timnufc22

There's some things that shouldnt have a price, and the prestige of SJP is one of them. Yes, advertisement boards are around the pitch & in the stands, but this is surley different and a massive bridge too far. Even more illustrious companies shouldnt have their name plastered all over the gallowgate end like that... of course its not worth a couple of million imo.

Schmeichel Neville Adams Terry Cole Beckham Scholes Keane Giggs Shearer Zola A bit boring maybe but that midfield, and individual players at their best, were just immense.

Yeah thats true, I dont think there would have been too many managers (certainly quality managers) who would have accepted that treatment, so in hindsight the result was a picking from limited amount of managers who'd be ok with that.

I'm sure he didnt carry as much weight during most of his time at Bolton, like someone said, you'd think he'd make sure he was slimmer, or instructed to lose weight.

After they blatently lied to him breaking any trust, and tried to change his contract? Surley the point is we can agree that in hindsight it was probably best for all concerned that Mike Ashley & co didnt undermine & attempt to change the contract of whichever manager they hired?

And the good old 'Wayne was unlucky there', 'Rio this, Rio that'.

Surely, even those who don't think Keegan did anything wrong can agree that in hindsight it was probably best for all concerned that he didn't come back. Wasnt one of the reasons everyone was furious at Ashley when Keegan went was because he was doing a really good job up till that point? And everyone knew hes a quality manager?

Dont the signs he wants to put up say "SportsDirect.om@St. James' Park"? If so, most people were up in arms at that, and rightly so imo, so whats changed now? I understand that it will always be St. James' Park, and its not as if that name is going away, but its just something to dont tamper with imo, where's the respect for the history & heritage... not everything has a price surley... and especially in todays climate when the price would not be anywhere near the emirates sponsership.

Theres very little between Nolan & Jonas as to who to drop for Arfa, I could understand either swap. I could also understand putting Jonas on the right to make it harder for Baines & Pieinar going forward. Surley Tiote will be in for Smith, but I trust Hughton.

Possibly in a 3, with someone else in the hole. Say Jonas, Tiote & Barton in the middle.

Ring the box office up and order them that way, become a member for £20 for the season.

His style at Liverpool was so defensive, when they played at SJP in 2004 they ended up with Heskey left wing and Smicer up front on his own. He will still probably be decent for them with his experience.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Another fact is that Wise rang up Keegan and said "I've got a very good player for you". Then Wise later said to Keegan he'd actually never seen him play... which was after he told Keegan to look at Gonzalez on Youtube when Keegan didnt like the look of Gonzalez credentials. What sort of treatment is that? Its not just a simple disagreement over a loan signing, which looks nice and innocent... but the DOF lying to the manager, showing a total lack of resprect and breaking any trust. Another fact, is that had Keegan stayed on the basis of Llambias' letter sent to him - "It will continue to be the position that no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals which remain within the sole discrection of the Board." - then they could have brought in any player without his agreement and have it classed as a commercial signing. And Keegan wouldnt have been able to complain or leave afterwards referencing board interference as he'd have agreed to Llambias' terms in that letter - terms which wernt agreed on when he joined. Other witnesses at the tribunal claimed Dennis Wise was not prepared to accepted that Keegan had the final say. Total mess man. And can I ask where these young south american players are? That deal was really 100% legit wasnt it? The treatment was totally shabby, and more than just a simple disagreement. No-one claims Keegan is perfect, but I dont understand why a Newcastle fan would think this treatment didnt matter, and say 'it dosent look good on Keegan' when reading what happened. The mistake imo wasnt appointing him, the mistake was to treat him like the way they did and push him into a corner afterwards! It took a long time for the truth to out (and there may yet be more to come) but when it did it clearly showed KK had been badly treated. The problem is by the time the tribunal arrived at a verdict a lot of supporters had committed themselves to blaming Keegan and can’t admit they got it wrong. I'll try and be brief. The tribunal found that it was not a part of Keegan's contract that he had to accept Wise as the final decision-maker on transfers, and as such he was entitled to the £2 million specified in his contract. Gonzalez had been imposed on him, he was found right in law and there's no argument on that particular point. What was outside the tribunal's brief - although they did mention it in passing - was the general problems in the working relationships between Keegan and the Ashley set-up that had existed for some time beforehand. There had been rumours about it early on, and it had become obvious after Keegan's outburst after the Chelsea game and the subsequent meeting in London. Keegan did not like working to a DOF, and he did not like working in the context of a limited transfer budget. He was unable to change those issues, and that, I believe is the fundamental background to his walkout. Supporters of Keegan's actions often seem to speculate that there is more evidence of the Board's wrong-doing over transfers which for some reason was never cited at the tribunal by Keegan's lawyers and has never come to light since. That strikes me as a tacit admission that the Gonzalez affair, in itself, doesn't amount to a great deal. Well, on that I can agree. Only I don't think the hidden tensions were due to other players being imposed on him. I just think Keegan didn't like working under the constraints, financial and procedural, that he was under, and was looking for a way out. Preferably with far more money than he was entitled to, of course. Thats fair enough, tho at the same time the bits above in bold are facts... if Keegan wanted to leave purley because of finanical restrains and having a DOF theres no denying he was treated like crap at the same time. "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" from the tribunal is what some might point to with regards to the structure potentially causing problems earlier, and also "This lack of clarity, indeed confusion, in the understanding of the Club's own representatives as to this critical issue makes it, in our view, even less likely that it would and should have been clear to Mr Keegan from what he was told at the meeting on 16 January 2008 that he would not have the final say." To me, it looks like a jobs-for-the-boys mindset, and it was a mess, no doubt about that. And some would say the way the Gonzalez thing was played out towards Keegan, and the distinct lack of respect, shows Wise's overall attitude in a nutshell, and what it might have been like a lot of the time. For me, the treatment over the Gonzalez deal and the way they tried to change his contract are a shambles enough to see how he was backed into a corner. I believe he was up for bringing back better times here and proving some people wrong, wanted to get the side back into the top 6, the game at Old Trafford showed brilliant spirit.

I'd prefer to see his appearance at SJP greeted with silence, with no acknowledgement. That would probably say more than anything else. He didnt get 2 serious injuries on purpose, that was unlucky... the money he got I also wouldnt blame him for really, the contract was offered to him. It was his performances in the last 6 months which angered me the most (and a few comments he made when joining Man U), the situation was a mess but he could have shown more enthsusiasm as an experienced player. On the flip side he was brilliant under Keegan playing deeper, and some of the games like Sunderland at home, and Spurs 4-1 away are great memories which he was very much part of.

Theres no doubt Robson was making mistakes that season, selling Solano, the handling of Jenas and the handling of Viana some of them imo. But at the same time, the amount of negativity towards the whole team in general was far too much imo. The hostile atmosphere at SJP towards our own players through-out that season was way over the top, and the Wolves game was such an over-reaction without any prespective. I dont think Shepherd & co would have been so eager to get rid of Robson had the support for him stayed more, even with some dissatisfaction at the same time, whihc like I said, was warranted too. But you'd really thought we'd got relegated or something, I think expectation went far too high... disapointment yes, but it was total implosion. Its obvious they didnt have any confidence in him going into the 04 season, the way Sheperd undermined him with his public statements was disgraceful. He should have had his final season and left with a golden handshake imo.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Another fact is that Wise rang up Keegan and said "I've got a very good player for you". Then Wise later said to Keegan he'd actually never seen him play... which was after he told Keegan to look at Gonzalez on Youtube when Keegan didnt like the look of Gonzalez credentials. What sort of treatment is that? Its not just a simple disagreement over a loan signing, which looks nice and innocent... but the DOF lying to the manager, showing a total lack of resprect and breaking any trust. Another fact, is that had Keegan stayed on the basis of Llambias' letter sent to him - "It will continue to be the position that no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals which remain within the sole discrection of the Board." - then they could have brought in any player without his agreement and have it classed as a commercial signing. And Keegan wouldnt have been able to complain or leave afterwards referencing board interference as he'd have agreed to Llambias' terms in that letter - terms which wernt agreed on when he joined. Other witnesses at the tribunal claimed Dennis Wise was not prepared to accepted that Keegan had the final say. Total mess man. And can I ask where these young south american players are? That deal was really 100% legit wasnt it? The treatment was totally shabby, and more than just a simple disagreement. No-one claims Keegan is perfect, but I dont understand why a Newcastle fan would think this treatment didnt matter, and say 'it dosent look good on Keegan' when reading what happened. The mistake imo wasnt appointing him, the mistake was to treat him like the way they did and push him into a corner afterwards!

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7215/1036096.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us Possibly my favourite.

If we play a lone striker with Nolan behind, Best might be the most suitable. However promosing Carroll looks, if he's on his own up front then the opposition will push right up to the halfway line and pen us in. He's not going to be making runs in behind and pushing them back. Best is mobile while farily strong too. And he hasnt had much chance to settle so I dont think people should write him off already.

Who else is free that has as much a chance of being good enough? I know we could scout, but that's for future seasons usually. Dindane?

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.

I think the design's alreet, just the style of the sponser & crest make it look tacky. And ffs another patch on the back, it just looks shit.

Hate the badge like that.

I'd still rather Reo-Coker with more bite & drive to his game, which would compliment Barton better imo.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9770/76110009.png http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7545/troja101101edited2.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/805/troja101101edited1.jpg