What's your best plausible scenario...?

[UV]

 

I also share this line of thinking but not many do,  I believe he should have stayed for the good of the club even if he wasn't happy, he knew what would happen if he walked and thats why he did it, out of spite to Ashley, Wise et al.  He knew he had more power than Ashley.  I think we put too much onto our heroes and it effects the club adversly sometimes.  It's not right that one player being dropped can get a manager sacked or that a manager leaving can mean the club has to be sold.

 

I'm sure Keegan knew the set-up when he joined as he stated so and if not he's basically been lying to us and should have left the second Wise came through the door.

 

I completely dispute this. How the hell could Keegan foresee that Ashley would make the decisions he subsequently has. Sure, he would know there would be a bit of an outcry, but these things happen and after a while it dies down and people carry on - just look at the number of people who are clinging on to the hope Ashley will do something - anything - positive so they can forgive him and continue to believe in their dream-world new-Arsenal scenario of a Champions League club built on peanuts. Spend a couple of million in January or give just about anyone the managers job to the end of the season and he'll be the saviour of the club once again to many (on here at least). In fact the irony is, the longer he lets the current situation carry on, the worse the position the club gets into, the more desperate as supporters we become, the less he he will have to do to make himself a hero once again in the eyes of the deluded - I'm sure spending a small fraction of the money the club has already brought in as revenue this season in January would seal it.

 

I don't believe anyone could have foreseen Ashley openly putting the club up for sale straight away and leaving it in limbo while it didn't sell. If the DOF structure has one redeeming feature it's that it's supposed to make the transition between managers easier not so impossible you have to sell the club.

 

I also don't buy into the he should have left at a "better" time crap. I'll quote what I said at the start of October to save typing:

 

I don't get this Keegan walked out at the worst possible time argument either. Had Keegan left earlier, say in July after Jonas & Guthrie or even before then, would supporter reaction have been any different? I don't see why, maybe it would not have been as vociferous as there would be less people feeling conned for buying 3 year STs, but there would have been protests none the less. Would Ashley have reacted differently? Again, I don't see why he would. Disgruntled supporters would have more easily been able to hit the club financially by not buying season tickets. So I don't see how we would not have been in the situation we are now, but during the transfer window. How many of the players we did get in would have signed coming into that situation? How many more existing players would have put in transfer requests? I can only see how it could have been far, far worse if Keegan had left before the end of the transfer window.

 

If he'd stayed on until January say, we would have struggled along, probably lower mid table (he's not a miracle worker). What happens when he leaves then? We would very probably go into the same freefall we are in now, but with less of the season to rectify the situation, and at the time when the other teams at the bottom typically start to up their game. Far more likely to get relegated in that situation IMO than we are now when there is plenty of time for new ownership to come in and stabilise things.

[relámpago blanco]

 

I also share this line of thinking but not many do,  I believe he should have stayed for the good of the club even if he wasn't happy, he knew what would happen if he walked and thats why he did it, out of spite to Ashley, Wise et al.  He knew he had more power than Ashley.  I think we put too much onto our heroes and it effects the club adversly sometimes.  It's not right that one player being dropped can get a manager sacked or that a manager leaving can mean the club has to be sold.

 

I'm sure Keegan knew the set-up when he joined as he stated so and if not he's basically been lying to us and should have left the second Wise came through the door.

 

I completely dispute this. How the hell could Keegan foresee that Ashley would make the decisions he subsequently has. Sure, he would know there would be a bit of an outcry, but these things happen and after a while it dies down and people carry on - just look at the number of people who are clinging on to the hope Ashley will do something - anything - positive so they can forgive him and continue to believe in their dream-world new-Arsenal scenario of a Champions League club built on peanuts. Spend a couple of million in January or give just about anyone the managers job to the end of the season and he'll be the saviour of the club once again to many (on here at least). In fact the irony is, the longer he lets the current situation carry on, the worse the position the club gets into, the more desperate as supporters we become, the less he he will have to do to make himself a hero once again in the eyes of the deluded - I'm sure spending a small fraction of the money the club has already brought in as revenue this season in January would seal it.

 

I don't believe anyone could have foreseen Ashley openly putting the club up for sale straight away and leaving it in limbo while it didn't sell. If the DOF structure has one redeeming feature it's that it's supposed to make the transition between managers easier not so impossible you have to sell the club.

 

I also don't buy into the he should have left at a "better" time crap. I'll quote what I said at the start of October to save typing:

 

I don't get this Keegan walked out at the worst possible time argument either. Had Keegan left earlier, say in July after Jonas & Guthrie or even before then, would supporter reaction have been any different? I don't see why, maybe it would not have been as vociferous as there would be less people feeling conned for buying 3 year STs, but there would have been protests none the less. Would Ashley have reacted differently? Again, I don't see why he would. Disgruntled supporters would have more easily been able to hit the club financially by not buying season tickets. So I don't see how we would not have been in the situation we are now, but during the transfer window. How many of the players we did get in would have signed coming into that situation? How many more existing players would have put in transfer requests? I can only see how it could have been far, far worse if Keegan had left before the end of the transfer window.

 

If he'd stayed on until January say, we would have struggled along, probably lower mid table (he's not a miracle worker). What happens when he leaves then? We would very probably go into the same freefall we are in now, but with less of the season to rectify the situation, and at the time when the other teams at the bottom typically start to up their game. Far more likely to get relegated in that situation IMO than we are now when there is plenty of time for new ownership to come in and stabilise things.

I never mean't he knew he would sell the club, just that the perception from the fans would be negative towards Ashley and make him attending the games impossible.  I said the line about the club having to be sold in the way that some of our fans cling onto these heroes ignoring everything else.  If you ask the people sky ask questions to if they wanted Mourinho or Keegan, they'd pick Keegan. I know thats not a very valid basis for a survey but it's the perception that Ashley will get as he see's these people on SSN and the people that have a more intelligient balanced view are never heard. 

 

I've tried ringing up talksport to try to explain that not all Newcastle fans are like the ones you see on Sky Sports but they wouldn't put me through, I wonder why.

[Nobody]

Who'd take Sven if he would get the sack from Mexico?

[nobby_solano]

Who'd take Sven if he would get the sack from Mexico?

 

he might manage to convince owen to sign his contract at least lol

[cp40]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

[relámpago blanco]

Who'd take Sven if he would get the sack from Mexico?

I'd definately take him.

[johnnypd]

 

I also share this line of thinking but not many do,  I believe he should have stayed for the good of the club even if he wasn't happy, he knew what would happen if he walked and thats why he did it, out of spite to Ashley, Wise et al.  He knew he had more power than Ashley.  I think we put too much onto our heroes and it effects the club adversly sometimes.  It's not right that one player being dropped can get a manager sacked or that a manager leaving can mean the club has to be sold.

 

I'm sure Keegan knew the set-up when he joined as he stated so and if not he's basically been lying to us and should have left the second Wise came through the door.

 

I completely dispute this. How the hell could Keegan foresee that Ashley would make the decisions he subsequently has. Sure, he would know there would be a bit of an outcry, but these things happen and after a while it dies down and people carry on - just look at the number of people who are clinging on to the hope Ashley will do something - anything - positive so they can forgive him and continue to believe in their dream-world new-Arsenal scenario of a Champions League club built on peanuts. Spend a couple of million in January or give just about anyone the managers job to the end of the season and he'll be the saviour of the club once again to many (on here at least). In fact the irony is, the longer he lets the current situation carry on, the worse the position the club gets into, the more desperate as supporters we become, the less he he will have to do to make himself a hero once again in the eyes of the deluded - I'm sure spending a small fraction of the money the club has already brought in as revenue this season in January would seal it.

 

I don't believe anyone could have foreseen Ashley openly putting the club up for sale straight away and leaving it in limbo while it didn't sell. If the DOF structure has one redeeming feature it's that it's supposed to make the transition between managers easier not so impossible you have to sell the club.

 

I also don't buy into the he should have left at a "better" time crap. I'll quote what I said at the start of October to save typing:

 

I don't get this Keegan walked out at the worst possible time argument either. Had Keegan left earlier, say in July after Jonas & Guthrie or even before then, would supporter reaction have been any different? I don't see why, maybe it would not have been as vociferous as there would be less people feeling conned for buying 3 year STs, but there would have been protests none the less. Would Ashley have reacted differently? Again, I don't see why he would. Disgruntled supporters would have more easily been able to hit the club financially by not buying season tickets. So I don't see how we would not have been in the situation we are now, but during the transfer window. How many of the players we did get in would have signed coming into that situation? How many more existing players would have put in transfer requests? I can only see how it could have been far, far worse if Keegan had left before the end of the transfer window.

 

If he'd stayed on until January say, we would have struggled along, probably lower mid table (he's not a miracle worker). What happens when he leaves then? We would very probably go into the same freefall we are in now, but with less of the season to rectify the situation, and at the time when the other teams at the bottom typically start to up their game. Far more likely to get relegated in that situation IMO than we are now when there is plenty of time for new ownership to come in and stabilise things.

I never mean't he knew he would sell the club, just that the perception from the fans would be negative towards Ashley and make him attending the games impossible.  I said the line about the club having to be sold in the way that some of our fans cling onto these heroes ignoring everything else.  If you ask the people sky ask questions to if they wanted Mourinho or Keegan, they'd pick Keegan. I know thats not a very valid basis for a survey but it's the perception that Ashley will get as he see's these people on SSN and the people that have a more intelligient balanced view are never heard. 

 

I've tried ringing up talksport to try to explain that not all Newcastle fans are like the ones you see on Sky Sports but they wouldn't put me through, I wonder why.

 

then your beef is with the media, really. as with everything, there's thick people and intelligent people on all sides of the debate.

[relámpago blanco]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

[cp40]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

[Ronaldo]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

 

we had 2 or 3 good results with Keegan in his second spell. You really are an ignorant, patronising fool

[relámpago blanco]

 

I also share this line of thinking but not many do,  I believe he should have stayed for the good of the club even if he wasn't happy, he knew what would happen if he walked and thats why he did it, out of spite to Ashley, Wise et al.  He knew he had more power than Ashley.  I think we put too much onto our heroes and it effects the club adversly sometimes.  It's not right that one player being dropped can get a manager sacked or that a manager leaving can mean the club has to be sold.

 

I'm sure Keegan knew the set-up when he joined as he stated so and if not he's basically been lying to us and should have left the second Wise came through the door.

 

I completely dispute this. How the hell could Keegan foresee that Ashley would make the decisions he subsequently has. Sure, he would know there would be a bit of an outcry, but these things happen and after a while it dies down and people carry on - just look at the number of people who are clinging on to the hope Ashley will do something - anything - positive so they can forgive him and continue to believe in their dream-world new-Arsenal scenario of a Champions League club built on peanuts. Spend a couple of million in January or give just about anyone the managers job to the end of the season and he'll be the saviour of the club once again to many (on here at least). In fact the irony is, the longer he lets the current situation carry on, the worse the position the club gets into, the more desperate as supporters we become, the less he he will have to do to make himself a hero once again in the eyes of the deluded - I'm sure spending a small fraction of the money the club has already brought in as revenue this season in January would seal it.

 

I don't believe anyone could have foreseen Ashley openly putting the club up for sale straight away and leaving it in limbo while it didn't sell. If the DOF structure has one redeeming feature it's that it's supposed to make the transition between managers easier not so impossible you have to sell the club.

 

I also don't buy into the he should have left at a "better" time crap. I'll quote what I said at the start of October to save typing:

 

I don't get this Keegan walked out at the worst possible time argument either. Had Keegan left earlier, say in July after Jonas & Guthrie or even before then, would supporter reaction have been any different? I don't see why, maybe it would not have been as vociferous as there would be less people feeling conned for buying 3 year STs, but there would have been protests none the less. Would Ashley have reacted differently? Again, I don't see why he would. Disgruntled supporters would have more easily been able to hit the club financially by not buying season tickets. So I don't see how we would not have been in the situation we are now, but during the transfer window. How many of the players we did get in would have signed coming into that situation? How many more existing players would have put in transfer requests? I can only see how it could have been far, far worse if Keegan had left before the end of the transfer window.

 

If he'd stayed on until January say, we would have struggled along, probably lower mid table (he's not a miracle worker). What happens when he leaves then? We would very probably go into the same freefall we are in now, but with less of the season to rectify the situation, and at the time when the other teams at the bottom typically start to up their game. Far more likely to get relegated in that situation IMO than we are now when there is plenty of time for new ownership to come in and stabilise things.

I never mean't he knew he would sell the club, just that the perception from the fans would be negative towards Ashley and make him attending the games impossible.  I said the line about the club having to be sold in the way that some of our fans cling onto these heroes ignoring everything else.  If you ask the people sky ask questions to if they wanted Mourinho or Keegan, they'd pick Keegan. I know thats not a very valid basis for a survey but it's the perception that Ashley will get as he see's these people on SSN and the people that have a more intelligient balanced view are never heard. 

 

I've tried ringing up talksport to try to explain that not all Newcastle fans are like the ones you see on Sky Sports but they wouldn't put me through, I wonder why.

 

then your beef is with the media, really. as with everything, there's thick people and intelligent people on all sides of the debate.

To be honest I don't know who I have a problem with, if anyone. It's more the situation than anything else, Keegan shouldn't have come in in those circumstances, Ashley shouldn't have appointed a DOF as I don't think it works, Ashley should have put more money in etc.  There are many people at fault and Keegan is one of them.  T

[relámpago blanco]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

What am I wrong about?

[cp40]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

 

we had 2 or 3 good results with Keegan in his second spell. You really are an ignorant, patronising fool

 

 

you are also simply wrong, young man

[relámpago blanco]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

 

we had 2 or 3 good results with Keegan in his second spell. You really are an ignorant, patronising fool

 

 

you are also simply wrong, young man

I'm 26 mate, qualify your answer, you can't just say my point of view is wrong without explaining why.

[cp40]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

 

we had 2 or 3 good results with Keegan in his second spell. You really are an ignorant, patronising fool

 

 

you are also simply wrong, young man

I'm 26 mate, qualify your answer, you can't just say my point of view is wrong without explaining why.

 

 

you say he shouldnt have come in under a dof, well, how it was sold to him was completely diffrent to how they tried to operate it.

keegan would never have took the job, if it was explained, ...

we will choose the players , not you, we will sell the players you want, and fill the team with inadequate ones.we will promise signings, that we will not deliver.the director of football will me a man of less standing, less experience, less achievement than yourself, he wont come to the matches, but he will tell you whast to do.

 

 

edit,

26, is simply too young to understand the impact kevin keegan had on this club, fact

[johnnypd]

going back to the main point of the thread, this outlines what i'd want.

 

What brings short-term onfield success is picking a good manager and backing his judgement - luck and timing may play a part, but essentially it really is that simple. we had the good manager in Keegan but Ashley refused to back him. this formula was successful in keegan's first spell and under robson too.

 

the problem is that we couldn't sustain these periods of success - the right foundations werent put in place, chairmen made bad choices, money was wasted. that's, theoretically, where a director of football could come in - to amend those problems and ensure short-term successes turn into long-term ones.

 

But Ashley both took it too far and got it totally the wrong way round. you can't build from top-down, appoint a DoF to have total control and think everything else will follow. By all means, invest in the youth system, buy the best 16 year olds from round the world, and expand your scouting network - but it is the manager's imperative to make use of these tools - they are there to assist him, not the other way round. Robson wasted a lot of money which meant his long-term legacy was not as good as it could've been (though a large part goes down to shepherd's error in replacing him) but the solution to that is NOT to take away transfer responsibility from the manager but to make sure the manager gets all the help he needs with a good scouting system and youth ranks well stocked with talent. Shepherd interfered in Robson's transfer deals by blocking less glamorous signings in order to spend the money on famous names who didnt necessarily have the talent, Ashley interfered with keegan by taking transfers out of his hands and into the hands of bureaucrats. putting a backroom system in place is great but it is up to the manager to use those tools however he sees fit. all these things should be subservient to him, making his job easier and ensuring smoother transitions.

 

a good, long-term system like this should be formulated ALONGSIDE appointing a good manager and backing his executive decisions, not instead of. what i'd like to see, and have wanted since robson left, is someone who has the right judgement to pick good managers, the ambition to back these managers with a fair amount of funds, and also the commonsense to ensure the backroom system works smoothly. i don't care who it is, be it shepherd or ashley, a fan or a foreigner - just as long as they do this. Shepherd was ambitious but the other two things could let him down on occasion. Ashley picked a good manager but messed up the backroom system very badly and failed to show any sort of ambition. hopefully it will be a case of third time lucky.

[ChezGiven]

Here's a fact: Keegan was briefing the media against the club before the summer transfer window opened.

 

Evidence: The Media Thread.

 

Implications: Keegan knew that he did not have total control over transfers from the outset, before the window opened and during the window when e.g. Colo and Guti were signed.

 

Conclusion: If he was acting on principles, he should either 1) never accepted the job or 2) reigned earlier instead of discussing it 'off the record' with Louise Taylor.

 

if a man has principles, he acts on them without haste, not 7 months later.

[cp40]

Here's a fact: Keegan was briefing the media against the club before the summer transfer window opened.

 

Evidence: The Media Thread.

 

Implications: Keegan knew that he did not have total control over transfers from the outset, before the window opened and during the window when e.g. Colo and Guti were signed.

 

Conclusion: If he was acting on principles, he should either 1) never accepted the job or 2)reigned  earlier instead of discussing it 'off the record' with Louise Taylor.

 

if a man has principles, he acts on them without haste, not 7 months later.

 

 

a very interesting spelling mistake, i think you have confused yourself.

[UV]

Here's a fact: Keegan was briefing the media against the club before the summer transfer window opened.

 

Evidence: The Media Thread.

 

Implications: Keegan knew that he did not have total control over transfers from the outset, before the window opened and during the window when e.g. Colo and Guti were signed.

 

Conclusion: If he was acting on principles, he should either 1) never accepted the job or 2) reigned earlier instead of discussing it 'off the record' with Louise Taylor.

 

if a man has principles, he acts on them without haste, not 7 months later.

 

That's not 7 months later, its 2 or 3. As we're dealing in hypothetical scenarios ITT, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he offered to resign around that time and was persuaded to give the system a chance to see what it could produce.

 

Also, the thought of coming out of a job after 6 months a couple of million pounds poorer is probably enough to give anyone's principals a backseat for a while at least.

[Cronky]

The idea that Wise and co were imposed on Keegan after he had been appointed on a different understanding doesn’t sound at all likely, but let’s say for the sake of argument that that was the case, and that Keegan carried on in the hope that he could change things.

 

It then appears that he exposed those differences publicly after the Chelsea game, and there was then a meeting in which Ashley clearly stated that Wise and the set-up would stay. If Keegan was going to resign on this point of principle, that was the time to do it. The team was safe, and another manager could have been brought in who could have made use of the transfer window.

[relámpago blanco]

to the keegan doubters, do you prefer what we have now,

or would you like a team, in the top three, playing attractive attacking football, scoring 70+ goals a season,

Completely irrelevant question, I was never against Keegan I just don't think he should have come in under a DOF on the principle of changing the structure over time and good results. 

 

Would we be in the top 3 had Keegan stayed and been given freedom over transfers?  Top 10 would have been a very good achievement.

 

 

you are simply wrong,

 

we had 2 or 3 good results with Keegan in his second spell. You really are an ignorant, patronising fool

 

 

you are also simply wrong, young man

I'm 26 mate, qualify your answer, you can't just say my point of view is wrong without explaining why.

 

 

you say he shouldnt have come in under a dof, well, how it was sold to him was completely diffrent to how they tried to operate it.

keegan would never have took the job, if it was explained, ...

we will choose the players , not you, we will sell the players you want, and fill the team with inadequate ones.we will promise signings, that we will not deliver.the director of football will me a man of less standing, less experience, less achievement than yourself, he wont come to the matches, but he will tell you whast to do.

 

 

edit,

26, is simply too young to understand the impact kevin keegan had on this club, fact

I don't think your point about 26 being too young is valid however I do understand the impact Keegan had back then.  We wen't from virtually being a tier 3 club in absolute turmoil into one challenging for the league in a few years , but the game has changed, no side will ever do what we did then unless something drastic changes.  QPR are one of the richest clubs in the world but even with them they will not be challenging for the title within the next few seasons.  Man City have alot of money but they will also not challenge for the title in the next few seasons. 

 

Even if you gave Keegan an unlimited budget at Newcastle he could never re-create the magic we once had.  He also knew a DOF was coming in and despite saying 3 months earlier that Sam Allardyce should never allow a DOF to come in he came in knowing one was coming.  I don't know exactly what Keegan was told and neither do you but he definately should not have come in under a DOF as he would clearly never be able to work with one, he likes to run the club himself, he also knew from the outset he was not in charge of negotiating contracts.

 

Anyway back on topic all I want to see is an owner who has no plans to sell and a permanent manager for the next 3 seasons even if we are floating in midtable.

[johnnypd]

The idea that Wise and co were imposed on Keegan after he had been appointed on a different understanding doesn’t sound at all likely, but let’s say for the sake of argument that that was the case, and that Keegan carried on in the hope that he could change things.

 

It then appears that he exposed those differences publicly after the Chelsea game, and there was then a meeting in which Ashley clearly stated that Wise and the set-up would stay. If Keegan was going to resign on this point of principle, that was the time to do it. The team was safe, and another manager could have been brought in who could have made use of the transfer window.

 

More likely that the sides came to some sort of uneasy truce and understanding after that meeting, which iirc was precipitated on the back of the 'crack SAS transfer team' failing to secure a player Keegan wanted in Modric. Evidence of this is shown by the fact that Keegan and Vetere where then seen together at numerous games scouting for players shoulder to shoulder, also Keegan running the rule over Bassong in a trial situation. Then keegan seemed fairly happy with Jonas and Guthrie, and also Colo, which suggests the big breakdown happened after the 15th of August when things moved into a more critical period and people's true intentions were more clearly revealed due to the definitiveness of their actions. people can equivocate, compromise and make excuses when there's 3 months of the window left, but when there are a matter of days left and people want results we can see what is really going on - ie failing to provide any funds, refusal to go after keegan's targets, signing players without his consent and a general deterioration in the working relationship.

[johnnypd]

Here's a fact: Keegan was briefing the media against the club before the summer transfer window opened.

 

Evidence: The Media Thread.

 

Implications: Keegan knew that he did not have total control over transfers from the outset, before the window opened and during the window when e.g. Colo and Guti were signed.

 

Conclusion: If he was acting on principles, he should either 1) never accepted the job or 2) reigned earlier instead of discussing it 'off the record' with Louise Taylor.

 

if a man has principles, he acts on them without haste, not 7 months later.

 

Your opening 'fact' is actually your own subjective reading of the situation by interpretating media reports in a certain way. if you look at louise taylor's email responses to people on here you see that she doesnt mention briefings by any party or anonymous sources (other than something about arthur cox), but things like "Body Language" and "keegan's tone of voice" iirc. It suggests he was unhappy and, in hindsight, was engaged in a behind the scenes battle for influence. *That* is acting on principle more than giving in at the first sign of an obstacle. even if he was briefing media parties, which is possible, i don't see that as particularly bad, in fact it would be another sign that he was engaged in a behind the scenes battle for influence.

 

it's likely that he had the ear of a trusted journo, but it's ludicrous to think he was holding secret behind closed door meetings. maybe one journo was onto something, the rest were fishing around for whatever shit they could. more likely keegan put out signals to non-journalists ie Les Ferdinand who came out with some rather telling comments just days before the whole thing blew up which most people waved away at the time. that would make more sense imo.

[ChezGiven]

Here's a fact: Keegan was briefing the media against the club before the summer transfer window opened.

 

Evidence: The Media Thread.

 

Implications: Keegan knew that he did not have total control over transfers from the outset, before the window opened and during the window when e.g. Colo and Guti were signed.

 

Conclusion: If he was acting on principles, he should either 1) never accepted the job or 2) reigned earlier instead of discussing it 'off the record' with Louise Taylor.

 

if a man has principles, he acts on them without haste, not 7 months later.

 

Your opening 'fact' is actually your own subjective reading of the situation by interpretating media reports in a certain way. if you look at louise taylor's email responses to people on here you see that she doesnt mention briefings by any party or anonymous sources (other than something about arthur cox), but things like "Body Language" and "keegan's tone of voice" iirc. It suggests he was unhappy and, in hindsight, was engaged in a behind the scenes battle for influence. *That* is acting on principle more than giving in at the first sign of an obstacle. even if he was briefing media parties, which is possible, i don't see that as particularly bad, in fact it would be another sign that he was engaged in a behind the scenes battle for influence.

 

it's likely that he had the ear of a trusted journo, but it's ludicrous to think he was holding secret behind closed door meetings. maybe one journo was onto something, the rest were fishing around for whatever shit they could. more likely keegan put out signals to non-journalists ie Les Ferdinand who came out with some rather telling comments just days before the whole thing blew up which most people waved away at the time. that would make more sense imo.

 

Well you got the first bit wrong so everything that follows cant make much sense. LT reported the 'bizarre' press conference at Newcastle airport (something for flybe.com) where everything keegan said was 'off the record'. Email responses to people on here? Seriously? Do you think i'm stupid or something?

 

Also, anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that if something reported in the press (that no-one believes and is considered outrageous by all) turns out to have been true all along and was reported with accuracy and consistency for so long, then there has to be a source.

 

I've been over all this before, the fact that again you are forcing me to type out again things like "was Louise Taylor hiding behind a curtain in the boardroom?" and "why would anyone associated with Ashley leak stories to the press against themselves?" shows you refused to see the obvious a few months ago, as well as now, now that the details of events start to fade in the memory. Its all preserved in the media thread, i recommend a re-read.

 

You think its unlikely that these stories came from the Keegan camp, i would strongly counter that with they were the result of off the record conversations with Keegan himself and his close associates. A journalist would never disclose this.

 

Your view is that a few journalists guessed with unnerving accuracy the finer details of the entire backroom political structure within the club on the basis of a few facial tics.

 

My view is there was a direct source as it turned out to be completely true all along. This is based on simple observation, facts and common sense.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think you're probably right Chez, although it's always possible that the press reporting of the reasons for the breakdown were not the actual ones - and that they just appear to have been correct now because the end result was the one they tried to bring about.

 

I just hate to credit Louise Taylor with knowing what was going on!