that quality." Luque - I've not seen the arguments in this other thread you mention, but if that's what Souness said, then I simply don't believe him on that one. The Luque transfer was fairly prolonged, 2 or 3 weeks at least. It was well known we bid £9.5m, and the Depo chairman wanted around £11m. There was a big thread on here calling Shepherd all the names under the sun for not forking out the extra in case we missed out on the Spanish superstar. In the end the deal went through for the £9.5m. Are we expected to believe that Souness himself was ignorant to the finances of the deal until it was all over? Anelka - This one always cracks me up. He had just gone to Fener for £7m only 6 months earlier. He had done well, they won the league and got into the CL. There was no way they wanted to sell him at that time. If we'd managed to get Fener to sell him at that time we'd have had to have paid well over the odds for him, probably £12m+. IMO a chairman is well within their rights to veto transfers if they think the are not good value, and paying that much for the ultimate moody frenchman when we would have been his 8th club in 11 years is a massive risk even if he had been available at any price which there's absolutely no evidence to say that he was. McKay - Which transfers were done simply as a favour to McKay?

Absolutely spot on. Well said mate. It worries me that so called "fans" woud be taken in by this Llambias leak. He has done this so many times and it just shows what a cretin he really is. I can see how Hitler came to power with his propoganda machine behind him, so many people just believe everything they WANT to believe, it's scary. I hope Keegan gets what is due to him and what he is entitled to, not only has he lost out financially, the dirty tricks department have been well busy, really it just shows their complete lack of class and decency. The sooner they are gone the better. you're as bad as the "keegan haters". theres as much evidence out there in public to blame both sides yet you can see only believe the keegan side.

Head over heals in love tbh

As Robster pointed out, I guess comprehension just isn't yours. I stuck the tables in Excel & it came out with £44.9m out £19.9m in. I stopped at Batty because bobyule was talking about the money spent to accumulate the team that KK made throw away the league. Precisely. The money spent by KK remained as value within the squad which was later traded on. Ignoring Shearer, Keegan cost the club roughly zero in transfer fees when residual sales are considered (or made £10m profit if you include the sales of Watson, Clark & Elliott who weren't in the £25.6m total I quoted above). Shearer would of course distort any figures as he was at the club for the rest of his career, you can't blame KK for that (well maybe Ozzie can). If he'd been sold on 4 or 5 years later he'd still have fetched back a lot of his fee. However you could argue the transfer paid for itself anyway in other non-footballing ways (ie marketing & bringing in foreign support, etc). Never mind, it was obviously a great idea to put an expert like Dennis Wise in charge of transfers to stop Keegan blowing all Ashley's cash on Beckham, Lampard & Henry.

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it. I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there. I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament. The other element in past success that wasn't taken on board was the role of the heavy financial backing that was given to Keegan for new players. We'll never know whether this, that or the other manager would have done better or worse with the same support, but it was a factor. Every time the momentum stalled, Keegan was able to go out and buy more players. When the money ran out, he decided it was time to go. Coincidence? You decide. I stand to be corrected on my figures (fees from nufc.com), but by my reckoning to get from a relegation facing Div2 side to 2nd in the league, we spent £25m net over 4 years (up to and including Batty). We subsequently sold players Keegan bought during that time for a total of £25.6m.

hE DINDT HAV ANY DOWTS WHEN HE DECIDED TO TAKE THE CLUB INTO MENSTRUATION!!!!

The people in this thread sticking up for Keegan's ability are the only ones quoting facts. It's the Keegan bashers who just keep bringing up tired old discredited clichés about 12 point leads, naive tactics, a poor defence, etc and pointing to the results of one-off games as if they're the ultimate proof of some greater point. The reality is that in 4 years Keegan took a team which was almost relegated from Division 2 to one which was within 1 game of winning the league (a game which we absolutely dominated and but for the outstanding individual talent of one of the opposition players would have won at a canter). Are you sure your irrational hatred of Keegan isn't blinding you to the truth? Here's a question for you. Let's put reality to one side for a moment and say that you're right for once and Keegan's tactical and coaching abilities are poor. In that case how exactly did we manage to get so close to winning in the first place? It can only be because of the sheer quality of the players we had that they somehow managed to do it on their superior skill alone in spite of the hindrance of Keegan's tactics. In that case, surely this makes Keegan one of the best talent spotters in the business does it not? If so, why did you support a system which refused to use his one ability, but gave him a job where he was weak (as you see it)?

If you honestly believe that, you already know what you need to do. Take your own advice, get a divorce and move on. Start looking for a new love who will give you what you want. Let me help, I know one that's looking to hook up with someone just like you: http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/index.php. Good luck.

I have a vague memory that he tried to buy his way onto the board back in the McKeag days didn't he? PJ & Duncan