SEMTEX

Haha how the fuck could you possibly confirm this? More fabricated shite.

Noticing a lot of forum lurker types have chimed up about this one. Interesting, verrry interesting.

Whatever gets the job done. Keegan sex tape, sell it to the Sun, Keegan walks out again. Win. So even if you weren't happy with his appointment you wouldn't want him to stay? You'd rather he was out A.S.A.P? Weird. Ultimately, if he got appointed, I'd get on with supporting NUFC, but wouldn't actively support/the-opposite-of-support Mr.Keegan. I'm not really planning to sell a Keegan sex tape you know..

Whatever gets the job done. Keegan sex tape, sell it to the Sun, Keegan walks out again. Win.

Friends, media and the like. As I've said, nee way of proving it either way like. I'd be on his back right away

that's as bad as saying we should appoint someone because the fans would like it. that shouldn't really come into it. Thats a bit naive. You don't think the overall distain for Sam Allardyce/Graeme Souness was a factor in their tenure at NUFC? i said 'shouldn't' as it does to an extent. i think that is a bit different though, as that is fans responding to what has happened on the pitch, rather than some irrational dislike. The reason behind the dislike doesn't matter that much imo, it's all relevant to how much time it takes for the crowd to turn on a manager. A large portion of fans would be on Keegan's back from day one. Why should they be? I'd like to think it wouldnt be a large portion once people get round to reading all the facts of this outcome, and it all sinks in. He's vindicated in his choice to 'leave'. He wanted to stay to take the club forward, but he wasnt able to. He'd want to do the same if back in that dug-out, and undoubedly would imo if we had a competant owner. I really, really don't care whether you think Keegan is right/wrong/sexy/cool, as it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Unless you want to go around Newcastle and individually persuade EVERY Newcastle fan who dislikes Keegan, then he's a poor choice as manager. May as well hire Sam.

that's as bad as saying we should appoint someone because the fans would like it. that shouldn't really come into it. Thats a bit naive. You don't think the overall distain for Sam Allardyce/Graeme Souness was a factor in their tenure at NUFC? i said 'shouldn't' as it does to an extent. i think that is a bit different though, as that is fans responding to what has happened on the pitch, rather than some irrational dislike. The reason behind the dislike doesn't matter that much imo, it's all relevant to how much time it takes for the crowd to turn on a manager. A large portion of fans would be on Keegan's back from day one. a significant minority i'd say, but unlike someone like Souness, Keegan is a good enough manager to produce on the pitch and win over all but a few nutters who don't matter much anyway. I think you'd be surprised with the amount of people who seriously don't care for Mr.Keegan. Again, another pointless argument cos there is no way of proving it either way. Back to beer.

that's as bad as saying we should appoint someone because the fans would like it. that shouldn't really come into it. Thats a bit naive. You don't think the overall distain for Sam Allardyce/Graeme Souness was a factor in their tenure at NUFC? i said 'shouldn't' as it does to an extent. i think that is a bit different though, as that is fans responding to what has happened on the pitch, rather than some irrational dislike. The reason behind the dislike doesn't matter that much imo, it's all relevant to how much time it takes for the crowd to turn on a manager. A large portion of fans would be on Keegan's back from day one.

that's as bad as saying we should appoint someone because the fans would like it. that shouldn't really come into it. Thats a bit naive. You don't think the overall distain for Sam Allardyce/Graeme Souness was a factor in their tenure at NUFC?

People really think that taking on Keegan would be a good idea, when thousands of Newcastle fans would oppose it?

Don't be daft, I'm not going to see fucking Plymouth, Blackpool et al. I might go to a Carling Cup game if we play anyone decent.

Saying that, I wanted Tokyo to win originally...

C'mon Madrid.

si

yup, end of the season or Jan

Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean? I'm pretty sure your attitude towards this whole affair has been that Keegan was in the wrong. Now that it's been proven he wasn't, you've adopted your 'well he's a thieving cunt' stance. Ok. Well I certainly didn't want him to walk away from the club, and really wish he had managed to get on with the job, even with the most inept boss in the world. This tribunal has really shown Ashley up for just how fucking awful he is at his job, and just how shit he was at choosing his staff. I personally just wished Mr Keegan would've stayed for longer, just to ensure that the first team didn't go to shit and then leave at an agreed and more convenient time. Obviously he deemed it untenable, I just wish he hadn't. The detail of his tribunal has changed my opinion on that definitely. However, this doesn't change my opinion on the compensation numbers.

How the fuck is he a 'thieving cunt' for claiming any amount in a case which he went on to win? Stick to NFL, you plum. Agreed compensation of 2m, he got what he deserved, but he tried to get more. How does that make him a thief? Haha, okay, attempted thief. What was he trying to steal? Did he not give justification for his claim? Did he not then accept that this justification was flawed? I don't care what he has said after the decision had been made, it's completely irrelevant. When in court (or whatever it's called!) he tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. So, again, how does that make him a thief? Were the fans that attempted to sue the club over the seats affair 'thieving cunts'? Was Bobby Robson a 'thieving cunt'? 1) already explained 2) have no clue about said cases Sending me PMs is pretty pathetic like. You haven't explained a thing. Avoiding questions is more so, I'd say. You're fucking plastic, pal. He tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. Your random insults are pretty needless. Actually, this was more specifically meant for people such as yourself: No, 99% of the forum shouldn't blindly infer they know the technicalities revolving around legal disputes relating to termination of contracts that went on behind closed doors (EDIT: I'm not saying 99% of the forum are doing this by the way, just repeating the figure you used). Opinions are fine, but if they are coming from blind assumptions about something people don't understand they are rightly going to get shot down. I read law, i've got fuck all idea about what happened here but i'd hazard a guess Keegan handed the facts over to his legal team and went 'sort this out for me please' and they took it from there. Because Keegan isn't a solicitor, he's a pretty basic football man. Building a 25m straw man to beat down is pretty pointless when i'd happily bet a fair amount of money keegan had nothing to do with that figure. Do you think he went to his solicitors and went "right boys, i'd like one of those stigma pay offs for 8.6m, all my wages and anything else you reckon i can get"? Or do you think he went with what they told him because they are trained to deal with this and he wouldn't have a clue what to do in a court hearing? Hmmm... Neither of us know the ins and outs of why they really decided those figures, but Keegan was obviously aware of what they were asking for and could have told them not to go so far. But neither of us can really conclusively answer this can we? It's just a matter of opinion. I think he could've told them he didn't want to claim for so much, as he had some personal investiment in the club. He didn't do that. But there will be reasons for these figures, he'd have known he wouldn't get them, they would have been used for the purposes of the case. He couldn't go in and say he just wanted the 2m as they'd have settled straight away and Keegan wouldn't have been able to have the facts independently published as they have been. The ludicrous amount of 25m assured it went to tribunal, at which point it would appear from the quotes in the other thread keegan immediately accepted he wouldn't get the stigma damages as long as all findings were published, which is what he has said he wanted to happen, to clear his name. I think I trust Keegan enough to believe this rather than that he was trying to take the club to the cleaners. Well thats the crux of the matter really. I don't trust him enough to believe that. So you genuinely believe he wanted to take us for as much money as he could? Do you really think he then set out to fuck it over deliberately just to spite Mike Ashley? Keegan has a lot of flaws i'm happy to admit that, but to think he is a liar out to milk the club dry is just crazy. I don't think his reasoning was to kill the club (and don't think £25m would achieve that... at least I hope not!), I think he just wanted to get as much money as he could possibly manage, even if it greatly harmed NUFC. Rather than claiming for what he deserved.

Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean?

How the fuck is he a 'thieving cunt' for claiming any amount in a case which he went on to win? Stick to NFL, you plum. Agreed compensation of 2m, he got what he deserved, but he tried to get more. How does that make him a thief? Haha, okay, attempted thief. What was he trying to steal? Did he not give justification for his claim? Did he not then accept that this justification was flawed? I don't care what he has said after the decision had been made, it's completely irrelevant. When in court (or whatever it's called!) he tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. So, again, how does that make him a thief? Were the fans that attempted to sue the club over the seats affair 'thieving cunts'? Was Bobby Robson a 'thieving cunt'? 1) already explained 2) have no clue about said cases Sending me PMs is pretty pathetic like. You haven't explained a thing. Avoiding questions is more so, I'd say. You're fucking plastic, pal. He tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. Your random insults are pretty needless. Actually, this was more specifically meant for people such as yourself: No, 99% of the forum shouldn't blindly infer they know the technicalities revolving around legal disputes relating to termination of contracts that went on behind closed doors (EDIT: I'm not saying 99% of the forum are doing this by the way, just repeating the figure you used). Opinions are fine, but if they are coming from blind assumptions about something people don't understand they are rightly going to get shot down. I read law, i've got fuck all idea about what happened here but i'd hazard a guess Keegan handed the facts over to his legal team and went 'sort this out for me please' and they took it from there. Because Keegan isn't a solicitor, he's a pretty basic football man. Building a 25m straw man to beat down is pretty pointless when i'd happily bet a fair amount of money keegan had nothing to do with that figure. Do you think he went to his solicitors and went "right boys, i'd like one of those stigma pay offs for 8.6m, all my wages and anything else you reckon i can get"? Or do you think he went with what they told him because they are trained to deal with this and he wouldn't have a clue what to do in a court hearing? Hmmm... Neither of us know the ins and outs of why they really decided those figures, but Keegan was obviously aware of what they were asking for and could have told them not to go so far. But neither of us can really conclusively answer this can we? It's just a matter of opinion. I think he could've told them he didn't want to claim for so much, as he had some personal investiment in the club. He didn't do that. But there will be reasons for these figures, he'd have known he wouldn't get them, they would have been used for the purposes of the case. He couldn't go in and say he just wanted the 2m as they'd have settled straight away and Keegan wouldn't have been able to have the facts independently published as they have been. The ludicrous amount of 25m assured it went to tribunal, at which point it would appear from the quotes in the other thread keegan immediately accepted he wouldn't get the stigma damages as long as all findings were published, which is what he has said he wanted to happen, to clear his name. I think I trust Keegan enough to believe this rather than that he was trying to take the club to the cleaners. Well thats the crux of the matter really. I don't trust him enough to believe that.

Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you.

How the fuck is he a 'thieving cunt' for claiming any amount in a case which he went on to win? Stick to NFL, you plum. Agreed compensation of 2m, he got what he deserved, but he tried to get more. How does that make him a thief? Haha, okay, attempted thief. What was he trying to steal? Did he not give justification for his claim? Did he not then accept that this justification was flawed? I don't care what he has said after the decision had been made, it's completely irrelevant. When in court (or whatever it's called!) he tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. So, again, how does that make him a thief? Were the fans that attempted to sue the club over the seats affair 'thieving cunts'? Was Bobby Robson a 'thieving cunt'? 1) already explained 2) have no clue about said cases Sending me PMs is pretty pathetic like. You haven't explained a thing. Avoiding questions is more so, I'd say. You're fucking plastic, pal. He tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. Your random insults are pretty needless. Actually, this was more specifically meant for people such as yourself: No, 99% of the forum shouldn't blindly infer they know the technicalities revolving around legal disputes relating to termination of contracts that went on behind closed doors (EDIT: I'm not saying 99% of the forum are doing this by the way, just repeating the figure you used). Opinions are fine, but if they are coming from blind assumptions about something people don't understand they are rightly going to get shot down. I read law, i've got fuck all idea about what happened here but i'd hazard a guess Keegan handed the facts over to his legal team and went 'sort this out for me please' and they took it from there. Because Keegan isn't a solicitor, he's a pretty basic football man. Building a 25m straw man to beat down is pretty pointless when i'd happily bet a fair amount of money keegan had nothing to do with that figure. Do you think he went to his solicitors and went "right boys, i'd like one of those stigma pay offs for 8.6m, all my wages and anything else you reckon i can get"? Or do you think he went with what they told him because they are trained to deal with this and he wouldn't have a clue what to do in a court hearing? Hmmm... Neither of us know the ins and outs of why they really decided those figures, but Keegan was obviously aware of what they were asking for and could have told them not to go so far. But neither of us can really conclusively answer this can we? It's just a matter of opinion. I think he could've told them he didn't want to claim for so much, as he had some personal investiment in the club. He didn't do that.

Jeez, give us a minute. I'll be over there soon!

Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty?

Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what?

How the fuck is he a 'thieving cunt' for claiming any amount in a case which he went on to win? Stick to NFL, you plum. Agreed compensation of 2m, he got what he deserved, but he tried to get more. How does that make him a thief? Haha, okay, attempted thief. What was he trying to steal? Did he not give justification for his claim? Did he not then accept that this justification was flawed? I don't care what he has said after the decision had been made, it's completely irrelevant. When in court (or whatever it's called!) he tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. So, again, how does that make him a thief? Were the fans that attempted to sue the club over the seats affair 'thieving cunts'? Was Bobby Robson a 'thieving cunt'? 1) already explained 2) have no clue about said cases Sending me PMs is pretty pathetic like. You haven't explained a thing. Avoiding questions is more so, I'd say. You're fucking plastic, pal. He tried to get £25m and he failed as it was completely unjustifiable. Your random insults are pretty needless.