The Kevin Keegan thread

[maze]

Anwayssssssss..... I'm still one of those so-called supporters of Kevin Keegan.... and looking at these threads seeing what it all has come down to it's just sad. People analyzing, going back and forth... it's just sad to see where we're at.

 

Of course there a lot of pros and cons about Kevin Keegan, like there is with a lot things... I'm a bit disappointed that he sued the club, but I choose to believe he sued Ashley instead... call me naive, but I really think he cares deeply about Newcastle, an this was just to get one back at Ashley.

 

In my opinion (and I respect that some of you don't share the same opinion) Kevin Keegan is an honest man, and whenever he's has managed Newcastle I've felt safe, filled with happiness, joy and optimisme, and I do hope he returns (and I do expect for some of you to disagree, and that's fine).

 

I'm glad we can put this whole thing behind us now, and that they have settle for "only" £2 million. Hopefully this being done will attract some buyers.

[Interpolic]

As far as the law suit goes, getting money he felt he was owed was clearly a motivator for Keegan - it would be ridiculous to try to deny that - but it's clear now suing NUFC is the only way he could set the record straight.  Whether that's a coincidental benefit or one of Keegan's main motives for suing, I don't know.

 

An independent body has ridiculed the people at the top and sided with Keegan all the way.  All we would have got had Keegan not sued is more mud-slinging and his word against theirs.

[Thespence]

I a bet Adobe downloads have went through the roof today.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

Keegan has always been a shrewd business man. His betting account with Terry Mcdermott is prime example of this.

[JH]

I a bet Adobe downloads have went through the roof today.

 

Stuff that, this is the most free advertising YouTube has ever had.

[Jill]

I a bet Adobe downloads have went through the roof today.

 

Stuff that, this is the most free advertising YouTube has ever had.

 

I was chatting about it with some work colleagues and an older dear walked over and asked what we were talking about, I said "Youtube clips" and she said.. "ME tube? Well that can't be good"

[Interpolic]

haha

[johnnypd]

 

Well the first extract, by saying that Gonzalez's signing was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' implies that there were, in fact, other reasons for Keegan's resignation besides the Gonzalez issue - namely his bad relationship with Wise and Co and the small size of the transfer budget.

 

The second extract puts forward the Ashley viewpoint, that the Gonzalez deal was just an excuse. Although the tribunal rejects that, those two statements aren't exactly a million miles apart, are they? It actually boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than fact here.

 

The way I see it, Keegan wasn't happy working with a DOF, despite the fact that he accepted the system when he joined. He also wanted more money spent. No-one who has followed Keegan's career would be surprised at either of those.

 

The Gonzalez signing offered him the chance to get out with what he hoped would be a large amount of compensation. I don't see it as a 'final straw', more a golden opportunity. That's the only area where we seem to differ.

 

Fucking hell.  Everything turned out just how Keegan wanted aye, thank God Nacho turned up when he did.

 

yup, that's the big problem with this theory that keegan had planned it all out. how the fuck did he know that the board and owner were going to be lying arsewipes? unless it was some grand conspiracy in which keegan used derren brown to condition Wise to force Gonzalez onto him. for all keegan knew he couldve had the best working relationship imaginable. then where would his big plan to resign be? it's been proven in a fucking court that this isn't the case. of course bobyule knows better than months of evidence and deliberation.

[johnnypd]

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.

 

I don't think Keegan was expecting to get the 'stigma' damages money. i think he, justly, wanted to fight dirty to combat the libellous shit that had been printed about him in the press, to really put the shits into ashley and co. Eventually, after fighting the tribunal, keegan accepted the solution offered to him to take £2m. i think he ideally would've wanted the rest of his contract to be paid up, but in the end it wasn't an issue because of stipulations in his contract.

 

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.

 

the tribunal does not focus on the entirety of keegan's time in charge, but has focused in on one particular deal - said to be the final straw - that broke the camel's back. this is not a matter of debate - it's expressly detailed in the pdf document. It is a gross misunderstanding - either wilful or out of ignorance - to claim that there was nothing wrong and that "keegan resigned over one loan signing."

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.

 

it's obvious that, delivered so late when it was expected that keegan would win and when the club knew the £25m wasnt an issue anymore, it was a smear by the club. something they've done numerous times. a club who have admitted in court that they're serial liars.

 

again, my big beef with your opinion is how, once again, youre concentrating all of your focus on Keegan. why? the man isnt involved with our club anymore, and what's more, he's just been vindicated in court about one aspect of what went on - that being his departure from the club. the tribunal doesnt answer all questions or cover everything that went on, but it does deliver on that one aspect. the opinions youve felt for the past year have been shown to be hollow and you're now equivocating because you can't face up to it, at least in public. do yourself some justice and get over being wrong and start to focus on the real creeps, the real liars, the real greedy people, the real corrupt people at our club, the real moronic incompetant dicks.

[Dave]

Johnny.

[Big Geordie]

Bobyule - a classic mentalist when it comes to believing the vacuous bile that Ashley and Llambias spew out.

[Guest pont-toon]

True it is that he was plainly unhappy with some aspects at the Club, in particular the small size of the squad and the lack of signings which he believed were required to bolster its size, both of which were making him frustrated, and true it is that he plainly had a difficult relationship with Mr Wise and Mr Jimenez but we are satisfied that what triggered his resignation was the Club’s signing of Gonzalez notwithstanding Mr Keegan’s strong opposition to it. Both at the time and to us he described the Gonzalez signing as the final straw and the evidence shows that the Club appreciated that proceeding with it against this wishes might well lead to his resignation.

 

Keegan wasn't happy anyway. Gonzalez was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It follows that we do not accept the Club’s case which is that Mr Keegan resigned because he could not continue to operate within the structure of the Club and that the Gonzalez deal may have represented a convenient excuse for him to do so. First, he told us, and we accept, that he wanted to stay at the Club. Secondly, there were very good reasons for him to want to do so. He had a valuable Contract worth £3m for the first year, £3.2m for year two and £3.4m for year three, plus benefits and he was managing a Club about which he clearly felt passionately and whose fans supported him no less passionately. Thirdly, the Club had had an encouraging start to the new season: in the Premiership, they had drawn away to Manchester United and then won at home to Bolton and in the Carling Cup they had since won away at Coventry. True it is that they had just lost away at Arsenal but that cannot have come as any great surprise. And the atmosphere in the dressing room was described as excellent. Finally, as we set out in more detail below, he was being told by the Club that they wanted him to stay.

 

What do you make of that part Bobyule? It's almost as though it addresses your concerns directly.

 

Well the first extract, by saying that Gonzalez's signing was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' implies that there were, in fact, other reasons for Keegan's resignation besides the Gonzalez issue - namely his bad relationship with Wise and Co and the small size of the transfer budget.

 

The second extract puts forward the Ashley viewpoint, that the Gonzalez deal was just an excuse. Although the tribunal rejects that, those two statements aren't exactly a million miles apart, are they? It actually boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than fact here.

 

The way I see it, Keegan wasn't happy working with a DOF, despite the fact that he accepted the system when he joined. He also wanted more money spent. No-one who has followed Keegan's career would be surprised at either of those.

 

The Gonzalez signing offered him the chance to get out with what he hoped would be a large amount of compensation. I don't see it as a 'final straw', more a golden opportunity. That's the only area where we seem to differ.

 

you sly old wind up merchant 

[Cronky]

True it is that he was plainly unhappy with some aspects at the Club, in particular the small size of the squad and the lack of signings which he believed were required to bolster its size, both of which were making him frustrated, and true it is that he plainly had a difficult relationship with Mr Wise and Mr Jimenez but we are satisfied that what triggered his resignation was the Clubs signing of Gonzalez notwithstanding Mr Keegans strong opposition to it. Both at the time and to us he described the Gonzalez signing as the final straw and the evidence shows that the Club appreciated that proceeding with it against this wishes might well lead to his resignation.

 

Keegan wasn't happy anyway. Gonzalez was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It follows that we do not accept the Clubs case which is that Mr Keegan resigned because he could not continue to operate within the structure of the Club and that the Gonzalez deal may have represented a convenient excuse for him to do so. First, he told us, and we accept, that he wanted to stay at the Club. Secondly, there were very good reasons for him to want to do so. He had a valuable Contract worth £3m for the first year, £3.2m for year two and £3.4m for year three, plus benefits and he was managing a Club about which he clearly felt passionately and whose fans supported him no less passionately. Thirdly, the Club had had an encouraging start to the new season: in the Premiership, they had drawn away to Manchester United and then won at home to Bolton and in the Carling Cup they had since won away at Coventry. True it is that they had just lost away at Arsenal but that cannot have come as any great surprise. And the atmosphere in the dressing room was described as excellent. Finally, as we set out in more detail below, he was being told by the Club that they wanted him to stay.

 

What do you make of that part Bobyule? It's almost as though it addresses your concerns directly.

 

Well the first extract, by saying that Gonzalez's signing was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' implies that there were, in fact, other reasons for Keegan's resignation besides the Gonzalez issue - namely his bad relationship with Wise and Co and the small size of the transfer budget.

 

The second extract puts forward the Ashley viewpoint, that the Gonzalez deal was just an excuse. Although the tribunal rejects that, those two statements aren't exactly a million miles apart, are they? It actually boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than fact here.

 

The way I see it, Keegan wasn't happy working with a DOF, despite the fact that he accepted the system when he joined. He also wanted more money spent. No-one who has followed Keegan's career would be surprised at either of those.

 

The Gonzalez signing offered him the chance to get out with what he hoped would be a large amount of compensation. I don't see it as a 'final straw', more a golden opportunity. That's the only area where we seem to differ.

 

you sly old wind up merchant 

 

That's the nicest thing anyone's said about me all day.

 

I actually mean every word though.

[johnnypd]

bob, honest questions, what do you think of the facts that when probed, the club's staff couldn't muster a coherent response to the delineations of Keegan's power? or that our scouting for gonzalez consisted of never having seen him play? or that our chief scout recommended youtube videos to the manager (something that would be laughed off even on an internet forum)? or the fact that the signing was completed as a 'favour' to someone unconnected to the club?

[Crumpy Gunt]

KK is one lucky lucky man.

[Cronky]

bob, honest questions, what do you think of the facts that when probed, the club's staff couldn't muster a coherent response to the delineations of Keegan's power? or that our scouting for gonzalez consisted of never having seen him play? or that our chief scout recommended youtube videos to the manager (something that would be laughed off even on an internet forum)? or the fact that the signing was completed as a 'favour' to someone unconnected to the club?

 

Mixed feelings.

 

It's not fair on the player to sign him against the wishes of the manager. The player is the one who deserves most sympathy.

 

As far as the judging by Youtube - if it was a permanent signing you'd worry, but it's a loan. He's an international player who's already been signed by a top European club so although it's a risk, it's clearly not a huge one. The guy clearly isn't crap and is worth a look.

 

Signing him in order to get a favour down the line from agents - dodgy, but it's not clear from the tribunal that this was the only reason.

 

I'm of the feeling that Keegan wanted out and was spoiling for a fight. I don't think that this clears him of that accusation.

 

As for the delineation of Keegan's responsibilities, it's not clear but overall if you're working to a DOF your position is clearly different to that of a manager who isn't. To agree to work to a DOF and then complain about interference - hmmm.... You clearly can't expect to get everything your own way.

 

But can I quote the representative of the NUSC who reported on Lambias's meeting with the Supporter Panel in March. The subject of Keegan's resignation came up -

 

' This led onto a discussion about the role of Dennis Wise which, itself, led to one of the most interesting answers to a question we expected to be “off topic”:

Who signed Xisco and Gonzales?

“Xisco was Kevin, don’t believe everything you read in the press, Gonzales was a...well, I won’t go into that because we’ve still got legal issues there” stumbled Derek.

Suffice to say jaws dropped on that one, not just for the remarkably candid nature of the revelation, but for the insinuation that we are supposed to now believe that Kevin Keegan walked out on Newcastle, not because he was unhappy with £6M being blown on an unwanted striker, (all his own work apparently) but that he was so fundamentally opposed to the club bringing in a player on a short term loan to help an injury hit squad that he walked out on a multi-million pound contract!

Apologies that we didn’t probe that one further, we were too busy dusting away the fairy’s from our eyes.'

 

I'm sure that that incredulity was shared by many people at the time. It's the reason why I think Keegan's resignation was opportunistic.

 

 

[Dave]

Why would he want out? The tribunal found that it wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination that the club intended to give him no power over final say. In fact the club themselves didn't have a fucking clue what was said and by whom, or what the position really was. There are several damning statements regarding this.

 

So why would Keegan want to leave? He was led to believe both publically and privately he had final say, things were going alright on the pitch and the atmosphere in the dressing room was fine.

[Benwell Lad]

bob, honest questions, what do you think of the facts that when probed, the club's staff couldn't muster a coherent response to the delineations of Keegan's power? or that our scouting for gonzalez consisted of never having seen him play? or that our chief scout recommended youtube videos to the manager (something that would be laughed off even on an internet forum)? or the fact that the signing was completed as a 'favour' to someone unconnected to the club?

 

Mixed feelings.

 

It's not fair on the player to sign him against the wishes of the manager. The player is the one who deserves most sympathy.

 

As far as the judging by Youtube - if it was a permanent signing you'd worry, but it's a loan. He's an international player who's already been signed by a top European club so although it's a risk, it's clearly not a huge one. The guy clearly isn't crap and is worth a look.

 

Signing him in order to get a favour down the line from agents - dodgy, but it's not clear from the tribunal that this was the only reason.

 

I'm of the feeling that Keegan wanted out and was spoiling for a fight. I don't think that this clears him of that accusation.

 

As for the delineation of Keegan's responsibilities, it's not clear but overall if you're working to a DOF your position is clearly different to that of a manager who isn't. To agree to work to a DOF and then complain about interference - hmmm.... You clearly can't expect to get everything your own way.

 

But can I quote the representative of the NUSC who reported on Lambias's meeting with the Supporter Panel in March. The subject of Keegan's resignation came up -

 

' This led onto a discussion about the role of Dennis Wise which, itself, led to one of the most interesting answers to a question we expected to be off topic:

Who signed Xisco and Gonzales?

Xisco was Kevin, dont believe everything you read in the press, Gonzales was a...well, I wont go into that because weve still got legal issues there stumbled Derek.

Suffice to say jaws dropped on that one, not just for the remarkably candid nature of the revelation, but for the insinuation that we are supposed to now believe that Kevin Keegan walked out on Newcastle, not because he was unhappy with £6M being blown on an unwanted striker, (all his own work apparently) but that he was so fundamentally opposed to the club bringing in a player on a short term loan to help an injury hit squad that he walked out on a multi-million pound contract!

Apologies that we didnt probe that one further, we were too busy dusting away the fairys from our eyes.'

 

I'm sure that that incredulity was shared by many people at the time. It's the reason why I think Keegan's resignation was opportunistic.

 

 

 

It is pretty amazing how many people 12 months ago were blaming Xisco for the whole fiasco and now seem to have changed their story with THE WISDOM OF HINDSIGHT.

[Dave]

don’t believe everything you read in the press

 

That's fucking gerld.

[Thespence]

It is pretty amazing how many people 12 months ago were blaming Xisco for the whole fiasco and now seem to have changed their story with THE WISDOM OF HINDSIGHT.

 

Hindsight?!? More like a PDF....whats the worst case scenario WE were only 50% correct on those incoming transfer deadline signings as being the reason for KK leaving. The other end of the scale is that that the Xisco deal with other things was in "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan’s appointment,"

[Dave]

Why would he want out? The tribunal found that it wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination that the club intended to give him no power over final say. In fact the club themselves didn't have a fucking clue what was said and by whom, or what the position really was. There are several damning statements regarding this.

 

So why would Keegan want to leave? He was led to believe both publically and privately he had final say, things were going alright on the pitch and the atmosphere in the dressing room was fine.

 

Oh, and he was making £3m per year at a club who desperately wanted him to stay.

[Thespence]

don’t believe everything you read in the press

 

That's f***ing gerld.

 

Tbf Dave he is 100% ITK on this subject.

[Crumpy Gunt]

So now its been established that KK brought Colo, Jonas and Xisco to Club can we all agree that it is worthy of the sack for that pile of Grade A shite.

[Dave]

So now its been established that KK brought Colo, Jonas and Xisco to Club can we all agree that it is worthy of the sack for that pile of Grade A shite.

 

Where was this established?

[colinmk]

So now its been established that KK brought Colo, Jonas and Xisco to Club can we all agree that it is worthy of the sack for that pile of Grade A shite.