Taylor Swift

Roger, you obviously don't know AS9

If you are unfairly sacked from a job - which essentially is what happened to Keegan - would you not want compensation? Not compensation to cover me until my 65th birthday I wouldn't... Is SBR a money grabbing cunt for suing the club after he was sacked?

If you are unfairly sacked from a job - which essentially is what happened to Keegan - would you not want compensation?

Yes.

I don't know how anyone, after reading the pdf, can not side with KK. He was right to resign and the club were wrong for a) agreeing to a contract which they had no intention of fulfilling, and more egregiously, b) for lying and misleading KK, the public and the fans for the duration of KK's tenure.

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.

Also worth noting that KK agreed that the 'stigma' damages didn't need to be awarded if the tribunal published their findings and thereby restore his reputation (which imo it certainly did).

Megathreads are shit, man. Anyway, this decision is important enough to have a separate thread for it but we'll see what the mods feel about it when they're on.

Says it all.

No one at the club had actually seen Gonzalez play before signing him... What a joke.

KK vindicated.

Statement from KK

think youre missing the point a bit. nacho deal was the specific grounds keegan's legal team used to fight the claim, and it's referred to as a 'last straw'. there's other stuff that has gone on, as the pdf mentions in passing, but they haven't been used to fight this particular legal battle. the pdf isnt a judgement on every single little thing that went on. this throw's another point? if this was over just 1 transfer, shouldn't keegan's love of the club show through it for 1 transfer Because he signed for the club on the basis that he had the final say over transfers and his final say over Nacho was 'no' yet the club signed him? Perfectly reasonable reaction for him to quit, especially considering the circumstantial shit like the Milner sale and no one else being signed.

think youre missing the point a bit. nacho deal was the specific grounds keegan's legal team used to fight the claim, and it's referred to as a 'last straw'. there's other stuff that has gone on, as the pdf mentions in passing, but they haven't been used to fight this particular legal battle. the pdf isnt a judgement on every single little thing that went on. Exactly. The pdf focuses on the one issue - signing Nacho - and KK has been proved absolutely right in this case I suppose now KK should also get the benefit of the doubt for all the other shit that went on - the Milner sale, him and Wise etc.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure this is already prevalent in football (dodgy deals with agents). I'm pretty sure that the likes of Real, Barca, Man Utd, Chelsea etc. do this kind of shit to get the next big thing but at least they know what they're doing and don't let it leak out like this. The payments are probably too small for the authorities to actually give a shit - I mean, who's going to care if a few ten thousand disappears off Chelsea's books and shows up in some private account in Argentina? People have got bigger fish to fry. The real problem is that I can't believe the club actually admitted to the arbitration panel that they signed Nacho as a favour to two agents. Make up something, you daft cunts.

Sounds almost too petty and ridiculous doesn't it, hmmm... Read the pdf, man. There's no way someone can read that and still blame KK.

I think they probably thought that getting in the good books of these specific agents would lead to them getting a first refusal-esque contract with every new hot shot from South America (or maybe Uruguay, specifically). The club also say that they did not actually intend for KK to use Nacho but if that's the case, why did Wise suggest him to KK? And why Nacho, an actual international, rather some unknown player who could actually siphon off his wages to the agents? There's obviously something dodgy going on but it seems the people running the club can't pull off anything successfully - they can't even pay agents without getting themselves tangled up in nonsense.

They say that they did so because they did not want to undermine KK's position. Yet they did not tell KK that those press releases were in fact bs and that he actually did not have the final say over transfers! Man, what a joke.

I retract almost everything I said about KK when he resigned. Llambias, Ashley and Wise are total cunts.

I'm starting a new thread specifically for the case which has just been settled. The pdf file is http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf I've read almost all of it (boring Friday) and here's a general summary 1. KK says that during contract negotiations, it was made expressly clear that he had the final say over transfers. 2. The club says that during contract negotiations, it was made implicitly clear that KK would not have final say - and that the club would be operating under the 'Continental' model in which there would be a Director of Football. 3. KK resigned when Nacho Gonzalez was signed. The story, according to the pdf file, is that Wise suggested to KK that Nacho was a player worth looking at. KK said that he hadn't heard of the player so Wise suggested that KK youtube Nacho (), which he did and wasn't impressed. So KK said no yet the next day, the club signed him. The actual reason the club signed him was as a favour to a couple of agents in South America. So KK resigned. 4. So KK sued the club for constructive dismissal i.e. he had no option but ot leave the club because the club had breached a fundamental term of the contract. 5. Arbitration panel concludes that KK is right because the club's employees presented conflicting stories - Llambias apparently mailing a letter to KK saying that he has the final say over all transfers except 'financials' yet actually maintaining that KK did not have the final say. Baffling, almost absurd stuff coming from the club about this. 6. Arbitration panel also, rightly imo, concludes that as the contract states that KK's job was to 'perform duties as may usually be associated with the position of Manager of a Premier League Football team', this is defined as giving KK the final say over transfers (since it is natural for Premier League managers to have the final say over transfers). 7. Loads of evidence of the club and its employees saying KK had the final say over transfers, so the arbitration panel concluded that even though it was not explicitly stated in the contract, it was implicit and thus KK gets 2m.

Terrible pitch, though.

Pique, 2-0.

Awesome performance.

Messi to Zlatan, 1-0 Barca.

I still like Given. He did a lot for the club and stayed when many thought he could (should?) have left. Then when he eventually leaves to a team who obviously have a good short-term future, people get pissed off. It's baffling.