Cronky

Curbishley is out there at a loose end. He's got a good record of developing young players and over-achieving on limited resources. Whether he'd want to uproot himself from the South-East, and adjust to the pressure of big club management I'm not sure. He could be another Allardyce but at the same time he did extremely well at West Ham, holding his nerve in a situation that looked absolutely hopeless. Trouble was, he was never popular with the fans down there, and he isn't the kind of larger than life character who can win the crowd over easily. Theleftfieldbutitmightwork option in my mind is that bloke at Hoffenheim, Ragnick. He was supposed to be interested in the job a few years ago, and may be just the kind of nutter we're looking for. PS - Temuri might be worth a punt as well

You've outlined the problem very well there, and it's a problem that I think is unique to our club. In recent years, we've seen with Shearer the player, Keegan the manager, and even Shearer the potential manager, figures who have exercised a lot of indirect power due to their special relationship with the club's fanbase. It's a double-edged sword for an owner, and I don't think there's an easy answer. If you bring those figures on board, you also bring the fans on board. Alternative candidates come under a lot more pressure, and like Allardyce, they can crack. But you've outlined the down-side of appointing the local hero very well. It looks inevitable that Shearer will take over, and I just hope we get the best of both worlds - a good manager who will get the fans' support with the slow process of team-building. But I would actually go for bringing someone in from outside.

Clubs should live within their means, and I'm not attracted to a Chelsea / Man City style owner. However, a wealthy backer does ensure some kind of safety net, and more importantly, could provide that initial injection of investment that we will need if we get promoted. If Moat is struggling to put the money together, it doesn't augur well. So many clubs at the top now have big foreign money behind them, and we have to be aware of what it takes to be competitive. Harris at Seymour Pearce feels that it's important for the club to have a local connection, and that's a major reason for him recommending Moat.

Assuming that this might just not be yet more evil propaganda from the Sons of Beelzebub (after all, Caulkin is usually regarded as reliable by many on here), then this bid is worth looking at. After all, it's a very important decision and we may be wedded to the new owners for a long time. A delay won't harm. It's clear that, while Moat seems sincere and determined, he's stretching himself financially and is dependent on outside funding. His bid is far from ideal.

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?

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. FYI, people seriously need to stop the whole 'supporting Ashley' thing. Just because someone has something against Keegan, doesn't mean they're on Ashley's side. But then again, anyone who says anything negative about the great Kevin Keegan is obviously the anti-christ! bobyule does support Ashley over KK tbf. a) you make it sound like a crime and b) I think both are at fault. The key to the whole mess is the terrible working relationship between Keegan and Wise / Ashley. If things had been half-decent between them, the Nacho affair would never have blown up as it did. One or other of the parties would have backed down, or at least they'd have patched things up afterwards. The tribunal report barely deals with that underlying background at all. The focus is on the loan deal and the 'final say' issue, and that's fair enough, because that's how the question of breach of contract and constructive dismissal is legally resolved. But it's far from the complete picture, as the heap of unpublished evidence would indicate.

If there had been other signings that had been made against Keegan's wishes, they would have been cited as further evidence by Keegan and been dealt with in the report. Part of Ashley's defence was that one loan signing didn't represent a substantial breach, so if there had been other cases that would have come out. There was clearly a lot of material that was brought up regarding the lead-up which was regarded ultimately as inconclusive or irrelevant to the breach of contract / constructive dismissal issue. It'd be interesting to see it, but ultimately it's best that the Tribunal didn't publish all of that. There's been enough bloodshed as it is.

Managers get sacked or quit all the time, but I've never heard of anyone asking for anything remotely like £25 million, let alone getting it. It's perfectly possible to be unhappy with that aspect of the case, whilst still acknowledging that the club was being run in an amateurish and bungling way. It's not a question of 'either / or'. None of the parties come out of this train wreck with much credit.

There are so many unknowns. A lot will depend on whether these backers of his are expecting a regular return on their investment or whether they're prepared to sit tight for the long-term and get rewards in terms of publicity - or even just the thrill of the ride. The nature of the beast is it's extremely difficult for top English clubs to turn a profit. The competition is so fierce that every buck tends to get swallowed up in transfer fees and wages. In America, the competition is much more regulated and the top sports clubs are more secure. I just hope the Yanks know what they're getting into. The local man issue could also go either way. He could be a Sir John Hall or a Freddie Shepherd. Sir John Hall had that element of detachment whereas Freddie the fan was headstrong and got over-involved in the football side. PS - One significant positive is that Moat has been involved with the club for a while and as far as I can see is on the inside track. A big problem with the Ashley takeover was that a lot of experience and expertise was lost. The new regime seemed to be learning on the hoof, and made some very costly mistakes.

It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the s**** you post? Extract from Keegan's statement on the LMA website after the Tribunal - 'I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4million to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me.' Over to you, mate. And if he was offered anything other than the exact sum of £4 million KK is still telling the truth btw. I believe that the way it works is - if one side wants to settle for a particular sum they "pay the money into court" which means they cough up what they want to settle for and it is stuck into an independent bank account. Once they have done that the offer to settle is official. If the final judgement on the case is for less than what was offered as a settlement then the plaintiff (KK in this case) picks up the costs. But if no money was paid into court then it's all hot air .i.e. Ashley verbally offers £3.9 million and KK says no but no money is paid into court then that = a big nothing. Just to re-iterate, because people seem to me getting a bit jumpy - I was not accusing Keegan of not telling the truth. I was accepting the truth of Keegan's statement, and saying that Wise was probably mistaken on the basis of newspaper stories. I don't believe either that Keegan is playing the kind of games that you are outlining there - ie that there was an offer, but it wasn't for £4 million, or there was an offer, but it was only verbal.

It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the shite you post? Extract from Keegan's statement on the LMA website after the Tribunal - 'I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4million to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me.' Over to you, mate.

I hope this is right, from the point of view that we're being bought outright. My fear has been that Moat would be borrowing the money to buy the club and then using the club's income to service his debt - a sort of mini-Man U / Glazer situation.

It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. So you believe him now? Hmm. I'm not 100 % confident, seeing you ask. That's why I said 'probably'.

Posts like this are really starting to piss me off. Read the f***ing facts you nutsack! KK said he was happy to take the £2m settlement if both parties agreed that the court findings would be made public. This is the only way he could clear his name and have a chance at working in the media or the game again. If he hadn't agreed to that we'd still be scratching our heads wondering what the f*** had gone on, and would be none-the-wiser about what had actually caused him to walk away. The only way KK could've been totally vindicated is for the beans to be spilt. Everyone knows the facts now and Keegan doesn't have to worry about future earnings because he's no longer being painted out as some nut-job bottler. If someone (wrongly) ruined the chances of you ever being employed again wouldn't you want some compensation for lost future earnings ? Not so. The Tribunal was asked by both parties 'at the outset' to make their findings public and this was agreed.

It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago.

That's a bit like saying Elizabeth Taylor has been happily married 8 times. That's funny...but can you actually make a case that he hasn't done a good job twice without the humour? God, I've been getting into a lot of fights recently, but a polite question deserves a polite reply. It never quite seems to work out for KK, throughout his management career, does it? He's walked out from us twice, and the England job once. At Man City he seemed to run out of steam and the players were reported to be unhappy with him. He then left football for three years, saying he was disillusioned with the game. The only time it seems to have ended on a good note and he moved positively forward was Fulham to England, and we know how long that lasted. We can get into a debate about precisely why he left in each individual circumstance, but there comes a time when you have to say that perhaps there's a problem with Kevin, rather than the job or the employer. To return to my earlier analogy, it'd be like Liz Taylor saying how rubbish all her husbands were, rather than that she wasn't really suited to marriage.

That's a bit like saying Elizabeth Taylor has been happily married 8 times.

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong. The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward. It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with. anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue. So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez? I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in. I don't know, the document for the court case only focused on the Gonzalez deal as the 'final straw'. I'd imagine there were similar deals, yes, but none quite so blatant and clear cut, as corrupt and devious, as unprofessional and stupid, as extreme and unexpected, as this particular one. of course, you are entirely free to question the performance of mike ashley and the board over the past year and a bit, or to respond to the few dozen points that other people have raised. or you can continue to stick your head in the sand. i know it is your preferred method of debate to ignore a whole wealth of arguments that expose your view to be ridiculous, or to try and avoid any question you may be asked, in favour of focusing on pointless tiny details. but i suppose everyone's different. The distinctive feature of the Nacho deal was that Keegan came right out and said - no, I don't want the player, and I'm not consenting to his signing. Wise went out and signed him anyway. Do you think that happened with any of the other signings?

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong. The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward. It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with. anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue. So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez? I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in At one point we were led to belive KK had never seen a football game since leaving Man City, yet come the summer he snapped up 3 players from La Liga. Two were South American were we buying more favours?!?!? I genuinely didn't understand that. Are you saying that Jonas and Colocinni were foisted on Keegan against his will, like Nacho?

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong. The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward. It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with. anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue. So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez? I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in.

amen. Yep. It's a rather depressing question, like we've learned nothing from the last five years.

I think inflating your claim to force the matter into a court of law is simple enough to be honest. I have looked and read the tribunal. You may have to list for me, the "number" of convoluted arguments to get more than the £2 million. Getting "Constructive Dismissal Confirmed" in the papers wouldnt have been enough. We would never have known about Dennis Wise's half arsed scouting techniques, the true nature of our worldwide network of contacts, nor the fact that despite having months of time to prepare, the hierachy at the club, were still unable to present, in a court of law, what the structure at the club was. The true magnitute of the clubs inadequacies needed to come out. Okay, fine. I just think he wanted more money.

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong. The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward. It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with. anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue. So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

Not in the slightest for me. My take on this is that is a legal angle, based on making sure that the case went to the tribunal and didnt give Ashley the opportunity of settling out of court - which would have resulted in none of the story becoming public knowledge. Do you not think that there's a simpler and more likely explanation of why he went to the tribunal? His contract explicitly states that he's only entitled to £2 million severence pay, so the only chance of getting more is to go to law. If you look at the tribunal, it's clear that he tried very hard, through a number of convuluted legal arguments, to overturn that clause in his contract, but didn't succeed. All he needed, to clear his name, was to have constructive dismissal confirmed - and that was made clear by the tribunal.

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread. There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it? Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million? Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made? I think these are the two elephants in the room.