Cronky

My, what a hard-hitting, probing interview that was. Keegan could have written those questions himself.

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh? no he didnt his advisers did. a) which he agreed to Well he had no choice.

That's a bit rich, coming from the Spanish brothel-creeper.

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh?

Mixed feelings. It's not fair on the player to sign him against the wishes of the manager. The player is the one who deserves most sympathy. As far as the judging by Youtube - if it was a permanent signing you'd worry, but it's a loan. He's an international player who's already been signed by a top European club so although it's a risk, it's clearly not a huge one. The guy clearly isn't crap and is worth a look. Signing him in order to get a favour down the line from agents - dodgy, but it's not clear from the tribunal that this was the only reason. I'm of the feeling that Keegan wanted out and was spoiling for a fight. I don't think that this clears him of that accusation. As for the delineation of Keegan's responsibilities, it's not clear but overall if you're working to a DOF your position is clearly different to that of a manager who isn't. To agree to work to a DOF and then complain about interference - hmmm.... You clearly can't expect to get everything your own way. But can I quote the representative of the NUSC who reported on Lambias's meeting with the Supporter Panel in March. The subject of Keegan's resignation came up - ' This led onto a discussion about the role of Dennis Wise which, itself, led to one of the most interesting answers to a question we expected to be off topic: Who signed Xisco and Gonzales? Xisco was Kevin, dont believe everything you read in the press, Gonzales was a...well, I wont go into that because weve still got legal issues there stumbled Derek. Suffice to say jaws dropped on that one, not just for the remarkably candid nature of the revelation, but for the insinuation that we are supposed to now believe that Kevin Keegan walked out on Newcastle, not because he was unhappy with £6M being blown on an unwanted striker, (all his own work apparently) but that he was so fundamentally opposed to the club bringing in a player on a short term loan to help an injury hit squad that he walked out on a multi-million pound contract! Apologies that we didnt probe that one further, we were too busy dusting away the fairys from our eyes.' I'm sure that that incredulity was shared by many people at the time. It's the reason why I think Keegan's resignation was opportunistic. Llambias also said (in that meeting iirc) that Bassong was a wise signing. Another thing we now know to be a lie. the club admitted in the trial that they have used, as a standard means of "PR", the use of lies and deception to deliberately mislead the fans. that is Llambias, in a bit of PR work, talking to a fans group, and talking a load of old bollocks. youre taking the nacho thing, as a number of people on here are, as the single point of contention, as if it was apart from any sort of context. "Oh, Keegan didn't like this one individual thing, and left. obviously he was itching to leave." if you read the report, it's not the single point of contention, it's just the one final example that the court used, as opposed to the many other things leading up to that point. they even go on to describe the attempt at reconciliation and the "last last straw", in which the club not only refused to back down on the issue, but tried to codify it, meaning Keegan would've had no more influence over transfers, and the nacho deal something that wouldve been replicated every other time someone was bought. that makes his situation untenable, and as proven in a court, grounds for constructive dismissal. and oh yeah, they also thoroughly dismissed the argument that keegan used this as an opportunity to quit. Clearly there was input from both sides about events leading up to the Nacho transfer. The tribunal didn't deal with that in the document because it wasn't relevant to the issue of breach of contract, on which Keegan's case rested. You're making out that the Nacho transfer was highlighted because it was the 'final straw', but in fact it was highlighted because it was effectively Keegan's only legal justification for constructive dismissal. It was very obvious that there were problems between Keegan and the Wise / Llambias group when Keegan made that statement on TV after the Chelsea game. They had that meeting afterwards and supposedly patched things up but the problem was still there. It seems to me that the two parties were stuck with one another at that point. Keegan couldn't resign because he'd lose his compensation - in fact, he'd have to pay it out. Ashley couldn't sack him because he was so popular with the fans. Looking back, you have to wonder at the wisdom of installing the clause which actually penalised Keegan £2 million if he resigned. I may be wrong, but I don't think that's usual. It does sound like Ashley, mindful of Keegan's previous record of walk-outs, wanted to insert a clause that would keep him tied in even if he was unhappy and wanted to go. If so, that was daft. Why hire a manager who you don't really trust? It's practically inviting a situation where the unhappy manager is either going to try and get himself sacked, or seize on the first incident of breach of contract in order to claim constructive dismissal, in both cases getting out with some compensation. There's no point in trying to hang on to someone who isn't really committed.

because as it say in the PDF his lawyers tried to get round clause 14.8 whatever to get more than the £2mill. 'when cross-examined, Mr Keegan very fairly accepted that Clause 14.8.1 was fair and reasonable.' Do you think he will appeal the ruling and try for more money? i don't think he will but in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried. I read somewhere that both parties agreed beforehand to abide by the findings of the tribunal and not to take further legal action after the decision.

Mixed feelings. It's not fair on the player to sign him against the wishes of the manager. The player is the one who deserves most sympathy. As far as the judging by Youtube - if it was a permanent signing you'd worry, but it's a loan. He's an international player who's already been signed by a top European club so although it's a risk, it's clearly not a huge one. The guy clearly isn't crap and is worth a look. Signing him in order to get a favour down the line from agents - dodgy, but it's not clear from the tribunal that this was the only reason. I'm of the feeling that Keegan wanted out and was spoiling for a fight. I don't think that this clears him of that accusation. As for the delineation of Keegan's responsibilities, it's not clear but overall if you're working to a DOF your position is clearly different to that of a manager who isn't. To agree to work to a DOF and then complain about interference - hmmm.... You clearly can't expect to get everything your own way. But can I quote the representative of the NUSC who reported on Lambias's meeting with the Supporter Panel in March. The subject of Keegan's resignation came up - ' This led onto a discussion about the role of Dennis Wise which, itself, led to one of the most interesting answers to a question we expected to be “off topic”: Who signed Xisco and Gonzales? “Xisco was Kevin, don’t believe everything you read in the press, Gonzales was a...well, I won’t go into that because we’ve still got legal issues there” stumbled Derek. Suffice to say jaws dropped on that one, not just for the remarkably candid nature of the revelation, but for the insinuation that we are supposed to now believe that Kevin Keegan walked out on Newcastle, not because he was unhappy with £6M being blown on an unwanted striker, (all his own work apparently) but that he was so fundamentally opposed to the club bringing in a player on a short term loan to help an injury hit squad that he walked out on a multi-million pound contract! Apologies that we didn’t probe that one further, we were too busy dusting away the fairy’s from our eyes.' I'm sure that that incredulity was shared by many people at the time. It's the reason why I think Keegan's resignation was opportunistic.

Keegan wasn't happy anyway. Gonzalez was the straw that broke the camel's back. What do you make of that part Bobyule? It's almost as though it addresses your concerns directly. Well the first extract, by saying that Gonzalez's signing was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' implies that there were, in fact, other reasons for Keegan's resignation besides the Gonzalez issue - namely his bad relationship with Wise and Co and the small size of the transfer budget. The second extract puts forward the Ashley viewpoint, that the Gonzalez deal was just an excuse. Although the tribunal rejects that, those two statements aren't exactly a million miles apart, are they? It actually boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than fact here. The way I see it, Keegan wasn't happy working with a DOF, despite the fact that he accepted the system when he joined. He also wanted more money spent. No-one who has followed Keegan's career would be surprised at either of those. The Gonzalez signing offered him the chance to get out with what he hoped would be a large amount of compensation. I don't see it as a 'final straw', more a golden opportunity. That's the only area where we seem to differ. you sly old wind up merchant That's the nicest thing anyone's said about me all day. I actually mean every word though.

Keegan wasn't happy anyway. Gonzalez was the straw that broke the camel's back. What do you make of that part Bobyule? It's almost as though it addresses your concerns directly. Well the first extract, by saying that Gonzalez's signing was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' implies that there were, in fact, other reasons for Keegan's resignation besides the Gonzalez issue - namely his bad relationship with Wise and Co and the small size of the transfer budget. The second extract puts forward the Ashley viewpoint, that the Gonzalez deal was just an excuse. Although the tribunal rejects that, those two statements aren't exactly a million miles apart, are they? It actually boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than fact here. The way I see it, Keegan wasn't happy working with a DOF, despite the fact that he accepted the system when he joined. He also wanted more money spent. No-one who has followed Keegan's career would be surprised at either of those. The Gonzalez signing offered him the chance to get out with what he hoped would be a large amount of compensation. I don't see it as a 'final straw', more a golden opportunity. That's the only area where we seem to differ.

It is absolutely clear that Keegan did not willingly drop his claim for the other £23 million. He attempted to overturn the clause in his contract that specified his compensation at £2 million. When his claim for that was dismissed, he accepted that there was no point in carrying on. The tribunal actually went on to say that even if they had been asked to pronounce on the question of damages to his reputation and future earnings, he would not have been given anything. If he had been 'happy to accept the £2 million', he wouldn't have launched the other parts of the claim in the first place. A lot of posters seem to think that just because Ashley and co have been criticised, that Keegan is completely in the right, not just in law, but in moral terms. As far as I'm concerned, he's won 1 out of 3 of his legal battles, and lost the moral ground completely. I tell you, quite honestly, I was surprised by what has emerged. It was looking like the only player that could possibly have been foisted on him against his wishes was Gonzalez, but like many people I couldn't quite believe that Keegan would resign over that one loan signing. I thought that maybe there had to be something dodgy about Xisco's arrival or maybe one or two of the others - that Keegan had perhaps bitten his tongue over a number of weeks and then finally cracked. If many others on here were to be honest, they'd admit to that as well. It now appears that he was involved in all the other incomings and it all rested on the one minor instance, where I suspect Wise and co had lost patience with the bloke and acted in haste and in temper. I also didn't believe the £25 million story when it hit the papers. I didn't think it was a smear from the club, but I thought it was just a wild piece of tabloid speculation. I thought it was a ridiculous amount to claim and again I think if many people on here were being honest they would admit that they were harbouring the same doubts. Both elements of the story have turned out to be true and I'm a bit disgusted. My regard for the bloke, never high at the start, has gone down even further, if that's possible. I strongly suspect that, deep down, many of those who have supported Keegan throughout all this have also had their confidence dented, whether they are prepared to admit it to themselves or not. You've got it wrong this time mate. I would have thought no less of KK had he been awarded the full amount should the tribunal have found his case to be just! You are coming across as an Ashley sympathiser And seeing that the tribunal has found his claim for the full amount to be unjust, has that affected your opinion of him?

Don't fucking speak for me - you've picked up on one possible negative angle whereas 359 of the others prove Keegan right and your "I don't really support him" bum chum wrong. I said 'many of those' rather than 'those'. Care to explain why you chopped that bit out?

It is absolutely clear that Keegan did not willingly drop his claim for the other £23 million. He attempted to overturn the clause in his contract that specified his compensation at £2 million. When his claim for that was dismissed, he accepted that there was no point in carrying on. The tribunal actually went on to say that even if they had been asked to pronounce on the question of damages to his reputation and future earnings, he would not have been given anything. If he had been 'happy to accept the £2 million', he wouldn't have launched the other parts of the claim in the first place. A lot of posters seem to think that just because Ashley and co have been criticised, that Keegan is completely in the right, not just in law, but in moral terms. As far as I'm concerned, he's won 1 out of 3 of his legal battles, and lost the moral ground completely. I tell you, quite honestly, I was surprised by what has emerged. It was looking like the only player that could possibly have been foisted on him against his wishes was Gonzalez, but like many people I couldn't quite believe that Keegan would resign over that one loan signing. I thought that maybe there had to be something dodgy about Xisco's arrival or maybe one or two of the others - that Keegan had perhaps bitten his tongue over a number of weeks and then finally cracked. If many others on here were to be honest, they'd admit to that as well. It now appears that he was involved in all the other incomings and it all rested on the one minor instance, where I suspect Wise and co had lost patience with the bloke and acted in haste and in temper. I also didn't believe the £25 million story when it hit the papers. I didn't think it was a smear from the club, but I thought it was just a wild piece of tabloid speculation. I thought it was a ridiculous amount to claim and again I think if many people on here were being honest they would admit that they were harbouring the same doubts. Both elements of the story have turned out to be true and I'm a bit disgusted. My regard for the bloke, never high at the start, has gone down even further, if that's possible. I strongly suspect that, deep down, many of those who have supported Keegan throughout all this have also had their confidence dented, whether they are prepared to admit it to themselves or not.

I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. What garbage. So no-one can sue anybody and keep their principals? It depends on the grounds, and depends on the amount you're asking for. If you ask for an amount that's clearly ridiculous and which moreover would harm the institution that you profess to love, then you've lost the moral high ground.

So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified?

I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. Still less can you say that you love the club. You also ought to surrender the support of the people who would be adversely affected if your ridiculously inflated claim is settled - ie the fans and employees of the club. This being NUFC and Kevin Keegan of course, that doesn't happen.

And then he dropped most of the money because his priority was rather that his reputation was restored. Does that disprove your ridiculous claim that he was intent on just pocketing the most money? Yep. Not quite true. They were never going to consider that part of the claim, but wanted to make it clear that if they had, they would have ruled for publication (as they had anyway) which would restore Keegan's good name, and therefore not require any further compensation. Which Keegan could only agree with. They didn't say "you can take publication or £10m, what's it to be?" while the lawyers shouted "gamble...gamble" Exactly. If you believe that winning the constructive dismissal case is going to restore your good name, why make the additional claim in the first place? And incidentally, if KK or anyone else thinks that his reputation has been restored with this, I reckon they're very mistaken. Any prospective future employer is going to look at that judgement and not go near him with a barge pole.

i doubt they were ever expecting that sum. also keegan gave up the stigma damages in order to get the truth out and accepted having his good name restored by the judgement. Incorrect. If you read the judgement, he gave up his further claim after the tribunal ruled against his claim that the £2 million compensation clause written into his contract wasn't valid. He had no choice.

So he resigned over a loan signing and claimed £25 million compensation. He's been found correct in law, because he objected to the signing and therefore is entitled to be treated as if he was sacked and given the specified payment that was agreed in his contract. That's all that's happened here. Do I still think he was just waiting for the opportunity to resign and get out with as much money as possible? Yep.

All sorts of figures for Keegan's compo have been bandied around. With these arbitration processes, lawyers are inclined to ask for extreme amounts just to establish a bargaining position. They then get beaten down to something that's still quite lucrative but it looks like they've compromised. Bit like Unions in pay bargaining. It's a game, and I suspect that's what's happening here.

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.

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother. To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have f***ed Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s? I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it. Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you. Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan. An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it. Ok, they're all fair points, but my original question still stands - who are those, in your time as a Newcastle fan, you have really loved? I can see how it gets annoying with the 'keegan can do no wrong' argument (although i think all but the most blinkered accept this isn't the case), but aren't you at risk of going too far the other way, into the realms of a bit of a misery guts? For anyone between the ages of 20 - 45 I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say the time Keegan was at Newcastle as manager (first time) was their best time as a toon fan. Regardless of title losses, mental breakdowns, walk outs, etc. they were our best times as Newcastle fans. He is the man most responsible for those great times. It's irrelevant whether someone else could have done better with the resources he had at the time, they didn't as they weren't here and we didn't want anyone else here. Yes, recent happenings have tarnished that, but that doesn't stop the fact that what he did was something pretty spectacular. So by all means, hate him for what he's done now (i certainly don't, but that's a different argument) but please don't try and take away from what he did to this club in the early / mid nineties. It was a special time in a lot of people's lives because of what he did. That's not sentimentality from a personal perspective, it's a fact. I'm still passionate about our club, and football in general. At times it feels more like an obsession than love, but the desire is still there. I've loved watching certain players in action - Tony Green, Gazza, Rob Lee, Beardsley, Bellamy and Shearer (before his decline) are particular favourites. I don't know if you're any the wiser there. I'm aware that I was pissing on people's parade a bit with my take on the Caulkin article and that's why I might have seemed a misery. Maybe I should have let it pass but there was something there that really annoyed me. I enjoyed the Keegan rise to the top just like everyone else. I think I enjoyed Sir Bob's upward charge more because I really felt the team was over-achieving, but yeah, of course there were good times with KK. Keegan's not without his qualities - he showed drive and passion and that was important in energising the whole club and persuading players to join. He wouldn't have done it without the heavy financial backing, but yes overall of course it was an achievement. But we didn't win any major trophies, and Keegan hasn't done so throughout his managerial career, which has been very stop-start. I don't think that's bad luck. I think there are certain qualities which the real winners have that Keegan lacks. That's all I was saying. I've posted a lot in this thread and I don't want to be repeating myself, but I'll give you a concrete example of what I think separates the Fergusons of this world from the Keegans. It was 1992 when Ferguson had his first real tilt at the title. There was a neck and neck race with Leeds that year, and Man U just lost out, somewhat undeservedly. Now at that time there was real pressure on the Man U manager. They hadn't won the league since 1967, and a string of managers since Matt Busby had tried and failed. It's a bit like Liverpool now, only worse. Ferguson's master stroke was that in the following close season, he bought precisely nobody. The expectation was that he would do what previous Man U managers had done and try and get in those extra one or two players who would supposedly make the difference. Instead, he gave his players the message that they were good enough and so they were able to move forward from failure. That took both guts and brains, because if they'd failed again, everyone would have been pointing at Ferguson's inaction and blaming that. Halfway through the season, he spent a modest £2million on a certain Frenchman who hadn't held down a regular place at Leeds and who had a reputation for indiscipline. It was completely unexpected and regarded as a risk. Again, Ferguson wasn't afraid and backed his own judgement. How did Keegan respond to failure? He went and spent a world record fee on the England centre forward. Shearer was a very good player but scoring wasn't the problem and the money could have been spent somewhere else. He compounded the error by taking the No 9 shirt from last season's leading goalscorer. Halfway through the season, he lost heart and walked. Basically, Ferguson faced up to failure and kept a cool head. Keegan had the stuffing knocked out of him and his nerve and judgement followed. I don't know if you saw that recent 'Time of our Lives' programme with Ginola, Howey and Bez, but what came across was their anger and frustration at Keegan's failure to push on from 2nd place. The mark of the winner is the ability to respond and learn from a setback. What utter bullshit. I was going to say. They were more angered at him leaving, especially Ginola who promised to stay for Keegan. Not his inability to build on the 2nd place. You've got me scratching my head here. We're talking about the same thing. They felt that all that was needed was minor improvements here and there, and that with the experience they'd collected, they'd be able to push on. Keegan's decision to quit / failure to build on 2nd place / lack of motivation to keep going - whatever you want to call it - left them bewildered. Keegan had previously talked Ginola out of moving to Barcelona so he was fuming.

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother. To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have fucked Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s? I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it. Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you. Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan. An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it. Ok, they're all fair points, but my original question still stands - who are those, in your time as a Newcastle fan, you have really loved? I can see how it gets annoying with the 'keegan can do no wrong' argument (although i think all but the most blinkered accept this isn't the case), but aren't you at risk of going too far the other way, into the realms of a bit of a misery guts? For anyone between the ages of 20 - 45 I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say the time Keegan was at Newcastle as manager (first time) was their best time as a toon fan. Regardless of title losses, mental breakdowns, walk outs, etc. they were our best times as Newcastle fans. He is the man most responsible for those great times. It's irrelevant whether someone else could have done better with the resources he had at the time, they didn't as they weren't here and we didn't want anyone else here. Yes, recent happenings have tarnished that, but that doesn't stop the fact that what he did was something pretty spectacular. So by all means, hate him for what he's done now (i certainly don't, but that's a different argument) but please don't try and take away from what he did to this club in the early / mid nineties. It was a special time in a lot of people's lives because of what he did. That's not sentimentality from a personal perspective, it's a fact. I'm still passionate about our club, and football in general. At times it feels more like an obsession than love, but the desire is still there. I've loved watching certain players in action - Tony Green, Gazza, Rob Lee, Beardsley, Bellamy and Shearer (before his decline) are particular favourites. I don't know if you're any the wiser there. I'm aware that I was pissing on people's parade a bit with my take on the Caulkin article and that's why I might have seemed a misery. Maybe I should have let it pass but there was something there that really annoyed me. I enjoyed the Keegan rise to the top just like everyone else. I think I enjoyed Sir Bob's upward charge more because I really felt the team was over-achieving, but yeah, of course there were good times with KK. Keegan's not without his qualities - he showed drive and passion and that was important in energising the whole club and persuading players to join. He wouldn't have done it without the heavy financial backing, but yes overall of course it was an achievement. But we didn't win any major trophies, and Keegan hasn't done so throughout his managerial career, which has been very stop-start. I don't think that's bad luck. I think there are certain qualities which the real winners have that Keegan lacks. That's all I was saying. I've posted a lot in this thread and I don't want to be repeating myself, but I'll give you a concrete example of what I think separates the Fergusons of this world from the Keegans. It was 1992 when Ferguson had his first real tilt at the title. There was a neck and neck race with Leeds that year, and Man U just lost out, somewhat undeservedly. Now at that time there was real pressure on the Man U manager. They hadn't won the league since 1967, and a string of managers since Matt Busby had tried and failed. It's a bit like Liverpool now, only worse. Ferguson's master stroke was that in the following close season, he bought precisely nobody. The expectation was that he would do what previous Man U managers had done and try and get in those extra one or two players who would supposedly make the difference. Instead, he gave his players the message that they were good enough and so they were able to move forward from failure. That took both guts and brains, because if they'd failed again, everyone would have been pointing at Ferguson's inaction and blaming that. Halfway through the season, he spent a modest £2million on a certain Frenchman who hadn't held down a regular place at Leeds and who had a reputation for indiscipline. It was completely unexpected and regarded as a risk. Again, Ferguson wasn't afraid and backed his own judgement. How did Keegan respond to failure? He went and spent a world record fee on the England centre forward. Shearer was a very good player but scoring wasn't the problem and the money could have been spent somewhere else. He compounded the error by taking the No 9 shirt from last season's leading goalscorer. Halfway through the season, he lost heart and walked. Basically, Ferguson faced up to failure and kept a cool head. Keegan had the stuffing knocked out of him and his nerve and judgement followed. I don't know if you saw that recent 'Time of our Lives' programme with Ginola, Howey and Bez, but what came across was their anger and frustration at Keegan's failure to push on from 2nd place. The mark of the winner is the ability to respond and learn from a setback.

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother. To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have fucked Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s? I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it. Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you. Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan. An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996. so when newcastle lose a 12 point lead it's lack of nerve, when man utd do it must be something else ? It doesn't fit into his world view so it has to be ignored. Others have bad luck with Keegan it is lack of ability. Instead of judging the actual achievements under the circumstances and in this kind of style looking for the flaws is a bit simplistic and unfair if you ask me, espercially when persisting on those stupid myths of the 12 point lead and the poor defensive record. I am not sure or rather seriously doubt that any other manager would have been able to achieve the same with Newcastle in these years. A more pertinent question is why Ferguson and Hitzfeld have won so many major trophies and Keegan hasn't won any. I'd say that was more than luck.

He's a shrewd journalist in that he realises that you can win just as many readers by writing what people want to hear as you can by writing a load of controversial, complaint inspiring nonsense like the majority of journalists do. That article is just that, what a lot of people want to hear. Or what some spoilt numpties don't like to hear... The last sentence of bobyule wasn't there when I first replied. What a load of nonsense. Reducing Keegan's managerial credentials on a lack of trophies is so ignorant that you hardly can take it serious. Anyway. Football isn't about winning, it's about how you play. © Johan Cruijff I'd agree the last sentence of bobyule's post isn't right at all. Well taking a look at the records, I see that Cruyff won 24 trophies as a player, and 11 as a manager. You don't get a haul like that if winning isn't important to you. Winning shouldn't be the only thing, but it is important. Surely. There's a difference between being a good manager and being a winner. A winner has a bit of steel which takes them through the inevitably dodgy times when things aren't going well and everyone's saying how crap you are. It also helps if you have good ideas and good judgement that you feel you can rely on. That way when you're under pressure you still think clearly. For me, Keegan fails on both counts. Don't agree with you there bob. I think Keegan always had a very clear vision of what he wanted and to his credit he never wavered from it in that for him football had to be about entertainment. He isn't flawless by any means but he was never fuzzy on that one. Well fair point, but the entertainment at all costs is a bit of a cop-out, because no-one likes losing. When Keegan had his head in his hands when Liverpool beat us 4-3, he wasn't thinking, what an entertaining game. He was hurting. I guess you could describe the commitment to attacking football at all times, and the neglect of defence, a 'clear vision'. But there are times when the brave decision is to batten down the hatches and admit that victory is the most important. I don't know if you saw the 'Time of Our Lives' programme with Ginola, Bez and Howey, but they oozed frustration at the team's inability to finish the job. Charging forward at all times can be like a refusal to face up to the situation you're really in. You can say afterwards, 'We may have lost but we had a good go', but it's like you're denying how important winning really is to you. I've said this before, but the game that really cost us was Blackburn away, about a month before the end of the season, and it really epitomised what was lacking in Keegan's approach. If you remember, we went 1-0 up with 10 minutes to go, and all of a sudden we were back in pole position in the race with Man U. (If we'd won, we'd have gone into the final home match only needing a win to make sure of the title) What happened though was the most awesome collective nervous breakdown. We were absolutely terrible, needing a tactical decision but not getting one. We needed to defend, but we didn't have the mentality or the nous to do that. We were also too nervous to attack, and ended up conceding two soft goals. I guess that the failure to decide to defend, or to prepare any kind of defensive strategy on Keegan's part, wasn't a sign of strength. It was weakness. Or a lack of brains. was it weakness or lack of brains that lead alex ferguson to blow a real 12point lead over arsenal 2 seasons later ? Was it weakness or lack of brains when Ottmar OMG Hitzfeld blew a 1-0 lead in a European Cup Final in injury time? I can't remember what happened with Fergie and Arsenal, but I doubt if it was a lack of nerve. You don't win 40 odd trophies without knowing how to close things out. With Bayern, I'd say it was bad luck. They were the better side and should have won. That kind of thing can happen in football. I can't see the relevance here. Yes, it is possible to lose a lead for reasons other than bottling. That doesn't in itself invalidate my opinion on Keegan in 1996.