AyeDubbleYoo

Mike Ashley seemed like a solid British businessman who was the antidote to the awful spending record and financial situation of the Shepherd era. Not saying Moat will be anything like him (how could he be), but it's pretty much impossible to know if he'll be any good before he gets started. I guess he's local, but there are plenty of incompetant locals.

Maybe one consideration was that if Keegan had just taken the £2m and gone away, it would never have needed a Premier League hearing and none of this would have been made public? I'd like to think that was the reason.

Think that's probably the key, he was a bit less of a cowboy than Ashley and the Lamb so he could smooth things over with KK. Basically the only required skill for a Chairman in the 'continental structure' it seems.

If we're assuming that it's just a choice between Ashley and Moat then we may as well end this thread now. Will he better than Ashley (or at least, will the fans like him more)? Almost certainly. Does it matter that he isn't mega-rich? It would be better if he was!

Not sure, you could argue that he was trying to get the fans' views and represent them to the owner. Or you could argue he's evil and just another of Ashley's Decepticons. His job wasn't to tell the absolute truth and answer any question he was asked fully and frankly, no chairman of a big company would do that.

Chez, I think Keegan's argument (or that of his legal team) was that the existing £2m clause in the contract wasn't broad enough to cover constructive dismissal and any defamation of his character. The tribunal ruled it was, so he only got £2m... don't think it was a forgone conclusion though.

Spot on Mowen, I think Heskey is nowhere near an international footballer individually, but he's essential to the current system. Crouch might be able to play the role too, but still. This is why Capello is so much better than our previous managers... the team is everything.

I realise we don't have any better offers etc etc, but I really doubt whether we'll be happy with an owner who can't invest serious money in the squad. Yes, he'll be better than Ashley, almost certainly... but will we really be happy scraping bottom half with Bolton and Stoke?

I guess I was one of those 'morons' that refused to condemn Ashley without any evidence... and I openly said that Keegan had gone down a lot in my estimation because he walked out on us. As I've said in this thread (sure you'll read it when you can be arsed), I now think a lot better of KK over this whole farce and it's now clear that Ashley's running of the club was a shambles. I still don't think I was wrong to take the stance I did at the time though, we had no facts then. Believing anything from Ashely (given what can be seen of the state of the club) ahead of Keegan = Besides that, it's mildly interesting that you say you refused to condemn Ashely without evidence yet you were willing to condemn Keegan without evidence. So as I said... I never condemed Keegan, I just thought he had let us down to a certain extent... I thought he could have stuck it out. After the truth has come out, I still think that would have been possible but I now don't blame him for what he did. It wasn't a matter of choosing Ashley's side either by the way, I never did that. So to say it was 'ahead of Keegan' doesn't make any sense. Nice use of the smilies though.

I guess I was one of those 'morons' that refused to condemn Ashley without any evidence... and I openly said that Keegan had gone down a lot in my estimation because he walked out on us. As I've said in this thread (sure you'll read it when you can be arsed), I now think a lot better of KK over this whole farce and it's now clear that Ashley's running of the club was a shambles. I still don't think I was wrong to take the stance I did at the time though, we had no facts then.

Ah, an end of the week deadline, I love those.

Thought we had got past rumours in the papers from so-called 'club insiders'.

Think Dave was saying that the tribunal made no conclusion or judgement about whether the original £25m claim was justified or correct. This was because they had already ruled that the existing £2m clause covered this situation.

Someone help this man, he seems to be suffering from delusions.

Obviously hasn't researched that bit very well. most of ppl on chroniclelive, are not happy with him Obviously I haven't researched this very well.

Obviously hasn't researched that bit very well.

I think a lot better of him now this judgement has come out, but I think we need to move on as a club. Providing we get new owners of course

Well that was interesting. Any conclusions?

I'll just imagine Supermac whinging on and not bother listening, I think.

It's theoretically possible that he could have ignored the Nacho situation and just carried on, I'm sure some managers would have done that. But why should he have to, if he genuinely believed he should be in charge of all transfers? TBH we'll never know how bad the situation was, and whether KK 'could have' stuck it out... but if you take his word it certainly sounds like he wanted to stay but thought he had no other option.

"Here's £2m quid of my hard-earned money after a bitter legal battle Kevin, and we slandered you in the press don't forget. Oh, and I'm selling the club to anyone with a few quid as soon as possible". "Fancy a job?"

I just hope it's true. Will knock KK off the back pages!

Not having a go at all, but why do you think this? To me it's made me sway much more away from trying to see reason in the Club's actions - seems they were a complete shambles right throughout this episode. It is the moral victory because they only have to pay £2 million. Keegan is vindicated. Well, the tribunal agreed that the existing clause stating £2m compensation was wide enough to include constructive dismissal as well. Suggests the amount KK was claiming was a bit over the top... not sure I would call it a moral victory though, they've been made to look like complete mongs. Their immoral morals have emerged victorious though It means that they did constuctively dismiss him, so he was correct. But they only have to pay him £2m because they had already protected themselves with this dismissal clause. Not sure 'morality' even comes into it, the clause was activated and the money is now owed... as it was agreed it would be.

What it does is turn it from pure press rumour into actual evidence and considered opinions. I'm much more happy with believing this than the back page of the Daily Mail. I do think the amount KK was trying to claim was ridiculous though, but then court cases like this often do involve stupid amounts of money being talked about.

Not having a go at all, but why do you think this? To me it's made me sway much more away from trying to see reason in the Club's actions - seems they were a complete shambles right throughout this episode. It is the moral victory because they only have to pay £2 million. Keegan is vindicated. Well, the tribunal agreed that the existing clause stating £2m compensation was wide enough to include constructive dismissal as well. Suggests the amount KK was claiming was a bit over the top... not sure I would call it a moral victory though, they've been made to look like complete mongs.