Isegrim Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 He's either making the claim or his silence is a complete lack of respect in that case. I'm happy to believe that this isnt true, as people are saying. That just leaves a rather large can of worms regarding his complete silence. Why has he not said anything if he is not in a legal dispute? Why has he not explained his actions? Why would he not want to put his side of the story? Can those telling me not to believe this help out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Moyes new deal is supposedly £65k per week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? Whether you are a player or a manager you are usually expected to turn up for work if you want to get paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? It probably is fair. But there again if a player walks out because he doesn't like something would he expect to be paid for the next 3 1/2 years ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? Whether you are a player or a manager you are usually expected to turn up for work if you want to get paid. Still what relevance does this have to O-Nut's reservation of giving a manager a contract of 50k a week and my opinion that this looks like a fair wage these days. Wether Keegan is entitled to a full compensation after resigning/forced to resign has nothing to do with the question about the original terms being sensible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbel1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 He's either making the claim or his silence is a complete lack of respect in that case. I'm happy to believe that this isnt true, as people are saying. That just leaves a rather large can of worms regarding his complete silence. Why has he not said anything if he is not in a legal dispute? Why has he not explained his actions? Why would he not want to put his side of the story? Can those telling me not to believe this help out? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is saving it for the next edition of his autobiography Bound to make it a best seller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 IMO the story is a load of bullshit. I don't think Keegan would have a case anyway. If it IS true, then yes, he's a parasite in my eyes. If it's not true, then I urge him and his legal team to sue the news source. I think Keegan did the club no favors walking out the way he did, but I don't think he would stoop this low personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 If its not true why hasnt he done an interview on Oprah?!? I want snot, tears and recriminations! Ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 He loves the club? Yeah, right. Not as much as he would love to keep his Soccer Centre creditors happy is my guess. Shame. Nail on head. Makes you wonder why he came back in the first place and got out so quickly once an "opportunity" arose. Choosing to believe the press now are we. I don't read the press - what are they saying like ? I can see why you missed it then, but apparently the London Evening Standard newspaper - which obviously has it's finger on the pulse of the goings on at Newcastle United - is claiming that Keegan is suing the club for £9m. The really funny thing is though that some people are choosing to believe it without any quotes or evidence whatsoever, purely based on what "Standard Sport understands"! BTW for someone who doesn't read the press you sure have a lot of posts in the "The Media : 'We hate Newcastle United'" thread. Just posting your opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about as usual I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? Whether you are a player or a manager you are usually expected to turn up for work if you want to get paid. Still what relevance does this have to O-Nut's reservation of giving a manager a contract of 50k a week and my opinion that this looks like a fair wage these days. Wether Keegan is entitled to a full compensation after resigning/forced to resign has nothing to do with the question about the original terms being sensible. I'm quite ok with the original terms though and never said otherwise. For me that isn't the issue as I've explained already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Some absolute wankers in this thread mind. f***ing c***s man. Hope you're talking about the folks believing this. I certainly am. Or the ones making snide remarks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'd take it with a pinch of salt. What I'd be more worried about if true, is that we gave Keegan a contract worth £9m over 3 and a half years more than anything...that would mean he'd been on £50,000 a week whilst here. Surely not? ? Looks a fair wage for a manager in relation to what players earn nowadays. It's more than fair considering he hasn't even completed one year before walking out. Que? He wants paying for 3 and a half years despite being here for only 8 months? What has this to do with my point that paying a manager 50,000 pound a week looks like a fair wage in comparison to player's wages? Whether you are a player or a manager you are usually expected to turn up for work if you want to get paid. Still what relevance does this have to O-Nut's reservation of giving a manager a contract of 50k a week and my opinion that this looks like a fair wage these days. Wether Keegan is entitled to a full compensation after resigning/forced to resign has nothing to do with the question about the original terms being sensible. I'm quite ok with the original terms though and never said otherwise. For me that isn't the issue as I've explained already. Err, ok. So your post had nothing to do with my point and you were just quoting totally out of context. You were just desperate to post another snidey remark against Keegan. Fine. Tooj is right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 i thought keegan was involved in some claim/counter-claim over £2m, which would be why he isnt making public statements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheKingOfNewcastle Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 IMO the story is a load of bullshit. I don't think Keegan would have a case anyway. If it IS true, then yes, he's a parasite in my eyes. If it's not true, then I urge him and his legal team to sue the news source. I think Keegan did the club no favors walking out the way he did, but I don't think he would stoop this low personally. I think the way Keegan involved the LMA in all of this, and the way the LMA have backed him up suggests he does have a case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 As I've said before (even though I got shot down for it), this isn't true. Neither is the claimed £2m compensation. You were asked to back up your claims, which you never did. Which I will not do on an internet message board. Care to inform us a bit about what the truth of the situation actually is, then? I don't know what is happening, just what isn't. Only know that talk of compensation and the figures being bandied around aren't true. Are you related to Chemical Ali? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I can see why you missed it then, but apparently the London Evening Standard newspaper - which obviously has it's finger on the pulse of the goings on at Newcastle United - is claiming that Keegan is suing the club for £9m. The really funny thing is though that some people are choosing to believe it without any quotes or evidence whatsoever, purely based on what "Standard Sport understands"! Aren't these the same feckers that were spouting the anti-KK stuff straight after the walkout too? Until it's backed up with anything even approaching a reliable source I don't believe a word of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Suggesting that the story could be true is 'snide'? Its quite possible that he is claiming compensation. Deal with it. I'm not arsed whether he claims 90p of 9m, it wont affect my judgement of the man. It would undermine people who have been comparing him to 'men of principle' in a language fitting for those fine men who fought against slavery, ended apartheid in South Africa, stood up against unjust wars and of course, sacrificed themselves to rid the geordie earth of the cockneys though. Anyway, if he is suing Mike Ashley it could be that it doesnt even affect the club. It may be impossible to transfer this case to the new owners, in which case, you maybe shoud think of supporting the idea of his claim? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Suggesting that the story could be true is 'snide'? Its quite possible that he is claiming compensation. Deal with it. I'm not arsed whether he claims 90p of 9m, it wont affect my judgement of the man. It would undermine people who have been comparing him to 'men of principle' in a language fitting for those fine men who fought against slavery, ended apartheid in South Africa, stood up against unjust wars and of course, sacrificed themselves to rid the geordie earth of the cockneys though. Anyway, if he is suing Mike Ashley it could be that it doesnt even affect the club. It may be impossible to transfer this case to the new owners, in which case, you maybe shoud think of supporting the idea of his claim? Agree with this - particularly the point you allude to about the ridiculous deification of Keegan as highlighted in bold above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I can see why you missed it then, but apparently the London Evening Standard newspaper - which obviously has it's finger on the pulse of the goings on at Newcastle United - is claiming that Keegan is suing the club for £9m. The really funny thing is though that some people are choosing to believe it without any quotes or evidence whatsoever, purely based on what "Standard Sport understands"! Aren't these the same feckers that were spouting the anti-KK stuff straight after the walkout too? Until it's backed up with anything even approaching a reliable source I don't believe a word of it. I presume you two are still waiting to pass judgement on the whole Keegan affair then since no actual facts have been established? I wish more had been level-headed like you two instead of jumping in feet first without the first clue of what the facts were from day 1 (sep 2nd). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Some absolute wankers in this thread mind. f***ing c***s man. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now