quayside

That's the most baffling thing. They're effectively spit polishing the club with the view to attracting buyers yet Llambias seems to talk in the long term. I really do hope MA wants to offload ASAP but I fear we're going to be in the second tier in a few seasons time still finding ways to cut costs. I reckon he'll be out first chance he gets. I suspect he would already be out if he wasn't asking too much money. The "easy exit" theory is the only explanation that makes any real sense of how things are being done. Some people argue that the investment in young players suggests that Ashley is looking longer term. But a pool of cheap talented youngsters is very attractive to a potential buyer looking at what will need spending on the squad in future years.

The statement reminds me of what Fred said before he appointed Roeder tbh.

The results you lot grind out are down to your manager, you may have key players missing but Moyes always sorts out a way of playing that is hard to break down and is competitive. Even when you had that seriously shyte season four or so years back you were still hard to beat. And that year Moyes wouldn't have got past January if he'd been here.

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens. I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co. People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here. You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic. How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****. If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories. I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were. Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this. Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract. For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal. As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court. you're a solicitor AND an account? No I'm not a lawyer mate - I have had some previous with employment law. f*cking minefield it is too

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens. I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co. People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here. You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic. How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****. If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories. I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were. Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this. Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract. For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal. As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens. I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co. People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here. You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

Dont be crazy. As if Ashley is thinking of 'hanging Keegan out to dry' after the reaction of the fans to him leaving. PR disaster. Turn of phrase which seemed appropriate as I was thinking back to their 'FACT' phase. If they're in the right, they should set about demonstrating it as clearly as possible so as to nullify that reaction you speak of. It still hangs over the club. 'Out of court settlements' and silence are going to be for the worse, if they're serious about wanting to drive this club on with the spirit it possessed not so long ago. In a case like this where much depends on hearsay I'd be amazed if either side could be sure of hanging the other out to dry tbh.

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case. Very much in the same way Mike "Yes, Keegan has full control.....oh wait, no he doesn't" Ashley lied. It seems pretty clear to me that due to the fact it's being settled out of court your man Mike and his pals have realised that they're the ones who'd be over a barrell if it went any further. True dat. Word. They're f***ed if Keegan comes out and confirms to us what we're already thinking. Not true necessarily. The exact sequence of events that led to Keegan going is known only to those who were directly involved. It would come down to a court having to believe someone's word against the other party, and thats in both the constructive dismissal case and the breach of contract case. How can anyone predict who a court would believe in those circumstances? Both parties are on risk of losing, which is why a settlement is the way it is going.

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge about various things during his time here and from his own mouth. coupled with various mort quotes, he might find he hasnt much of a case.

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. Maybe true - but there's obviously no doubt in your mind that is what happened and that it all happened in that order, what source do you have to back it up? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7613562.stm A few quotes from a BBC sports reporter about the cause of the dispute and a fair amount of speculation.

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. + keegan lied. About what? Source? There's been nothing in the press about this for obvious reasons so a few people on here must have inside knowledge

He's doing f*** all to the fans Ashley employed him, Ashley lied, Keegan walked, Ashley threatened Keegan with legal action of the clause saying he had to pay him X amount, Keegan takes them to court citing constructive dismissal. Maybe true - but there's obviously no doubt in your mind that is what happened and that it all happened in that order, what source do you have to back it up?

He has.

Llambias has specifically referred to both the Jonas and the Keegan settlements and their effect on the finances. Nowhere has he said that Ashley will fund anything other than the clubs past, present and future trading losses which were £30 million in 2007, £20 million in 2008, and expected to reduce to £7 million in 2009. If you want to believe that we are going to spunk £30 million on the squad in the summer please do so, but the club has said nothing whatsoever that points at that happening.

You can add Babayaro to the Haves list. Got paid to piss off iirc.

Very selective. There is no plan for Kinnear to get a net spend of £30 million in the summer, regardless of the outcome of Keegan's settlement, and nothing that Llambias has said points to that happening. Have you been in the boardroom meetings recently then? Funny how we tend to believe the press when it's negative and not when it says something like that. Of course I haven't been in the boardroom meetings. I'm going on what has been communicated in the press by Llambias in his recent interviews. The article is a classic case of plucking a few quotes from a larger piece and and coming to a false conclusion.

Very selective. There is no plan for Kinnear to get a net spend of £30 million in the summer, regardless of the outcome of Keegan's settlement, and nothing that Llambias has said points to that happening.

The theory is brilliant and very wise - impossible to argue with. As you rightly question though (when asking about Kinnear), are the football decisions being made as wisely because they have to balance the good business plan with making sure what happens on the pitch keeps the club in the top level as well. Neglect the first team and the rest is near enough pointless. Agree. Also an under performing first team will lead to a hole being blown in the gate/season ticket revenue. The real issue I have with all this is the fact that we seem to be expected to believe that Kinnear is the man to implement this vision onto the pitch. I find it hard to use the words "vision" and "Kinnear" in the same sentence tbh. FWIW I don't think the 2008/2009 version of Keegan was the man for this type of plan either.

Reading the stuff in the various interviews I believe this is the business plan that Llambias is communicating. Ashley has funded the trading losses of the previous regime and will continue to fund future trading losses. He will get shot of overpaid, under performing and injury prone players and bring in more cost effective replacements. In so doing he is aiming to reduce the annual trading loss (which he funds) from the current level of around £20 million to £7 million next year and look for further improvement after that. Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad. And any "profits" made so far in the transfer windows could well be wiped out by the Jonas settlement, and the Keegan settlement could also impact. The plan is for the investment in young players to pay off and kick in over the next 5 years meaning that the need for external investment on buying players is minimal and selective. Sounds great in theory but is anyone even convinced that he is committed to the club in the long term - let alone trusting him to deliver the above plan? And does anyone think Kinnear is the man to lead the charge?

I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? Whilst I haven't looked at every club's accounts Boro was one that I have had a look at. Boro's debt is external interest bearing debt but it is guaranteed by Gibson O'Neill Ltd, of which Gibson owns 75%.

To be perfectly honest, so did I. C'est la vie. Real problem was that him and Geremi were effectively bought in to replace Dyer and Solano and in terms of what they could offer to the side they were always going to come up well short. Granted that Dyer had major fitness and attitude issues but we've never really replaced what he and Nobby brought to the party.

I don't think there are any PR games being played here. He is their man and they will stick with him. Ashley employs people in Sports Direct who are not considered to be up to the job, but he sticks with them because he likes them and trusts them. Such loyalty is admirable in some ways but retaining JFK as manager will be the biggest obstacle Ashley has got if he is going to get the fans onside. I don't think many people think Kinnear is a credible manager who can move the club forward in the long term, and retaining him just adds fuel to the argument that Ashley is not in it for the long term or is extremely naive (or both).

01-02 71 points (without Woodgate) 02-03 69 points (with woodgate from Jan) 03-04 56 points (with woodgate) aye, that's a f***ing incredible difference we did concede less goals with woodgate in the team, but we also scored less in the 2 seasons he was here In one and a half seasons Woodgate only played about 30 games for us iirc.

Arteta is out for the rest of the season apparently. Edit: Sorry just noticed Blue Star's post above!