OzzieMandias Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Wasn't Venables's only / main reason for not taking the job that it was too short term? [/b[sure he said something about not being able to do justice to the role with such a short contract (6 games?). I think that was the excuse he originally gave. Later he was reported to have said something about not wanting to go near us because of the general fan turmoil and dummy-spitting. In the end, only someone with no hope of any other employment was prepared to take the job, which I don't think can simply be blamed on Ashley and Wise. Generally, it's odd that people don't want to acknowledge that the mood and actions of fans can have bad effects as well as good ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I can't believe that Keegan has caused this thread. What a cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Wasn't Venables's only / main reason for not taking the job that it was too short term? [/b[sure he said something about not being able to do justice to the role with such a short contract (6 games?). I think that was the excuse he originally gave. Later he was reported to have said something about not wanting to go near us because of the general fan turmoil and dummy-spitting. In the end, only someone with no hope of any other employment was prepared to take the job, which I don't think can simply be blamed on Ashley and Wise. So explicit direct quotes are an excuse, and unconfirmed hearsay is the real reason. Ok. Generally, it's odd that people don't want to acknowledge that the mood and actions of fans can have bad effects as well as good ones. You must have missed it before, but perhaps you'd like to answer this then? If you're so opposed to boycotts Ozzie, why exactly were you trying to encourage people to protest and stay away from games 3 years ago (when we'd just finished 7th and were playing in Europe) to try and help a takeover take place? http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620 Did you want us to do poorly back then? I'm not sure I understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog 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. I must have missed the bit where West Ham fans collectively spat out the dummy and started a boycoutt over their infallible god-like hero Curbishley. You really hate Keegan don't you? No, he really hates Newcastle supporters, as going by that it's US to blame for the difference between what happened at NUFC & what happened at WHUFC. BTW how has this supposed "boycoutt" affected the club Ozzie? The boycoutt which saw us have the highest ever attendance for a team relegated in the UK & the 6th highest average attendance in England this season. The turmoil definitely affected our chances of getting a decent interim replacement after KK legged it. It may also have affected the sale, but who can really say whether any buyers were put off by the prospect of a fractious, difficult-to-satisfy fan base? I'm sure it makes us look a less attractive prospect, though. How could it make us more likely to find a buyer? The aftermath of the KK situation clearly affected what you've described above, but not to the extent that we were being run and owned by an incompetant did. The fact a retard was running the club meant it was extremely unlikely we were going to get a decent interim manager in (became an issue again when JFK got ill). He's also done a pretty poor job thus far of getting the club sold again, despite having ages to do it and claiming to be very keen to get out. It really puts prospective owners off knowing we can only get attendances higher than 3/4 of the premiership while in the 2nd division with no manager and an unpopular current owner. Agreed, we're a catch! Keegans lawsuit is the only hurdle left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. True. Although on the other hand I wouldn't offer the job to someone who'd told me they wouldn't accept it...like the Redknapp scenario again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. He couldn't leave in the summer could he.. his main issue with the club was probably transfers, if he didn't even wait until the end of the window- to see if the situation got better he would be even more vilified. He waited to see if improved and would bring in his targets 'judge me on deadline day' and it didn't materialize... instead they brought in players he didn't want. One played about 20 minutes, another about 120 minutes in a season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. He couldn't leave in the summer could he.. his main issue with the club was probably transfers, if he didn't even wait until the end of the window- to see if the situation got better he would be even more vilified. He waited to see if improved and would bring in his targets 'judge me on deadline day' and it didn't materialize... instead they brought in players he didn't want. One played about 20 minutes, another about 120 minutes in a season. What was he moaning and bitching to the press for in May then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. True. Although on the other hand I wouldn't offer the job to someone who'd told me they wouldn't accept it...like the Redknapp scenario again. All depends which way round it happened. Another thing we'll never know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. How do you know they told him they would come back with Schweinsteiger? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. How do you know they told him they would come back with Schweinsteiger? because a man told me. i cant reveal my sources. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. You generally don't get offered jobs you've already rejected. Why do you reckon Ashley rejected Venables after seeking him out to interview for the job? Did he just think Joe would be a better option? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making shit up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with fucking Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. You generally don't get offered jobs you've already rejected. Why do you reckon Ashley rejected Venables after seeking him out to interview for the job? Did he just think Joe would be a better option? He rejected it before they told him they didn't want him, did he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. You have to be kidding me. Seriously? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. You have to be kidding me? Seriously. Er they said if they had no control over transfers they would walk away. Seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. You have to be kidding me. Seriously? its true. at least i like to believe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. You have to be kidding me? Seriously. Er they said if they had no control over transfers they would walk away. Seriously. Would they have agreed to it in the first place though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well if he wins Ozzie, would you at least admit that he did nothing wrong by walking out? That's a staggering statement. It would have found that Keegan was forced out. How can he still be blamed? How does getting compensation prove he did nothing wrong though? Er he would have won his case, that he couldn't do his job as initially agreed upon and that he was forced out they had breached his contract and that he had valid grounds to sue for his treatment. What would he have done wrong? He could have gone in the summer when he was fully aware of the system he was working in, not waited until the day after the transfer window closed to maximise the damage it would cause. He was clearly pissed off when he gave that interview after the Chelsea game at the end of the season - why not go then? He could also not have spent the whole time he was here telling the supporters via the press that he was happy with the situation and that there wasn't a problem. Mind that's not the story he obviously told in his off the record conversations is it? People (myself included) laughed and said all of these journalists were making s*** up, but the truth is he's been dishonest throughout. he stayed untill the day he sent Wise and llambiarse out to sign Schweinsteiger, and they came back with two other muppets instead. Then Camels back was broken by this last straw. Keegan couldnt have known this would happen. He didn't "send them out" because they didn't report to him, he reported to them. Whether that's right or wrong (and it's wrong) that's the way it worked. OK then wrong choice of words. They told keegan they were going to sign him, and Didnt. They lied to Keegan. Would you stay in your job under management like that. Robson was sure he'd get Miguel and ended up with f***ing Carr. If ever there was a reason to walk............. "They lied to Keegan"? Get a grip, every manager has a similar story, things change. Wenger, Ferguson among others said they would have done the same in KK situation. There goes your theory. You have to be kidding me? Seriously. Er they said if they had no control over transfers they would walk away. Seriously. Would they have agreed to it in the first place? No, that's why if their jobs changed they would have walked. Probably sued too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Venables had discussions about the job, but was never offered it, FWIW. He quite publicly stated he wouldn't have taken it with the terms on offer though. Don't blame him tbh, mental situation to work in. It's fairly easy to say you wouldn't have taken the job after you weren't even offered it. True. Although on the other hand I wouldn't offer the job to someone who'd told me they wouldn't accept it...like the Redknapp scenario again. All depends which way round it happened. Another thing we'll never know. True. Although I'm very much inclined to believe Venables (and 'Arry) rejected this job first given the track record of spin by this regime (Bassong is a Wise signing, for instance) I can't say I know it as fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts