Teasy

Actually lad, I said this... Jeff Vetere has found some young players who he thinks are the next big thing but Keegan won't okay the deals as he's pushing for the finished article who have Premiership experience, Turan is one of them but Keegan wants Kapo from Birmingham, Vetere has also picked Bafetimbi Gomis out and thinks he's got more potential than Adebayor at Arsenal, they went out to watch him a few times and the last time Keegan said he wasn't good enough even though he scored two, set up the third and got MOTM, Keegan wants Crouch instead and the club think he's going out of his way to be awkward even though he agreed to this set up when he took over. Vetere also wanted him to look at Moreno but Keegan wouldn't even look at him because he felt he wouldn't settle. Funny how it must be bollocks yet all of the wankers on here are lapping it up in the Crouch thread a week later. to be fair to him the papers are now reporting about Crouch and Kapo now. So he might not be far off. Now?.. We've been linked with Crouch for f'ing ages man, we'd been linked with Kapo as well.. Also I don't doubt Baggio has taken this from some bullshit ITK source, but the fact that some tabloids are spouting the same thing hardly makes it more likely to be true. There could be some truth in it, like for instance Crouch is being considered as a target, as was Gomis. But this very specific story just comes accross as typical ITK bullshit.

Actually lad, I said this... Jeff Vetere has found some young players who he thinks are the next big thing but Keegan won't okay the deals as he's pushing for the finished article who have Premiership experience, Turan is one of them but Keegan wants Kapo from Birmingham, Vetere has also picked Bafetimbi Gomis out and thinks he's got more potential than Adebayor at Arsenal, they went out to watch him a few times and the last time Keegan said he wasn't good enough even though he scored two, set up the third and got MOTM, Keegan wants Crouch instead and the club think he's going out of his way to be awkward even though he agreed to this set up when he took over. Vetere also wanted him to look at Moreno but Keegan wouldn't even look at him because he felt he wouldn't settle. Funny how it must be bollocks yet all of the wankers on here are lapping it up in the Crouch thread a week later. Then you posted two lists in the same thread with Keegans name at the top of one and Vetere's on the other, and 'forgot' to tell anyone you'd made them up Can't believe you're trying to claim some kind of ITK foresight on Crouch transfer rumours either, there have been rumours about him signing for Newcastle all year, and last year even..

I could believe it if someone told me Keegan had some reservations about the job. But this idea of Keegan not wanting to even be in Football at all and being totally against the ideas the club were putting forward, but accepting the job anyway because he was bankrupt is insane IMO.

You aren't Kevin Keegan and your job isn't manager of Newcastle United.. Which is why that comparison is crazy. We're talking about a man who is incredibly passionate and has to do things his way. At a club he loves, a club he left previously because he saw a small amount of power being taken away from him. There's no way he could last three years as Newcastle manager in a situation he doesn't want to be in purely for the cash, he'd lose his marbles within a year if that was the case.

Oh not the ITK shit again. Do you have a new list of players Keegan and Wise are after Baggio? You know, the ones you post and just forget to tell everyone that they're made up.

Keegan in a job he doesn't want to do and within a structure he fundamentally disagrees with. A job he agreed to purely for the money. How can that not end badly? Its akin to putting a arachnophobic inside a container with 100 types of tarantula.

You've got to be taking the piss here?

You can if it has some kind of substance to it. But when its based on paper talk and theory or a kneejerk reaction then you really shouldn't no.

When you watch the entire interview its certainly not as definitive as the initial "nothing" makes it sound. What if Newcastle was the only job that could bring him back, would you expect him to answer "The Newcastle job". Or "Only one job could bring me back". That would be touting for another mans job.. He also mentions in that interview that he's had offers from other clubs, if he needed the cash why not take one of those? Rather then coming back to the club he loves just for the money in a situation he knows would have to end badly.

You're saying that in your opinion Keegan didn't want to come back, wasn't happy with Wise but needed the money.. and that's not a bad thing?

Ok fair enough, I just think the most likely explenation is that the role Wise has is not what Keegan originally had in mind as the typical Director of Football. That's my opinion.

Well yeah it is a contradiction technically, but a pedantic one with no real importance.

No mate, actually your clutching at straws with this conspiracy theory, its tantamount to the kind of sensationalist journalism we see from any tabloid news paper. Like I said, a title does not describe an exact role. If Keegan is happy with the role Wise is in then the title he holds is completely irrelivant. Ashley: "Part of our plan is to bring in someone to help advise the board in general Football matters. He won't have the power to buy players without your say so and has no power to fire you ect" Keegan: "I've got no problem with someone being in that role". Ashley: "His title will be Executive Director of Football" Keegan: What?! Director of Football?!! But Mike I'm scared of that title!! The important thing is the role that was described to Keegan, not the title.

I think I misunderstood you. "Director" is an all encompassing term. It's a title given to someone who oversees all aspects. Like a film director, he's not responsible for any one thing, but for sealing the deal on what everyone else is doing in their specific roles. I'm not sure if your problem is Wise being given that title, or anyone at any club. I thought the former, but it seems you meant the latter. Personally I think it's a clearly defined role, but undermines the man who should do that job, the manager. My point is it isn't a clearly defined role, I think you're taking it to literally, its an executive title.. When Keegan said Allardyce would be mad to allow a Director of Football he'll have had an idea in his head of what a Director of Football is. The fact that Wise has the title of Executive Director of Football doesn't mean his role fits what Keegan had in mind in the slightest.

Are you seriously not getting my point or just looking for an argument?

It really annoys me when the phrase Director of Football is thrown about as if it means one specific job/position. Its just a fancy title...

The quotes your referring to have already been posted in this thread, not only are they typical PR that contradicts earlier quotes but AFAICS you're also adding in extra bits he didn't even say to make it sound worse... The actions of a Newcastle fan I suppose? mackems.gif Honestly why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and concentrate on whichever team you really support?

Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place? getcarter did who posted the list of clubs. All I'm saying is its not a very good indicator & 60% is a very low figure for "unsustainable" to be placed at. Ah right, I thought your initial post was in reply to my post. I agree completely that any fixed figure is complete bollocks, especially 60%. BTW Leeds were completely fucked financially before they got relegated.

How can it be a pointless statistic?.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold, I certainly didn't did I? What I mean is every time they peddle this stuff, they say anything over 60% is unsustainable, which is rubbish. The arrival of the millionaire / billionaire private owners have made it even less relevant, but it was the over 60% bit I was criticising mostly. I agree there is no fixed percentage you have to meet. You have to look at the whole picture, one club may make £30 million a year and have a 50% ratio while another makes £80 million a year and has a 70% ratio. The club with the 70% ratio is still better off. Having said that the figures are still important, especially for those clubs we can see in that list with 80-90% ratios and only £40-50 million turnovers. Those clubs are in a very dangerous position.

Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place?

How can it be a pointless statistic?!.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Its not the definitive way to guage a clubs finances obviously, but its pretty f'ing important.. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold either, or I certainly didn't anyway.

Load of s*** % figures?.. Man they're not some pointless statistic, the turnover is the total money the club brings in. If your spending say 90% of the total amount the club earns on wages you then have almost nothing left to run the club (unless your making a huge turnover like Manure or Chelsea, even then its a bad situation to be in). And those wages are fixed unless you sell/release players. Leeds folded with a 80-90% ratio.

There wage bill is 710,000 per week. There seems to be some confusion with there wages to turnover ratio An article I read suggested it was around 90% or more, but the list in this thread says 69%. I don't know there turnover for the 2006-2007 season so I'm not sure. But there turnover for the two seasons before that was £36 million each time. So the 90%+ number seems more likely then 69%, unless there turnover increased to £52 million in the 2006-2007 season.

Exactly. Good to hear more and more fans are as realistic as me. Bet you're a blast in the pub before the match. Well if you'd ever been like. Oh he's been to plenty, at the stadium of s****. typical. denial are we?? I'm certainly not denial no.. mackems.gif

Does a £16 million bid for one player not tell you anything about the budget?