Taylor Swift

Aye, probably every big team in Europe has tried to sign him at some point during his career yet he has always remained at Roma and helped them into a silver age of sorts. It's funny when I saw him play for Roma he looked slightly heavier compared to last season. Can't fault his loyalty, I just bought a signed shirt of his this week, to add to the wall of mintness. The cruciate ligament has easily taken 2 or 3 years off his career. He was always languid but he was never this slow, which unfortunately he is now.

I think Ashley's a cunt but there's no f'in way he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's probably lost close to £200m and also the club won't be breaking even this season.

Just put in a bit more because I realised that I still hadn't put in what I promised for last year.

Done

Future of football analysis, this. (only partly serious...)

Why on earth would t hey want to change their style of play? Look at how successful they are. Always helps to have back up plans and more options. Until they win every game in a season can they ever truly be happy? Are you saying that Barca aren't truly happy about winning the treble last season because they lost a few games along the way?

Iaquinta is an excellent player.

Rio has been living on his rep for the past year. Last year, he was out injured for a long time and has made quite a few errors since returning. I also believe that he's lost some pace/strength because of the back injury so that's something that people will have to watch out for.

Carragher being found out? Please, he's having his first rough patch in what, 6 or 7 years? The guy is a pretty damn good defender and has shown it at absolutely every level of football.

The Giallo Blu have started the season pretty decently. I hope they stay up.

I've got average van der Persie as captain. 6 points is ok. Last week had Torres

Fabregas has a goal and 4 assists

Some people need to read the pdf before commenting.

So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified? I am. Tell me why it wasn't. It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it. He seems happy enough with what he's got and good for him. Just because his lawyers were going for whatever they could doesn't make it right. I need a second reply to this post. 'It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it'? Are you saying that the verdicts delivered in every case in the judicial system is correct? In this case, justification had nothing to do with the eventual outcome because the outcome was already restricted. The tribunal did not even decide whether KK's claim for stigma damages was justified because they offered him another solution which he found satisfactory. And for the people who think KK is only after the money, this solution that was offered by the tribunal did not involve KK receiving a single pound yet he accepted it.

So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified? I am. Tell me why it wasn't. It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it. He seems happy enough with what he's got and good for him. Just because his lawyers were going for whatever they could doesn't make it right. No, he didn't get it because it was written into his contract that he couldn't get it. The verdict had nothing to do with whether the 25m was justified or not, and since KK accepted that publishing the verdict would restore his reputation, the 25m wasn't an issue anymore.

It's moral to let the people who fuck you over and then ruin your reputation get away with it? What the fuck?

If he came back for the money, he would have stayed for the money. Where have you been this entire day?

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. The compensation numbers are pretty simple, man. If KK had stayed for 3 years, he would ahve gotten around 10m. Then, given the fact that things were looking reasonable good, you can say that his contract would have been extended for 1-2 years, giving him around 15m over 5 years. Then, with his reputation still in tact, he could have gotten another job or two, push his earnings to 20m or so. But because of the state of his reputation after last September, he would never have gotten another high-paying job. So that is why he sued for 'stigma damages', and why he agreed with the tribunal that publishing the verdict and thus restoring his reputation would be a decent enough outcome. What KK did was reasonable and what any man who has done nothing wrong would do.

Where was this stated because I seem to have missed it? I exaggerated. What was actually stated was that KK wanted his reputation restored. He sued for 25m because of the loss of earnings due to the negative image. So the tribunal said that they'd release their verdict to the public, thereby restoring KK's reputation. KK agreed that releasing the verdict would suffice and was thus satisfied with the outcome.

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. Why? When has KK ever in his career acted like he prioritised money? Honey Monster > Shearer

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. Why? When has KK ever in his career acted like he prioritised money?

Keegan asked for more than 2m because after he left, his reputation was destroyed. It's reasonable to ask for more because the people running NUFC went out of their way to ruin his reputation, thus jeopardising his future prospects. If you have a bad reputation which isn't justified, and this bad reputation costs you money (as in no other club would employ him because they would believe that he's uncontrollable/bottler/etc.) then it's perfectly justified for you to ask for compensation from the people who are responsible for creating your unjustified negative image. That is why he asked for 2m and he would probably have gotten more if the small print in his contract did not state that the max payout was 2m.

Was this ever in doubt? i couldn't believe people were doubting the man and taking Ashley's side in this case. theres a word for these people,. knackers. Haha, I'm one of them.

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. Unless they plan on signing him to a contract and intending not to fulfill their part of the bargain, the most relevant bit of the judgement is that KK is a manager who operates like every other Premier League manager - except he's also proven that he's better than most.

KK's statement is on the first page, near the bottom.