Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.
It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.
i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.
Wise "rang Keegan up and told him he had a great player for him", namely Gonzalez. When Keegan couldnt find any details of Gonzalez and told Wise, Wise told him to look at him on YouTube. He then told Keegan that he'd actually never seen him play before, and the real reason he wants Gonzalez is to do a favour for a couple of agents. This is all on the last day of the transfer window, when the squad needed strenghtening, and it was now or never if we were getting some new players in. That's taking the juice is it not?
I do agree with you that more should come out about the rest of the transfers, any goings on that summer etc. That it would fill in the picture even more. "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan's appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan's resignation on 4 September 2008." is from the tribunal.
But how would you feel if on the last day of the transfer window when your trying desparately to get some players in to boost the squad, to give the team a chance of doing something that season, to give hope to the fans you have a special relationship with... and your DOF rings you up, not only blatently lies to you about a player, but lets you know that his primary focus in those last hours of the window is to do a favour for some agents.
Keegan made it known to Wise, Ashley & Llambias he did not want Gonzalez signed, presumably he let them also know that it's not good enough they're more interested in doing a favour for agents than putting effort in to sign players at that stage of the window, and that Gonzalez cannot be signed because it was agreed he would be in charge...
... Next day/early morning, skysports news: Newcastle sign Gonzalez on one year loan, Nufc website: Uruguyan international signs for United.
You let your DOF and MD your not happy, as they knew full well you wouldnt be, and in response your MD basically changes the terms of your contract from what it was when you joined, writing a letter saying "you will have final say on transfers save for commercial signings, which will be soley at the boards discrection", basically backing you into a corner.
I've thought about if he had stayed and pubcially fought them/kept it to himself and carried on, but what about the next news conference... reporter - "So Kevin, you've got uruguyan Nacho Gonzalez on loan for a season, can you tell the fans what he will bring to the party?"... What can he say? He's having the piss taken out of him.
"Well, I've never seen him play, no-one has, and I'm not happy because I didnt sign him." - public soap drama, manager carrying on when he's obviously not happy, loses dressing room focus, and he would have got the sack anyway, position untenable basically.
"He's got good experience, he's a good passer, will bring flair, good addition" - I'm going to continue as manager, and lie to the fans of whom I want the best for and have a speical relationship with about not only this, but a fair amount of other things in the future too seen as though my terms have been changed.
And he wouldnt have been able to leave from that point onwards, as he would've agreed to the change of his terms of employment. Its as much about the practially impossible situation he would have been in if he'd continued (after their patheitc stance) as it is about Gonzalez.
Shafted man. Why would they back him into a corner? 3 year season tickets sold I suppose, total under-estimation of how popular was with the fans was the players, and jobs for the boys regime. Ashley seemingly hired mates, and stayed loyal to his mates, how ever much they were shitting on Keegan.
I'm not saying he's perfect. Its not a case of a black or white view, it is about being objective. I just think, in general, most of it points to manager who loves this club being backed into a corner, who painfully & regretfully had no other choice but to leave. And when I see snidy piss-taking I just dont understand it.
the thing is you make it sound as if on that last day they put all their efforts into gonzalez,as if they couldn't work on two deals at once,although seemingly the deal was done without them.
what could keegan have said ? he could have said we've got a uruguayan intl on loan to give us a chance to have a good look at him. then not let him anywhere near the first team. as i've asked in the past. do you think he'd have let this stop him had he signed lampard,henry and modric ? i don't and the more i look at it the more i think the gonzalez deal was used as an excuse cos he didn't get what he wanted elsewhere (a more realistic version of n'zogbia using getting called insomnia as his reason for leaving)
edit...mourinho learned to put up with schevchenko whom it was widely reported he didn't want.
How can you even make this comparison - its totally daft - some of the best players in the world and a very promising prospect to a guy who has barely played anywhere he has been, moving club to club all his career, signing for all the wrong reasons.
Managers are judged on their signings as well as results, example of it this season has been Benitez & Aquiliani.
When Keegan asked for more information about Gonzalez was told to look him up on Youtube. Does that seem right..
..an independant tribunal listening to all the facts thought it wasn't.
