The Kevin Keegan thread

[Guest Brummiemag]

Well done Kev, your entitled to every penny, I'm really pleased for you. ps Fuck off Ashley 

[johnnypd]

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.

 

what has been established is that the tribunal used the nacho transfer, the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, as the basis over which to establish whether keegan had grounds for constructive dismissal. there were other things going on to lead up to that point, the findings said as much.

[Thespence]

Henry Winter: Newcastle United board pay price for undermining manager

 

When Kevin Keegan was told by Dennis Wise to check out Ignacio Gonzalez on the internet, the then Newcastle United manager must have felt the phrase YouTube rather neatly summed up the club's executive director (football).

 

Wise's interference in Keegan's team-building plans was resented by the manager at the time and deservedly ridiculed by a tribunal on Friday.

 

So forget the £2 million awarded to Keegan as his due compensation for constructive dismissal. What Keegan really won was a principle beyond price.

 

Dressing room 1 Boardroom 0.

 

The former manager of Newcastle has now shown that it can be wrong legally, let alone ethically, for directors to meddle in team affairs. By signing an unknown Uruguayan against the manager's will, the Newcastle board broke Keegan's contract and have now paid for their arrogance.

 

An emotional but honourable type, Keegan may not have been the greatest manager in history, as those who have chronicled his teams' meltdowns will concur, but he will be royally toasted at the next League Managers' Association dinner.

 

Friday was a significant moment in managerial rights. Kevin Keegan: the Emily Pankhurst of the dugout.

 

It is one thing advising a manager against buying a troublesome player because he could damage the club's image, as one distinguished board successfully did over Joey Barton, but quite another foisting a footballer on an unwilling manager. That is the road signposted "madness''.

 

No wonder Keegan was so angry when talking after Newcastle's 3-0 defeat to Arsenal at the Emirates on Aug 30, 2008. The transfer deadline was looming and Keegan knew that Wise and Tony Jimenez, Newcastle's vice-president (player recruitment), were negotiating to bring in Gonzalez on loan from Valencia. Keegan kept shrugging his shoulders when asked whether he talked to Wise, whether he felt undermined, whether arrivals were his choice. Five days later, he resigned.

 

Keegan wears his heart on his sleeve, and his departure was depicted in certain quarters as the remaining toys flying out of a familiar pram launching site, yet he had every justification to rail against Wise, Jimenez and the club's owner, Mike Ashley. Boards must trust their manager's judgment.

 

Look at the leading lights in the nation's technical areas over the past few seasons: Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, Rafael Benítez, David Moyes and Martin O'Neill. None would tolerate interference. Some have bought occasional pups but most invest shrewdly. If a board does want to get involved, it should focus on the manager. Either back him or sack him.

 

Newcastle fans will not know whether to howl with laughter or fury over the claim that their club signed Gonzalez "to 'do a favour' for two South American agents'', according to Keegan. Managers cannot be saddled with unwanted players simply because the club want to keep some middle-men happy. At least the meddle-men were put in their place by Keegan yesterday.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/newcastleunited/6256508/Henry-Winter-Newcastle-United-board-pay-price-for-undermining-manager.html

[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?

 

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.

 

 

 

Llambias also said (in that meeting iirc) that Bassong was a wise signing. Another thing we now know to be a lie. the club admitted in the trial that they have used, as a standard means of "PR", the use of lies and deception to deliberately mislead the fans. that is Llambias, in a bit of PR work, talking to a fans group, and talking a load of old bollocks. youre taking the nacho thing, as a number of people on here are, as the single point of contention, as if it was apart from any sort of context. "Oh, Keegan didn't like this one individual thing, and left. obviously he was itching to leave." if you read the report, it's not the single point of contention, it's just the one final example that the court used, as opposed to the many other things leading up to that point. they even go on to describe the attempt at reconciliation and the "last last straw", in which the club not only refused to back down on the issue, but tried to codify it, meaning Keegan would've had no more influence over transfers, and the nacho deal something that wouldve been replicated every other time someone was bought. that makes his situation untenable, and as proven in a court, grounds for constructive dismissal.

 

and oh yeah, they also thoroughly dismissed the argument that keegan used this as an opportunity to quit.

[Mick]

 

Llambias also said (in that meeting iirc) that Bassong was a wise signing. Another thing we now know to be a lie. the club admitted in the trial that they have used, as a standard means of "PR", the use of lies and deception to deliberately mislead the fans. that is Llambias, in a bit of PR work, talking to a fans group, and talking a load of old bollocks. youre taking the nacho thing, as a number of people on here are, as the single point of contention, as if it was apart from any sort of context. "Oh, Keegan didn't like this one individual thing, and left. obviously he was itching to leave." if you read the report, it's not the single point of contention, it's just the one final example that the court used, as opposed to the many other things leading up to that point. they even go on to describe the attempt at reconciliation and the "last last straw", in which the club not only refused to back down on the issue, but tried to codify it, meaning Keegan would've had no more influence over transfers, and the nacho deal something that wouldve been replicated every other time someone was bought. that makes his situation untenable, and as proven in a court, grounds for constructive dismissal.

 

and oh yeah, they also thoroughly dismissed the argument that keegan used this as an opportunity to quit.

 

I think the opposite, I think it has proven that Keegan did use it as an opportunity to quit but I also think he had no other option.  It was either quit or have the final say on players removed from him and handed over to Wise.  Keegan had to walk or he would have been a puppet manager who had no say on players coming or going.

[Guest Brummiemag]

Keegan has been proved right as I knew he would be, why are the Ashley apologists still arguing?

 

If KK had been allowed to manage and we had the significant investment in players that had been originally promised we would be challenging for a top 8 finish in the premier league. Ashley has set us back by 10 years or probably  more

[johnnypd]

 

Llambias also said (in that meeting iirc) that Bassong was a wise signing. Another thing we now know to be a lie. the club admitted in the trial that they have used, as a standard means of "PR", the use of lies and deception to deliberately mislead the fans. that is Llambias, in a bit of PR work, talking to a fans group, and talking a load of old bollocks. youre taking the nacho thing, as a number of people on here are, as the single point of contention, as if it was apart from any sort of context. "Oh, Keegan didn't like this one individual thing, and left. obviously he was itching to leave." if you read the report, it's not the single point of contention, it's just the one final example that the court used, as opposed to the many other things leading up to that point. they even go on to describe the attempt at reconciliation and the "last last straw", in which the club not only refused to back down on the issue, but tried to codify it, meaning Keegan would've had no more influence over transfers, and the nacho deal something that wouldve been replicated every other time someone was bought. that makes his situation untenable, and as proven in a court, grounds for constructive dismissal.

 

and oh yeah, they also thoroughly dismissed the argument that keegan used this as an opportunity to quit.

 

I think the opposite, I think it has proven that Keegan did use it as an opportunity to quit but I also think he had no other option.  It was either quit or have the final say on players removed from him and handed over to Wise.  Keegan had to walk or he would have been a puppet manager who had no say on players coming or going.

 

i think you're misunderstanding what im saying a little, which is a response to bobyule's claim that keegan was itching for an excuse to leave, for whatever reason (bobyule claims it was a conspiracy by keegan to pocket cash). when i say opportunity im using it the sense of "opportunistic". the tribunal specifically dismissed that claim in clause 34.

[macca888]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

My take on it, knmowing the past history of KK, is quite simple. Because he didnt have his own way 100%, the toys were flung from the pram, as he has done so many times in his past. Whether he used the situation to his own personal advantage financially is open to debate but the fact that he has come out already in the press stating "the club I love" etc makes mockery of the whole situation. He quite obviously refused to negotiate his position at the club to the plan put in place by the club. He was not prepared to change, simple as that. So, what does he do to the club he loves? Does a runner, like he has done so many times before.

 

Kevin Keegan has really only had his own personal self interest at heart since he was a kid at Liverpool. To come out with all this shit about the club he loves is the worst kind of hypocrisy in a so called sportsman. He is not interested in anything or anyone else but himself and all those KK lovers have been sucked right in. Stop living in the past. God almighty, we are even in a new bloody millenium since he was anywhere near able to manage properly.

 

I am not an Ashley lover and hope he sells the club as quickly as possible but the only mistake he has made in this whole sorry affair was bringing Keegan back in the first place.

[Guest afternoonfix]

Well done Kev, your entitled to every penny, I'm really pleased for you. ps f*** off Ashley 

 

homo

[Guest Brummiemag]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

My take on it, knmowing the past history of KK, is quite simple. Because he didnt have his own way 100%, the toys were flung from the pram, as he has done so many times in his past. Whether he used the situation to his own personal advantage financially is open to debate but the fact that he has come out already in the press stating "the club I love" etc makes mockery of the whole situation. He quite obviously refused to negotiate his position at the club to the plan put in place by the club. He was not prepared to change, simple as that. So, what does he do to the club he loves? Does a runner, like he has done so many times before.

 

Kevin Keegan has really only had his own personal self interest at heart since he was a kid at Liverpool. To come out with all this shit about the club he loves is the worst kind of hypocrisy in a so called sportsman. He is not interested in anything or anyone else but himself and all those KK lovers have been sucked right in. Stop living in the past. God almighty, we are even in a new bloody millenium since he was anywhere near able to manage properly.

 

I am not an Ashley lover and hope he sells the club as quickly as possible but the only mistake he has made in this whole sorry affair was bringing Keegan back in the first place.

 

This post is almost as laughable as the post you made in the other Keegan thread.

To state that "the only mistake Ashley made...."  is quite frankly unbelievable 

[Guest Geordiesned]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

My take on it, knmowing the past history of KK, is quite simple. Because he didnt have his own way 100%, the toys were flung from the pram, as he has done so many times in his past. Whether he used the situation to his own personal advantage financially is open to debate but the fact that he has come out already in the press stating "the club I love" etc makes mockery of the whole situation. He quite obviously refused to negotiate his position at the club to the plan put in place by the club. He was not prepared to change, simple as that. So, what does he do to the club he loves? Does a runner, like he has done so many times before.

 

Kevin Keegan has really only had his own personal self interest at heart since he was a kid at Liverpool. To come out with all this shit about the club he loves is the worst kind of hypocrisy in a so called sportsman. He is not interested in anything or anyone else but himself and all those KK lovers have been sucked right in. Stop living in the past. God almighty, we are even in a new bloody millenium since he was anywhere near able to manage properly.

 

I am not an Ashley lover and hope he sells the club as quickly as possible but the only mistake he has made in this whole sorry affair was bringing Keegan back in the first place.

 

Unbelievable! That's the only word for it!

[ewerk]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

So why give him a contract stating that he would have the normal duties of a PL manager?

 

BTW, what age are you?

[macca888]

I expected adults in charge of a large corporate business that clearly had a business plan to work towards to act on behalf of the employers who paid their substantial salaries to the greater good of the club and leave their individual egos to one side and come to a mutual agreement on best practice. Clearly, this was impossible, judging by the EGOS in place and therefore, Ashley's biggest mistake was appointing the biggest ego of the lot, KEEGAN.

 

Now, that is my opinion based largely on events, past and present and I dont expect all you Keegan bleeding hearts to agree. I would much rather see the club move on under an off field and on field management team, with the ability to guide the club to success under a business plan that has been agreed by all concerned.

[macca888]

EWOK

 

Neither you nor I know exactly what was written in that contract. However, what is known is that Keegan knew a director of football would be appointed when he agreed to the job.

[Parky]

KK is one lucky lucky man.

 

Always the sign of a good manager.

[ewerk]

EWOK

 

Neither you nor I know exactly what was written in that contract. However, what is known is that Keegan knew a director of football would be appointed when he agreed to the job.

 

Have you even read the tribunal's findings? It states exactly what was in Keegan's contract.

 

And while Keegan knew that a DoF was to be appointed, even the club's employees did not know that the DoF would have the final say on transfers.

 

This lack of clarity, indeed confusion, in the understanding of the Club’s own representatives as to this critical issue makes it, in our view, even less likely that it would and should have been clear to Mr Keegan from what he was told at the meeting on 16 January 2008 that he would not have the final say.

 

Time to take your head out of the sand.

[Parky]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

My take on it, knmowing the past history of KK, is quite simple. Because he didnt have his own way 100%, the toys were flung from the pram, as he has done so many times in his past. Whether he used the situation to his own personal advantage financially is open to debate but the fact that he has come out already in the press stating "the club I love" etc makes mockery of the whole situation. He quite obviously refused to negotiate his position at the club to the plan put in place by the club. He was not prepared to change, simple as that. So, what does he do to the club he loves? Does a runner, like he has done so many times before.

 

Kevin Keegan has really only had his own personal self interest at heart since he was a kid at Liverpool. To come out with all this shit about the club he loves is the worst kind of hypocrisy in a so called sportsman. He is not interested in anything or anyone else but himself and all those KK lovers have been sucked right in. Stop living in the past. God almighty, we are even in a new bloody millenium since he was anywhere near able to manage properly.

 

I am not an Ashley lover and hope he sells the club as quickly as possible but the only mistake he has made in this whole sorry affair was bringing Keegan back in the first place.

 

My take on it is that Ashley and his cronies have been lying from start to finish as maintained by a fair few on this here board.

[madras]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

So why give him a contract stating that he would have the normal duties of a PL manager?

 

BTW, what age are you?

tbf there was also that passage about fitness,motivation,tactics and selection. (admittedly "selection" is open to interpritation). why add that in if "normal duties as a manager" already had it covered. it seems like a very clumsy contract from both sides.

[ewerk]

It was claimed by the club that they wanted to run the club in a european style with a DOF and coach. In essence, I suppose you could say that Keegan was NOT the manager, but the coach and Wise was the Manager in charge of recruitment, liaising with Keegan over player purchase.

 

So why give him a contract stating that he would have the normal duties of a PL manager?

 

BTW, what age are you?

tbf there was also that passage about fitness,motivation,tactics and selection. (admittedly "selection" is open to interpritation). why add that in if "normal duties as a manager" already had it covered. it seems like a very clumsy contract from both sides.

 

From Keegan's point of view, if his understanding was that he would be fully in charge of transfers then he most likely didn't think it was necessary.

 

However, if the club was clear that they wanted a DoF to take charge of transfers then it would have been blindingly obvious to include it in the contract as it deviates from the normal duties of a PL manager.

 

The absence of such a term lends credence to Keegan's claim.

[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, 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.

 

 

 

Llambias also said (in that meeting iirc) that Bassong was a wise signing. Another thing we now know to be a lie. the club admitted in the trial that they have used, as a standard means of "PR", the use of lies and deception to deliberately mislead the fans. that is Llambias, in a bit of PR work, talking to a fans group, and talking a load of old bollocks. youre taking the nacho thing, as a number of people on here are, as the single point of contention, as if it was apart from any sort of context. "Oh, Keegan didn't like this one individual thing, and left. obviously he was itching to leave." if you read the report, it's not the single point of contention, it's just the one final example that the court used, as opposed to the many other things leading up to that point. they even go on to describe the attempt at reconciliation and the "last last straw", in which the club not only refused to back down on the issue, but tried to codify it, meaning Keegan would've had no more influence over transfers, and the nacho deal something that wouldve been replicated every other time someone was bought. that makes his situation untenable, and as proven in a court, grounds for constructive dismissal.

 

and oh yeah, they also thoroughly dismissed the argument that keegan used this as an opportunity to quit.

 

Clearly there was input from both sides about events leading up to the Nacho transfer. The tribunal didn't deal with that in the document because it wasn't relevant to the issue of breach of contract, on which Keegan's case rested. You're making out that the Nacho transfer was highlighted because it was the 'final straw', but in fact it was highlighted because it was effectively Keegan's only legal justification for constructive dismissal.

 

It was very obvious that there were problems between Keegan and the Wise / Llambias group when Keegan made that statement on TV after the Chelsea game. They had that meeting afterwards and supposedly patched things up but the problem was still there.

 

It seems to me that the two parties were stuck with one another at that point. Keegan couldn't resign because he'd lose his compensation - in fact,  he'd have to pay it out. Ashley couldn't sack him because he was so popular with the fans.

 

Looking back, you have to wonder at the wisdom of installing the clause which actually penalised Keegan £2 million if he resigned. I may be wrong, but I don't think that's usual. It does sound like Ashley, mindful of Keegan's previous record of walk-outs, wanted to insert a clause that would keep him tied in even if he was unhappy and wanted to go.

 

If so, that was daft. Why hire a manager who you don't really trust? It's practically inviting a situation where the unhappy manager is either going to try and get himself sacked, or seize on the first incident of breach of contract in order to claim constructive dismissal, in both cases getting out with some compensation. There's no point in trying to hang on to someone who isn't really committed.

[Paully]

 

 

Clearly there was input from both sides about events leading up to the Nacho transfer. The tribunal didn't deal with that in the document because it wasn't relevant to the issue of breach of contract, on which Keegan's case rested. You're making out that the Nacho transfer was highlighted because it was the 'final straw', but in fact it was highlighted because it was effectively Keegan's only legal justification for constructive dismissal.

 

It was very obvious that there were problems between Keegan and the Wise / Llambias group when Keegan made that statement on TV after the Chelsea game. They had that meeting afterwards and supposedly patched things up but the problem was still there.

 

It seems to me that the two parties were stuck with one another at that point. Keegan couldn't resign because he'd lose his compensation - in fact,  he'd have to pay it out. Ashley couldn't sack him because he was so popular with the fans.

 

Looking back, you have to wonder at the wisdom of installing the clause which actually penalised Keegan £2 million if he resigned. I may be wrong, but I don't think that's usual. It does sound like Ashley, mindful of Keegan's previous record of walk-outs, wanted to insert a clause that would keep him tied in even if he was unhappy and wanted to go.

 

If so, that was daft. Why hire a manager who you don't really trust? It's practically inviting a situation where the unhappy manager is either going to try and get himself sacked, or seize on the first incident of breach of contract in order to claim constructive dismissal, in both cases getting out with some compensation. There's no point in trying to hang on to someone who isn't really committed.

 

Keegan is a man of principle.

 

How many managers would have kept quiet and seen out their contracts?

 

He was paid out £2 million - his contract in total was worth £13 million.

[Cronky]

 

Keegan is a man of principle.

 

How many managers would have kept quiet and seen out their contracts?

 

He was paid out £2 million - his contract in total was worth £13 million.

 

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh?

[cp40]

 

Keegan is a man of principle.

 

How many managers would have kept quiet and seen out their contracts?

 

He was paid out £2 million - his contract in total was worth £13 million.

 

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh?

 

no he didnt his advisers did.

[Paully]

 

Keegan is a man of principle.

 

How many managers would have kept quiet and seen out their contracts?

 

He was paid out £2 million - his contract in total was worth £13 million.

 

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh?

 

Did he go in to the case without any leagal experts who would have prepared his case? Aim for higher etc?

 

Dear me Mike, you have taken this tribunal loss hard!

[SEMTEX]

 

Keegan is a man of principle.

 

How many managers would have kept quiet and seen out their contracts?

 

He was paid out £2 million - his contract in total was worth £13 million.

 

... and he claimed £25 million. Man of principle, eh?

 

no he didnt his advisers did.

 

a) which he agreed to

 

b) so, his advisers would've got that money had he somehow managed to win it? I think not