UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm still struggling to comprehend how our detestable owner mistreating an employee to the extent that they're potentially entitled to a multi-million pound payout could be anything other than a further indictment of how that fat twat has run the club, regardless of who the employee is. To put another spin on it, my boss has been made redundant but has brought up a number of grievances. Most of these are wrong, a FACT I know as he has quoted me in them and what he is saying is at best a grossly warped view of events and at worst complete lies. He will end up getting a settlement higher than he should - it should be basic redundancy but he'll walk away with about £20k on top. Doen't mean he is right and the company wrong This one? Posted elsewhere, but anywho... My boss knows Mike (and that ex Spurs guy Paul Kemplsey (sp) through a mutal friend - I've seen photos of them on nights out so that bit at least is true. He's a manc with no reason to make stuff up about the toon..... Keegan has '£100m to spend in the summer', but Mikes actual thinking is that there is no limit and £100m is just a figure to use in conversations. Deco was approached in Jan for either a loan deal then or permanent in the summer - he turned both down although the summer deal may be of interest if we make big signings first. Mike bought us primarly for brand extension - he reckons its more cost effective to own a club for ten years than to sponsor the likes of Blackburn over a similar timeframe. Sports Direct or any other of his brands will not be on our shirts as a first choice. The aim is to replace Northern Rock with another third party, Adidas is likely to stay for now. However if decent deals can't be made then we may get a Lonsdale shirt etc. A bit ITKish I know, but just passing on what I've been told If so you should present this as proof he's a congenital liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Let's hope it does all get sorted out today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Nobody knows. I think that's the main issue, nobody actually knows what happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm still struggling to comprehend how our detestable owner mistreating an employee to the extent that they're potentially entitled to a multi-million pound payout could be anything other than a further indictment of how that fat twat has run the club, regardless of who the employee is. To put another spin on it, my boss has been made redundant but has brought up a number of grievances. Most of these are wrong, a FACT I know as he has quoted me in them and what he is saying is at best a grossly warped view of events and at worst complete lies. He will end up getting a settlement higher than he should - it should be basic redundancy but he'll walk away with about £20k on top. Doen't mean he is right and the company wrong This one? Posted elsewhere, but anywho... My boss knows Mike (and that ex Spurs guy Paul Kemplsey (sp) through a mutal friend - I've seen photos of them on nights out so that bit at least is true. He's a manc with no reason to make stuff up about the toon..... Keegan has '£100m to spend in the summer', but Mikes actual thinking is that there is no limit and £100m is just a figure to use in conversations. Deco was approached in Jan for either a loan deal then or permanent in the summer - he turned both down although the summer deal may be of interest if we make big signings first. Mike bought us primarly for brand extension - he reckons its more cost effective to own a club for ten years than to sponsor the likes of Blackburn over a similar timeframe. Sports Direct or any other of his brands will not be on our shirts as a first choice. The aim is to replace Northern Rock with another third party, Adidas is likely to stay for now. However if decent deals can't be made then we may get a Lonsdale shirt etc. A bit ITKish I know, but just passing on what I've been told If so you should present this as proof he's a congenital liar. Nope, he got given the heave ho last summer! Last man standing here now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 His salary was probably £2 or £3 million a year - was it a 4 year contract? Can anyone provide an explanation of how a figure of £18 million (let alone £25 million) could be arrived at? If KK wins surely no court will award anything beyond what he would have earned under the contract - if they even award that much. Bear in mind he has mitigated his loss of earnings by working for ESPN and that will be taken into acccount. yes becuase the Sun news paper has hard hitting facts and is haild by the UN as a beacon of truth for humanity. Lets wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley? probably because he wasnt stupid enough to agree to a walk out clause then walk out. if his position was made "untenable" then he would have a case apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley? probably because he wasnt stupid enough to agree to a walk out clause then walk out. if his position was made "untenable" then he would have a case apparently. I don't disagree that Keegan was foolish to trust Ashley at his word about the control he would have and agree to a walk out clause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? Because West Ham didn't try to sue Curbishley? probably because he wasnt stupid enough to agree to a walk out clause then walk out. if his position was made "untenable" then he would have a case apparently. I don't disagree that Keegan was foolish to trust Ashley at his word about the control he would have and agree to a walk out clause. nice twist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Alan-Curbishley-opts-for-tribunal-over-West-Ham-departure-article53590.html ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Alan-Curbishley-opts-for-tribunal-over-West-Ham-departure-article53590.html ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Even worse, he even wants 3m!!! OMG!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/11/premierleague-portsmouth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Alan-Curbishley-opts-for-tribunal-over-West-Ham-departure-article53590.html ? didnt know that. any idea how it went? i cant find anything recent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The state Soccer Circus is in financially as was reported at the time. IIRC it owes him a sizeable amount of money. The Newcastle job was widely reported to have bailed him/it out. You know for certain that he doesnt have assets elsewhere - not linked to the Soccer Circus ? For all we know he could have a decent property portfolio to fall back on. Its an easy assumption for the media to make - that if the business he has invested in is struggling, then he has lost everything he owns. Is it not possible that he only put enough in that he could afford to lose should the worst happens? Interesting to know if the same reports, and the reporters that wrote them, had access to all of Keegans personal financial statements. I forgot that anything negative about Keegan gets written off as a load of bollocks on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Even worse, he even wants 3m!!! OMG!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/11/premierleague-portsmouth With their name being dragged through the mud all over the press that'll be why West Ham did so poorly last season and couldn't get taken over then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The state Soccer Circus is in financially as was reported at the time. IIRC it owes him a sizeable amount of money. The Newcastle job was widely reported to have bailed him/it out. You know for certain that he doesnt have assets elsewhere - not linked to the Soccer Circus ? For all we know he could have a decent property portfolio to fall back on. Its an easy assumption for the media to make - that if the business he has invested in is struggling, then he has lost everything he owns. Is it not possible that he only put enough in that he could afford to lose should the worst happens? Interesting to know if the same reports, and the reporters that wrote them, had access to all of Keegans personal financial statements. I forgot that anything negative about Keegan gets written off as a load of bollocks on here. how could you forget , Rule Number 1? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 It was revealed last month that Keegan had loaned at least £2.37m to Soccer Circus, which made a £1m loss in the 12 months to April 2007. The company also had reported borrowings of £344,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 is Keegan personally liable for soccer circus, or is he a Director? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 is Keegan personally liable for soccer circus, or is he a Director? Director and majority shareholder. He'd potentially only lose what he's put in if it went under (ie the loans). He's not personally liable for its debts though, unless he's issued personal guarantees etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 is Keegan personally liable for soccer circus, or is he a Director? Director and majority shareholder. He'd potentially only lose what he's put in if it went under (ie the loans). He's not personally liable for its debts though, unless he's issued personal guarantees etc. Didnt think he would be that daft. Thought he would limit his liability . still a lot to lose tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm still struggling to comprehend how our detestable owner mistreating an employee to the extent that they're potentially entitled to a multi-million pound payout could be anything other than a further indictment of how that fat t*** has run the club, regardless of who the employee is. because if keegan had been the DoF and wise the manager people would still be backing keegan. lets have some evidence on what the mistreatment was. That's not really my point though. If Ashley has to payout because he f***ed up, then it's his fault imo. The fact it's KK is an interesting one, some people will defend him regardless but the interesting aspect is that there are now seemingly a number of people who strongly dislike him. Almost unthinkable before he came back. i agree. however there are too many who see keegan as a bottler who has walked out on every managerial post he has had pitted against ashley who is the devil incarnate. i trust neither enough to go on rumour and hearsay. I personally think labelling Keegan a 'bottler' because he's walked out on jobs is an unfair reflection on him given the true circumstances. He didn't 'bottle' the Fulham job, he got given a better one and it eventually became obvious he couldn't do both. The England job I guess you could class as bottling; he admitted he wasn't good enough and walked before he was pushed. I wish McLaren had had the integrity for that and saved the FA £2.5m paid for failure. As for the City job, I'm pretty sure he was told he wasn't getting his contract renewed and left by mutual consent, rather than "running away". It's the first time he's taken a stance like this, so I'm certainly not going to write it off as 'Keegan running away again' as so many seem to be desperate to. i've even backed keegan on this numerous times but it's how many see it. in much the same way people believe that keegan could do no wrong. he does seem to have played power games at every club he has been at though, threatening to leave if he doesn't et the budget he wants etc and worse at fulham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 His salary was probably £2 or £3 million a year - was it a 4 year contract? Can anyone provide an explanation of how a figure of £18 million (let alone £25 million) could be arrived at? If KK wins surely no court will award anything beyond what he would have earned under the contract - if they even award that much. Bear in mind he has mitigated his loss of earnings by working for ESPN and that will be taken into acccount. According to the Sun article the extra money is for future loss of earnings if you take the article seriously, which I don't. Sleazy tactics by Ashley's team if they are pushing the adminsitration angle but everything is speculation at the moment. alternativly a sleazy trick by the keegan team to use it as a threat to get a higher settlement. cuts both ways and unless we know where it came from (if not fabricated by a journalist) it just shows the myopic views of many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 without wanting to start a massive fight about it, what was so different about keegans situation to curbishleys situation? why hasnt he sued west ham? http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Alan-Curbishley-opts-for-tribunal-over-West-Ham-departure-article53590.html ? didnt know that. any idea how it went? i cant find anything recent. Still ongoing. Saw it mentioned in a paper (can't recall which one) the other day when he was touted for the Hull job as the article said he could not take another job until the case had been resolved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm still struggling to comprehend how our detestable owner mistreating an employee to the extent that they're potentially entitled to a multi-million pound payout could be anything other than a further indictment of how that fat t*** has run the club, regardless of who the employee is. because if keegan had been the DoF and wise the manager people would still be backing keegan. lets have some evidence on what the mistreatment was. That's not really my point though. If Ashley has to payout because he f***ed up, then it's his fault imo. The fact it's KK is an interesting one, some people will defend him regardless but the interesting aspect is that there are now seemingly a number of people who strongly dislike him. Almost unthinkable before he came back. i agree. however there are too many who see keegan as a bottler who has walked out on every managerial post he has had pitted against ashley who is the devil incarnate. i trust neither enough to go on rumour and hearsay. I personally think labelling Keegan a 'bottler' because he's walked out on jobs is an unfair reflection on him given the true circumstances. He didn't 'bottle' the Fulham job, he got given a better one and it eventually became obvious he couldn't do both. The England job I guess you could class as bottling; he admitted he wasn't good enough and walked before he was pushed. I wish McLaren had had the integrity for that and saved the FA £2.5m paid for failure. As for the City job, I'm pretty sure he was told he wasn't getting his contract renewed and left by mutual consent, rather than "running away". It's the first time he's taken a stance like this, so I'm certainly not going to write it off as 'Keegan running away again' as so many seem to be desperate to. i've even backed keegan on this numerous times but it's how many see it. in much the same way people believe that keegan could do no wrong. he does seem to have played power games at every club he has been at though, threatening to leave if he doesn't et the budget he wants etc and worse at fulham. I wouldn't ever argue he's perfect, far from it. Just seems an unfair and lazy stick to beat him with. The situation has been oversimplified from both sides imo, although I tend to side with KK given the track records of those involved. Like you I want to know what actually happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts