TRon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It's moral to let the people who fuck you over and then ruin your reputation get away with it? What the fuck? So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified? I am. Tell me why it wasn't. It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it. He seems happy enough with what he's got and good for him. Just because his lawyers were going for whatever they could doesn't make it right. No, he didn't get it because it was written into his contract that he couldn't get it. The verdict had nothing to do with whether the 25m was justified or not, and since KK accepted that publishing the verdict would restore his reputation, the 25m wasn't an issue anymore. Exactly. I think some people on here need to fucking read the thing before mouthing off about what Keegan 'was awarded'. Don't know if that's aimed at me but I did read the PDF. I'm very glad Keegan didn't get £25m for reasons I've already stated. He won the case, got compensation which is more than enough imo, and the club is still in a position to be sold. There's nothing to stop a new owner appointing Keegan either which I would fully support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Like I said ages ago it would be a win win situation for the club, KK clears his name and gets some money, ashley and his wankers get the final nail in the coffin. Its done, now lets get the club off them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 full details of the full hearing on a pdf.... http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf Well that was interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 full details of the full hearing on a pdf.... http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf Well that was interesting. Any conclusions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 full details of the full hearing on a pdf.... http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf Well that was interesting. Any conclusions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 full details of the full hearing on a pdf.... http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf Well that was interesting. Any conclusions? Yes, I have too much time on my hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It's moral to let the people who fuck you over and then ruin your reputation get away with it? What the fuck? So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified? I am. Tell me why it wasn't. It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it. He seems happy enough with what he's got and good for him. Just because his lawyers were going for whatever they could doesn't make it right. No, he didn't get it because it was written into his contract that he couldn't get it. The verdict had nothing to do with whether the 25m was justified or not, and since KK accepted that publishing the verdict would restore his reputation, the 25m wasn't an issue anymore. Exactly. I think some people on here need to fucking read the thing before mouthing off about what Keegan 'was awarded'. Don't know if that's aimed at me but I did read the PDF. I'm very glad Keegan didn't get £25m for reasons I've already stated. He won the case, got compensation which is more than enough imo, and the club is still in a position to be sold. There's nothing to stop a new owner appointing Keegan either which I would fully support. If you've read it then I'd expect you to realise that his claim was deemed irrelevant by the fact the termination clause was upheld. Your post about his claim not being justified makes no sense, because the tribunal didn't go that far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Keegan was suing the club for £25million - This is the biggie for me. I did not believe he was actually suing us for this figure. I thought max 9 million. I still think he was wrong to sue the club even for this. Given he was willing to sue the club for 25 million despite what it could do to the club "he loves". Confirms the feelings I have had for Keegan. In terms of the good of NUFC he is no better than Ashley. I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. What garbage. So no-one can sue anybody and keep their principals? Sorry to be a pedantic tw@t, but wasn't he suing his principals as a matter of principle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Keegan was suing the club for £25million - This is the biggie for me. I did not believe he was actually suing us for this figure. I thought max 9 million. I still think he was wrong to sue the club even for this. Given he was willing to sue the club for 25 million despite what it could do to the club "he loves". Confirms the feelings I have had for Keegan. In terms of the good of NUFC he is no better than Ashley. I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. What garbage. So no-one can sue anybody and keep their principals? Sorry to be a pedantic tw@t, but wasn't he suing his principals as a matter of principle. Shame Victoria Principal isn't involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It's moral to let the people who fuck you over and then ruin your reputation get away with it? What the fuck? So are you saying that a £25 million compensation claim in these circumstances was justified? I am. Tell me why it wasn't. It wasn't justified otherwise he would have got it. He seems happy enough with what he's got and good for him. Just because his lawyers were going for whatever they could doesn't make it right. No, he didn't get it because it was written into his contract that he couldn't get it. The verdict had nothing to do with whether the 25m was justified or not, and since KK accepted that publishing the verdict would restore his reputation, the 25m wasn't an issue anymore. Exactly. I think some people on here need to fucking read the thing before mouthing off about what Keegan 'was awarded'. Don't know if that's aimed at me but I did read the PDF. I'm very glad Keegan didn't get £25m for reasons I've already stated. He won the case, got compensation which is more than enough imo, and the club is still in a position to be sold. There's nothing to stop a new owner appointing Keegan either which I would fully support. If you've read it then I'd expect you to realise that his claim was deemed irrelevant by the fact the termination clause was upheld. Your post about his claim not being justified makes no sense, because the tribunal didn't go that far. Are we debating over what the term 'justified' means now? How can you say it makes no sense when the tribunal has upheld that the termination clause was valid and Keegan acknowledged it was? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Think Dave was saying that the tribunal made no conclusion or judgement about whether the original £25m claim was justified or correct. This was because they had already ruled that the existing £2m clause covered this situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Think Dave was saying that the tribunal made no conclusion or judgement about whether the original £25m claim was justified or correct. This was because they had already ruled that the existing £2m clause covered this situation. When I used the term justified I was using it as a fan giving an opinion on an internet forum. Since there's no official conclusion whether it was justified or not there's nowt wrong with me saying one way or the other is there? So why the hissy fit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericz Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think that human beings simply love to over-complicate matters. Mr Keegan is doing what most people (yes, even the most passionate of Newcastle fans) would have done. He is making a rational decision and few self-proclaimed Newcastle fans, when placed in his position, would take a different course of action. Is it in accordance to one's or Mr Keegan's principles? I have no idea, much less have knowledge of what his principles are. In fact, I do find some posters here rather amusing, their false pretences of adopting a moral high ground atop a pedestal, chastising the poor man (not so poor now obviously), when even they themselves, passionate fans so to speak, if placed in Keegan's position, may very well possibly adopt the same decision. We're talking about the right to a £25million compensation, not a £2,500 compensation. What will the outcome be if it's a £2,500 compensation? Face it, we will never know. It's a moot point. JUST MOVE ON.! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Think Dave was saying that the tribunal made no conclusion or judgement about whether the original £25m claim was justified or correct. This was because they had already ruled that the existing £2m clause covered this situation. When I used the term justified I was using it as a fan giving an opinion on an internet forum. Since there's no official conclusion whether it was justified or not there's nowt wrong with me saying one way or the other is there? So why the hissy fit? Hissy fit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Exactly. I think some people on here need to fucking read the thing before mouthing off about what Keegan 'was awarded'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That classes as a hissy fit? Well sorry if I upset you man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That classes as a hissy fit? Well sorry if I upset you man. likewise! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Essentially then a bunch of duplicitous adventurists have been found out lying and £2m has been paid to a man of principle as a result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That classes as a hissy fit? Well sorry if I upset you man. likewise! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lankybellwipe Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Keegan was suing the club for £25million - This is the biggie for me. I did not believe he was actually suing us for this figure. I thought max 9 million. I still think he was wrong to sue the club even for this. Given he was willing to sue the club for 25 million despite what it could do to the club "he loves". Confirms the feelings I have had for Keegan. In terms of the good of NUFC he is no better than Ashley. I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. What garbage. So no-one can sue anybody and keep their principals? Sorry to be a pedantic tw@t, but wasn't he suing his principals as a matter of principle. You're not sorry at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Keegan was suing the club for £25million - This is the biggie for me. I did not believe he was actually suing us for this figure. I thought max 9 million. I still think he was wrong to sue the club even for this. Given he was willing to sue the club for 25 million despite what it could do to the club "he loves". Confirms the feelings I have had for Keegan. In terms of the good of NUFC he is no better than Ashley. I note with interest that you registered on 2007-07-04 Do you work for Ashley? No I don't. I notice that any post that is posted negatively against Keegan does not get respond to the point of the post, but just tries to discredit the poster. Ironically that is the sort of behavior we all despise Llambias for. How could he have been wrong to sue the club when the decision went in his favour and people like you were calling him worse than muck? He's cleared his name and got what he was due. I do not agree that anyone who claims to love Newcastle can sue the club for £25 million pounds when they know the have been relegated and are struggling for cash. I even disagree that he should sue nufc for 9 million. His contract gave him £2 million just for leaving he could have just taken that. I hear the argument that he wanted to truth to come out be if that was the case why sue for 25 million not 9 million? I'd sue the club for £25m if i could. If you want, you can go down the road of getting your lawyers to sue your ex-employers for as much money as possible. As others have said, maybe a lot of people would do the same given the chance. However, when you go down that road, you lose any claim to be acting out of some moral principle. The principle that you're acting on is - I'm out for whatever I can get. What garbage. So no-one can sue anybody and keep their principals? It depends on the grounds, and depends on the amount you're asking for. If you ask for an amount that's clearly ridiculous and which moreover would harm the institution that you profess to love, then you've lost the moral high ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Been away while is Bob still about the claim rather than the result? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 i doubt keegan thought he'd ever see anything even remotely close to £25m, that's a figure his lawyers will have figured out knowing that Keegan wanted to fight back as hard as he could. as it turned out, keegan was happy to settle for what he thought was the fair figure of £2m which was written into his contract, and chose not to press the 'stigma' thingy instead happy to have a report published which upheld his good name and humiliated those at fault. honestly bob, youre rapidly losing credibility by attacking keegan on these small points and yet speaking little or nothing about the absolute disgraces that are the liars in charge at our club. It is absolutely clear that Keegan did not willingly drop his claim for the other £23 million. He attempted to overturn the clause in his contract that specified his compensation at £2 million. When his claim for that was dismissed, he accepted that there was no point in carrying on. The tribunal actually went on to say that even if they had been asked to pronounce on the question of damages to his reputation and future earnings, he would not have been given anything. If he had been 'happy to accept the £2 million', he wouldn't have launched the other parts of the claim in the first place. A lot of posters seem to think that just because Ashley and co have been criticised, that Keegan is completely in the right, not just in law, but in moral terms. As far as I'm concerned, he's won 1 out of 3 of his legal battles, and lost the moral ground completely. I tell you, quite honestly, I was surprised by what has emerged. It was looking like the only player that could possibly have been foisted on him against his wishes was Gonzalez, but like many people I couldn't quite believe that Keegan would resign over that one loan signing. I thought that maybe there had to be something dodgy about Xisco's arrival or maybe one or two of the others - that Keegan had perhaps bitten his tongue over a number of weeks and then finally cracked. If many others on here were to be honest, they'd admit to that as well. It now appears that he was involved in all the other incomings and it all rested on the one minor instance, where I suspect Wise and co had lost patience with the bloke and acted in haste and in temper. I also didn't believe the £25 million story when it hit the papers. I didn't think it was a smear from the club, but I thought it was just a wild piece of tabloid speculation. I thought it was a ridiculous amount to claim and again I think if many people on here were being honest they would admit that they were harbouring the same doubts. Both elements of the story have turned out to be true and I'm a bit disgusted. My regard for the bloke, never high at the start, has gone down even further, if that's possible. I strongly suspect that, deep down, many of those who have supported Keegan throughout all this have also had their confidence dented, whether they are prepared to admit it to themselves or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 bobyule Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 i doubt keegan thought he'd ever see anything even remotely close to £25m, that's a figure his lawyers will have figured out knowing that Keegan wanted to fight back as hard as he could. as it turned out, keegan was happy to settle for what he thought was the fair figure of £2m which was written into his contract, and chose not to press the 'stigma' thingy instead happy to have a report published which upheld his good name and humiliated those at fault. honestly bob, youre rapidly losing credibility by attacking keegan on these small points and yet speaking little or nothing about the absolute disgraces that are the liars in charge at our club. It is absolutely clear that Keegan did not willingly drop his claim for the other £23 million. He attempted to overturn the clause in his contract that specified his compensation at £2 million. When his claim for that was dismissed, he accepted that there was no point in carrying on. The tribunal actually went on to say that even if they had been asked to pronounce on the question of damages to his reputation and future earnings, he would not have been given anything. If he had been 'happy to accept the £2 million', he wouldn't have launched the other parts of the claim in the first place. A lot of posters seem to think that just because Ashley and co have been criticised, that Keegan is completely in the right, not just in law, but in moral terms. As far as I'm concerned, he's won 1 out of 3 of his legal battles, and lost the moral ground completely. I tell you, quite honestly, I was surprised by what has emerged. It was looking like the only player that could possibly have been foisted on him against his wishes was Gonzalez, but like many people I couldn't quite believe that Keegan would resign over that one loan signing. I thought that maybe there had to be something dodgy about Xisco's arrival or maybe one or two of the others - that Keegan had perhaps bitten his tongue over a number of weeks and then finally cracked. If many others on here were to be honest, they'd admit to that as well. It now appears that he was involved in all the other incomings and it all rested on the one minor instance, where I suspect Wise and co had lost patience with the bloke and acted in haste and in temper. I also didn't believe the £25 million story when it hit the papers. I didn't think it was a smear from the club, but I thought it was just a wild piece of tabloid speculation. I thought it was a ridiculous amount to claim and again I think if many people on here were being honest they would admit that they were harbouring the same doubts. Both elements of the story have turned out to be true and I'm a bit disgusted. My regard for the bloke, never high at the start, has gone down even further, if that's possible. I strongly suspect that, deep down, many of those who have supported Keegan throughout all this have also had their confidence dented, whether they are prepared to admit it to themselves or not. Wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts