Unbelievable

That's bull Indi, and goes against the rumours that it was Wise doing the leaking for one. Unless of course you can prove KK was doing the leaking rather than suggesting it to suit your own views of this whole mess which is trying to put it on KK's toes from how I'm reading it. aren't you doing exactly the same from the keegan side. bearing in mind most of the leaks showed the board in a bad light. What leaks are we talking about here?

They've got another thing coming when Keegan will air his side of the story, especially if it strategically timed at a couple of hours before next Saturday's match.. Doubt if Keegan will stoop to the same levels as this bunch though.. Sorry, but if you think Keegan hasn't been having his say for months, then you're seriously deluded!! Where do you think the media have been getting all their inside info from!?! Who'd have thought naive old KK would have totally gotten the better of cynical hard-nosed businessman Mike Ashley in the manipulation stakes, f***ing hell man he's had us all fooled, the blokes a PR genius!! A media manipulator par excellence. I have no idea what you're trying to imply here

"Derek Llambias is a long-term acquaintance of Mike Ashley and supports West Ham."

I'm starting to think you're actually Dennis Wise. Same here... How anybody can try to defend a statement or structure like this for a Premiership football club is beyond me. And that's coming from somebody who is actually in favour of a DoF structure, but if there is meant to be no input at all of the manager into the recruitment process how the hell is the manager supposed to achieve the goals set to him and be accountable if they fail? Keegan did have a say though, Guthrie was his signing and the likes of Bassong and Zayette either stayed or went on the opinion of what Keegan thought of them while on trial. And you know this how? Because keegan said on both Bassong and Zayette that he would be speaking to Wise to let him know what he thinks of them, he also talks how he's been monitoring Guthrie since Bolton played Man Utd and that was where he caught his eye. Unless it's all bollocks like and KK had to say that or he'd be locked back under the stairs. Well, that's seriously what it looks like mate. Officially he wasn't even allowed to speak about these things at all, so imagine what would have happened if he had gone against the corporate line.. He was forced into a position where he needed to play fair weather or shut up. The only amazing thing is Keegan lasted as long as he did with these retards in charge..

Magoric actually knew about this a couple of hours ago, didn't he?

They've got another thing coming when Keegan will air his side of the story, especially if it strategically timed at a couple of hours before next Saturday's match.. Doubt if Keegan will stoop to the same levels as this bunch though..

I'm starting to think you're actually Dennis Wise. Same here... How anybody can try to defend a statement or structure like this for a Premiership football club is beyond me. And that's coming from somebody who is actually in favour of a DoF structure, but if there is meant to be no input at all of the manager into the recruitment process how the hell is the manager supposed to achieve the goals set to him and be accountable if they fail? Keegan did have a say though, Guthrie was his signing and the likes of Bassong and Zayette either stayed or went on the opinion of what Keegan thought of them while on trial. And you know this how?

I'm starting to think you're actually Dennis Wise. Same here... How anybody can try to defend a statement or structure like this for a Premiership football club is beyond me. And that's coming from somebody who is actually in favour of a DoF structure, but if there is meant to be no input at all of the manager into the recruitment process how the hell is the manager supposed to achieve the goals set to him and be accountable if they fail?

Looks like a nasty situation is about to get even nastier, tbh. That could be a bit of a media own-goal there for Ashley & Co. I preferred that post pre-edit! Bunch of f***ing c***s. How has this structure ever been clear since 16th January? Lying, slimy toads. the question is wether it was clear to keegan. It wasn't even clear to Ashley himself apparently.

They've had a couple of days to think about their next step and this is what they've come up with?! It's awfully clear now why Keegan had no choice but to resign. Good luck to them finding a top class manager willing to work on those terms..

What a bunch of muppets.. They haven't a clue when it comes to managing a football club.

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on s**** and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger O mention the debts of these other clubs because some people on here seem to think we were on the brink of receivership and we have Ashley to thank for Newcastle United still being around at all. It's a myth surrounding the Ashley takeover, because our debts were comparable to a large number of other Premiership clubs (including the ones you mention) and unless I have missed something all these clubs are still around, aren't they?

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt? We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it? People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special. see above post - arsenal's success has been acheived in spite of the debt not because of it, the debt (to my knowledge) is similar to what we had on expanding the stadium, a very different proposition to spending 300m on players i'm sure you'll agree as you've ignored them i'll take you back to villa, man city & 'boro - what do you propose for them? despite their debt levels they're basically not that much further forward than us (man city pre-windfall) so do they just keep spending and spending chasing the top four? what? you tell me, these are your examples and i'm not sure what point you're making in bringing them up 'cause frankly they're not exactly good adverts for debt in football are they? Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt? We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it? People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special.

Because of one manager resigning? We're a bit of a mess to say the least at the moment but everything is fixable. I'm going to sound like a broken record here but if people are going to keep using it as an insult then I'll correct their stupid mistake - Ashley isn't cockney, and most Southeners or indeed a large portion of Londoners aren't either. Some people seem to have a problem understanding that and then get really offended when someone makes a generalised statement about Geordies or the North. Technically speaking he didn't say Ashley is a cockney did he? I could say the king of Swahili "comes across as a big headed cockney to me", which is not to say I mistakingly thought Swahili to be a part of cockneyland.. Just pulling your leg a little Role Model, but are you a big headed cockney by any chance, who takes offense to being compared to Ashley?

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts. Unbelievable, you're a good poster and I enjoy your posts but I don't think there is any need for that at this moment to be honest because those who were supportive or just plain blind as it may now appear of which I include myself at times because I've been happy to play down the views of you and others and sing a positive note or two since Ashley took over, but you know as well as I do, most of it came from wishful thinking, hope and a desire for things to work rather than down right 100% blind faith. We've all been duped and conned and I know I feel silly and quite angry. Remember we're on the same side. Fair enough. Sorry, didn´t mean to single you out or do an ´I told you so´ gesture and I actually have a lot of respect for people who have come out and said although they were previously in hopeful support and anticipation but after recent events (transfer window activity and Keegan debacle) admit they have been underwhelmed and feel let down rather than holding on to their initial view for dear life, the likes of Wullie and Dave these recent days. I´m not even sure if I would have surfaced the way they and you did if the situation had turned out in such a way that my initial scepticism had been proved to be premature and plain wrong, so kudos for coming out and telling it how it is.

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts.

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

Pity Ashley didn't have the £100 million he had to pay off the debt, I wonder what Keegan would have been able to do with half that? Crazy how the man who has put more of his personal wealth into NUFC than anyone becomes more despised than those who went before him and took money out. He really has fecked up ! Also funny that when Bobby Robson was stabbed in the back there was so little uproar but when Keegan walks (maybe rightly so) there is huge uproar. It's funny how things work in football. I'm sure you'll be happy for him if it turns out in the next few weeks he will have made a 100% profit on us in just over a year..

Hehe, that has just put the image in my head of Ashley standing in front of a burning house trying to flog it to random people passing by..

"Discussions" were "ongoing" for three days..? Yeah right, more like they sent Keegan a letter full of "practical suggestions on how to move forward [...] Any concerns, just give us a call" which took two days to arrive at the Keegan residence courtesy of Royal Mail and seconds after opening it he made the LMA issue the statement that he had resigned.. What a shambles..

His own statement very clearly says it's neither of those options, it's option 3: the club brought in players he didn´t want. There´s no argument here for me: the board fucked up massively and Keegan had no choice but to walk.

Oh dear.. Only just found out about this news as I've been away for the evening.. Gutted that it's come to this.

Could be Everton now with kenwrights statements. Which statements are these?