How Keegan stole Distin from Newcastle

[NE5]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

[NE5]

In the same way Spurs "stole" Carrick from Sir Bobby, as he would have been ours. A chairman not willing to back his manager with the money because he was arrogant enough to think we were the best these players would get, and hence they wouldnt go elsewhere.

 

supposition, and a silly comment to be honest. 

 

Cort, Viana, Bramble, Robert, Bellamy, Lua Lua, Milner, Butt, Jenas, Woodgate, Acuna, Ambrose, O'Brien, were all bought by Robson. Some come under the "big fee", some come under the "potential and young" category.

 

As I've just said, if you really think the chairman [and his board] should back the manager for every player he wants, you can't then complain about "overspending".

 

Backing managers was not the problem, it was the choice of player by the managers involved, and that goes for all the managers, not just Robson.

 

 

[fredbob]

In the same way Spurs "stole" Carrick from Sir Bobby, as he would have been ours. A chairman not willing to back his manager with the money because he was arrogant enough to think we were the best these players would get, and hence they wouldnt go elsewhere.

 

supposition, and a silly comment to be honest. 

 

Cort, Viana, Bramble, Robert, Bellamy, Lua Lua, Milner, Butt, Jenas, Woodgate, Acuna, Ambrose, O'Brien, were all bought by Robson. Some come under the "big fee", some come under the "potential and young" category.

 

As I've just said, if you really think the chairman [and his board] should back the manager for every player he wants, you can't then complain about "overspending".

 

Backing managers was not the problem, it was the choice of player by the managers involved, and that goes for all the managers, not just Robson.

 

 

 

So who gave there judgment as to whether a player wasnt suitable or not? Did Shepherd et al take it in there own hands to assess the need of that particular player?

 

If so, why? Serious question bytheway? Just interested to know your views.

 

 

[Tsunami]

As I remember Distin was hardly reliable for us & had many Bramble moments before Bramble even arrived. In fact Distin still has those Bramble moments.

 

He wanted big money & his performances imo didn't justify it.

[TRon]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

[Cajun]

May be completely wrong but it seemed the old board had a "wait until they accept our offer" policy which kind of backfired at times when we missed out on some very good players. Tbf it worked in the sense we missed out on people like Kleberson. Did also lead to some panic buys though, paying way too much for certain players when getting desperate.

[Rich]

At the time was it not reported that he wanted parity with his best mate Robert if he was to sign for us? And also that he didn't like playing fullback?

 

Man City offered him more money and the promise of regular action at CB.

 

Apologies if already mentioned.

[NE5]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

You are talking about one player, and making a case for one player moving to a differnet club because of an agenda with a personality.

 

Your initial comments prove this completely.

 

Man City found the money to buy this one player at the time, of course they did, but which of the 2 clubs ie us and Man City, backed the managers the most, acheived the most qualifications for europe.

 

You can't say that Man City were better and bigger than us on the basis of siging ONE player, without looking at the overall performance of both clubs

 

Basically, if any Man City fan would swap their last decade for ours, then they are a bloody idiot.. And this is the bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

[ToonMonty]

At the time was it not reported that he wanted parity with his best mate Robert if he was to sign for us? And also that he didn't like playing fullback?

 

Man City offered him more money and the promise of regular action at CB.

 

Apologies if already mentioned.

 

That's how I remember it as well, I think there were a few quotes as well about how Robson payed defenders smaller wages than forwards, he then blew this by signing Woodgate and making him one of the top end earners.

 

Provided he was the one who decided all this of course.........

[Guest alex]

Said it a few times before but what really got my goat afterwards was that we could have got Distin and Upson for what we paid for Bramble that summer.

[UV]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

If we offered to pay him in beans and he wanted paying in peanuts it's no wonder he signed for Man City.

 

City are by no means an inferior club, they are a similar sized club to us with similar support base and similar potential. Yet they have spent nowhere near what we have in the Premiership until last year when we both got new owners/chairmen. They were in a far bigger financial hole before their takeover than we were before ours. The fact that you are commending their previous financial dealings says a lot about the worth of your opinions on such matters.

[TRon]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

You are talking about one player, and making a case for one player moving to a differnet club because of an agenda with a personality.

 

Your initial comments prove this completely.

 

Man City found the money to buy this one player at the time, of course they did, but which of the 2 clubs ie us and Man City, backed the managers the most, acheived the most qualifications for europe.

 

You can't say that Man City were better and bigger than us on the basis of siging ONE player, without looking at the overall performance of both clubs

 

Basically, if any Man City fan would swap their last decade for ours, then they are a bloody idiot.. And this is the bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

 

I am talking about a player who I really rated during his spell here, who Robson wanted to sign who then was allowed to sign for Man City instead due to in your own words a bean counter in the board room. If we didn't have enough beans, how come we splurged £5m worth on Bramble?

 

There were other players Robson wanted but was denied, like Miguel - we got Carr instead. Fair enough we went for the cheaper option which I don't object to if the funds aren't there. I hope that last sentence registered. I am not the one who first used the term 'bean counter' with regard to a Chairman. Personally I reckon if someone is putting the beans in, they are entitled to count them in any case. It seems fantastically hypocritical to accuse one person of being a bean counter and then defending someone else for doing the exact same thing.

 

 

 

 

[TRon]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

If we offered to pay him in beans and he wanted paying in peanuts it's no wonder he signed for Man City.

 

City are by no means an inferior club, they are a similar sized club to us with similar support base and similar potential. Yet they have spent nowhere near what we have in the Premiership until last year when we both got new owners/chairmen. They were in a far bigger financial hole before their takeover than we were before ours. The fact that you are commending their previous financial dealings says a lot about the worth of your opinions on such matters.

 

Seeing as you seem to parrot everything NE5 says you can just read my reply to him.

[Optimistic Nut]

I think Distin's a cracking player. Would be good if Keegan could get him back, even if it did mean paying £4-5m for him.

[Baggio]

I think Distin's a cracking player. Would be good if Keegan could get him back, even if it did mean paying £4-5m for him.

 

Can't see that happening after his comments before last weekends game about how he was right to turn us down for Pompey last Summer.

[NE5]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

You are talking about one player, and making a case for one player moving to a differnet club because of an agenda with a personality.

 

Your initial comments prove this completely.

 

Man City found the money to buy this one player at the time, of course they did, but which of the 2 clubs ie us and Man City, backed the managers the most, acheived the most qualifications for europe.

 

You can't say that Man City were better and bigger than us on the basis of siging ONE player, without looking at the overall performance of both clubs

 

Basically, if any Man City fan would swap their last decade for ours, then they are a bloody idiot.. And this is the bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

 

I am talking about a player who I really rated during his spell here, who Robson wanted to sign who then was allowed to sign for Man City instead due to in your own words a bean counter in the board room. If we didn't have enough beans, how come we splurged £5m worth on Bramble?

 

There were other players Robson wanted but was denied, like Miguel - we got Carr instead. Fair enough we went for the cheaper option which I don't object to if the funds aren't there. I hope that last sentence registered. I am not the one who first used the term 'bean counter' with regard to a Chairman. Personally I reckon if someone is putting the beans in, they are entitled to count them in any case. It seems fantastically hypocritical to accuse one person of being a bean counter and then defending someone else for doing the exact same thing.

 

 

it has indeed, so now, what exactly are you whinging about ?

 

When Ashley and whoever he employs to run the club ie Mort show genuine ambition ie real amibition to put together a team to match the other top teams, for the club then I basically won't question them if they say the money for the moment is more or less been spent . I think this is fairly straightforward.

 

You just can't say they should back the manager for every player he wants, then slate them for overspending.

 

 

[NE5]

I always liked the look of Distin who was clearly an athlete even then. Keegan and Robson both saw something in him as well, so they did their bit right in identifying a good target. Keegan stole in when we failed to agree terms which looked a bad decision back then and looks even more short-sighted now. I know Robson was keen to sign him and his judgerment should have been backed.

 

His judgement was backed with numerous players, probably most players he wanted on the face of it, some were great successes, some were not.

 

I agree with you, re backing the manager, but you have to accept that sometimes it may not be financially possible otherwise you have to accept that NOT accepting this means you can't then complain if the club "overspends" ?

 

Do you see the point ?

 

 

 

I see the point, you are saying the club as a whole has to count it's beans accordingly. Obviously we, as a club with an ambitious board needed to employ bean-counters to work out which players we could afford. Even though Man City were an inferior club, they could afford to pay a few peanuts more, for which I commend them.

 

 

 

If we offered to pay him in beans and he wanted paying in peanuts it's no wonder he signed for Man City.

 

City are by no means an inferior club, they are a similar sized club to us with similar support base and similar potential. Yet they have spent nowhere near what we have in the Premiership until last year when we both got new owners/chairmen. They were in a far bigger financial hole before their takeover than we were before ours. The fact that you are commending their previous financial dealings says a lot about the worth of your opinions on such matters.

 

Seeing as you seem to parrot everything NE5 says you can just read my reply to him.

 

He's right though.

[OzzieMandias]

Whoever is counting the beans, I'm sure the new lot won't do anything as moronic and selfishly short-sighted as not strengthening the squad the summer before a CL qualifier.

[NE5]

Whoever is counting the beans, I'm sure the new lot won't do anything as moronic and selfishly short-sighted as not strengthening the squad the summer before a CL qualifier.

 

lets hope we actually qualify for the qualifier first Ozzie lad .... I see you've surfaced again now the bad run is over

 

Wearing your red and white shirt on Sunday ?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Knew you'd bite that one. 

 

Knew you'd have no coherent answer, either.

[NE5]

Knew you'd bite that one. 

 

Knew you'd have no coherent answer, either.

 

bite ?

 

haha, well done for admitting you don't make any worthwhile contribution to this message board.

 

No "bite" but I'm sure most people with half a brain will see the irony of your initial post.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Knew you'd bite that one. 

 

Knew you'd have no coherent answer, either.

 

bite ?

 

 

 

Rather toothlessly, of course.

[Yorkie]

Have any of you lot actually met each other in person? Like, NE5, Mick, Ozzie, Baggio, etc...? Would be funny if someone fed you all with a dose of nitrogen or something and unleashed you in a 10x10 room. That'd be good TV.

 

YAWN, btw.

[OzzieMandias]

You get a dose of nitrogen with every breath you take, man.

 

An extra big one when you yawn.

[Yorkie]

I got pwned.

 

I meant laughing gas. Whatever that is, in that case.