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? No, that's why if their jobs changed they would have walked. Probably sued too. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 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. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? How could Keegan win his case if he had agreed to operate in the system? That's basically the crux of the decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Didn't Keegan walk first time out after a few weeks because Hall wouldn't get him Kilcline, and then threatened it again over a year later when Hall was hesitant on paying £1m for Beardsley? Difference that time was Hall could afford it, and wasn't hindered by a transfer deadline like it is now, so not like he hasn't got history. Stuff like that isn't allowed, sorry. All top managers do that. I remember Ferguson saying something like he would walk if Ronaldo was sold, when he was finally sold it would have been with the full consent of Fergie. Where did he say that? (Genuine question) Marca. http://sportscene.excite.co.uk/news/2909/Ferguson-threatens-to-quit-if-Ronaldo-leaves Ferguson spoke to Marca? 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? No, that's why if their jobs changed they would have walked. Probably sued too. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? How could Keegan win his case if he had agreed to operate in the system? That's basically the crux of the decision. Exactly. He could easily win the case & have done wrong as well though, in terms of what was best/worst for the football club. 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. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? Your a bit of idiot, if Keegan did agree to that.. he won't win his claim for constructive dismissal the courts will see he doesn't have a chance. Your seriously can't understand this? The courts by giving Keegan compensation would have agreed with him that his employer breached his contract of employment and were trying to force him out. So he was right to walk.. understand yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey 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? Keegan never agreed to it though. There are quotes from Ashley and Wise earlier on that clearly state that Keegan will be the one who decides who comes or goes. There are also quotes from Keegan to the contrary & saying he didn't "have a problem with Dennis" There are quotes from Keegan saying that Wise was in charge of first team transfers? Would be interesting to see them. As for not having a problem with Dennis, is there any point discussing it seeing as it doesn't seem relevant at all? The issue here isn't about him liking or disliking Wise, or having a problem with Wise's role at the time of making those statements. 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. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? How could Keegan win his case if he had agreed to operate in the system? That's basically the crux of the decision. There is plenty of contradicting quotes in regards to what the system was, who reported to who and so forth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wally_McFool Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ooo look, a no further comment at this time announcement about the tribunal from the club. Theres a surprise. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1808465,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ooo look, a no further comment at this time announcement about the tribunal from the club. Theres a surprise. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1808465,00.html its not as if they can comment anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 If there's any validity to this article: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/football/view/100413/Exclusive-Toon-fear-Kev-KO-Blow-/ I've got to believe that KK is claiming 25M because he doesn't think he can get the 9M on his argument alone. Futre earnings can be difficult to prove (at least here in the US) and is usually used as a ploy to force a settlement. I'd be curious as to what he uses to support his future earnings claim. Has he applied for othe robs and told he would not be considered because of the NUFC situation? Will he claim that staying at NUFC would have been a benefit to his Soccer Circus? How much is smoke and how much is actual fire? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Either way i'm glad it's going to court. 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? No, that's why if their jobs changed they would have walked. Probably sued too. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? Your a bit of idiot, if Keegan did agree to that.. he won't win his claim for constructive dismissal the courts will see he doesn't have a chance. Your seriously can't understand this? The courts by giving Keegan compensation would have agreed with him that his employer breached his contract of employment and were trying to force him out. So he was right to walk.. understand yet? I've asked two separate questions. They obviously can't have the same answer. Both are what if.................? EDIT: And obviously it should be "You're a bit of an idiot............ [/irony] 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. Milner wanted out. Handed in a transfer request, keegan failed to persuad him to stay, or didn't fancy him more than the money, so he got his wish and left. Amazingly we couldn't persuade Swienstiger to jump on board. Ronaldo? I'm sure old red nose was livid he didn't get at least Messi, christ, the board couldn't even get him Ribéry despite assurances. INSTANT SULK? No, he gets on with it. As for the s*** Wenger has had to put up with... Keegan pushes out his bottom lip far too often. Wenger and Furguson might support their fellow managers but have had to deal with worse themselves, dealt with it, and got into a position that deserves respect if they walked on principle. Keegan on the other hand, has not. Keegan says it's fine, we may not get anyone in this transfer window but the money will be used to add to the squad with quality when we can. Ferguson scouted Valencia for at least a year. Most top clubs have multiple targets. Most top clubs let the manager pick who they sign, who is available for sale. Ferguson and Wenger do get on with it, they are allowed to without hindrance from anyone. Without hindrance? Wenger has alway been forced into sales. Keegan said he was happy with the Milner money whether it was spent that summer or later. Its' not a case of being lied to about Swienstieger. We didnt get him. End of. Keegan may have had other irons in the fire, but it was too late in the day for that window, he changed he tune and buggered off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Has Wenger always been forced into sales though? It seems like Arsenal have rejected enquiries for Fabregas this summer. Who was the last player he lost that he actually wanted to keep? Toure? And he still managed to get £18m+ for him, hardly the sign of a club desperate to sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ooo look, a no further comment at this time announcement about the tribunal from the club. Theres a surprise. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1808465,00.html Eh? They've confirmed the Premier League tribunal have retired to make their judgement. There is no decision yet. 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. What if Keegan did agree to it though? Are you thick? He won't win. However a lot of contradicting quotes pre Keegan and post Keegan, about who will report to who, and who has final say from Ashley and co, not to mention their history of bullshit. I'm more willing to believe KK. If he wins, he was right to walk. Not thick enough to operate at your level clearly. Who won't win what? All I asked is How getting compensation would prove he did nothing wrong when he walked. I've then posted reasons I think are grounds for him having done something irrespective of whether he wins or loses the court case. and What if Keegan had agreed to operate in the system? Your a bit of idiot, if Keegan did agree to that.. he won't win his claim for constructive dismissal the courts will see he doesn't have a chance. Your seriously can't understand this? The courts by giving Keegan compensation would have agreed with him that his employer breached his contract of employment and were trying to force him out. So he was right to walk.. understand yet? I've asked two separate questions. They obviously can't have the same answer. Both are what if.................? EDIT: And obviously it should be "You're a bit of an idiot............ [/irony] You have asked twice what if Keegan agreed to the supposed system where Wise was in charge of transfers and I have replied.. he won't win his tribunal claim because he would be in the wrong. What is difficult to understand about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wally_McFool Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ooo look, a no further comment at this time announcement about the tribunal from the club. Theres a surprise. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1808465,00.html Eh? They've confirmed the Premier League tribunal have retired to make their judgement. There is no decision yet. Oopps, silly me! 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. Milner wanted out. Handed in a transfer request, keegan failed to persuad him to stay, or didn't fancy him more than the money, so he got his wish and left. Amazingly we couldn't persuade Swienstiger to jump on board. Ronaldo? I'm sure old red nose was livid he didn't get at least Messi, christ, the board couldn't even get him Ribéry despite assurances. INSTANT SULK? No, he gets on with it. As for the s*** Wenger has had to put up with... Keegan pushes out his bottom lip far too often. Wenger and Furguson might support their fellow managers but have had to deal with worse themselves, dealt with it, and got into a position that deserves respect if they walked on principle. Keegan on the other hand, has not. Keegan says it's fine, we may not get anyone in this transfer window but the money will be used to add to the squad with quality when we can. Ferguson scouted Valencia for at least a year. Most top clubs have multiple targets. Most top clubs let the manager pick who they sign, who is available for sale. Ferguson and Wenger do get on with it, they are allowed to without hindrance from anyone. Without hindrance? Wenger has alway been forced into sales. Keegan said he was happy with the Milner money whether it was spent that summer or later. Its' not a case of being lied to about Swienstieger. We didnt get him. End of. Keegan may have had other irons in the fire, but it was too late in the day for that window, he changed he tune and buggered off. Ok name ONE example. If he always has been forced too this should be easy enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ooo look, a no further comment at this time announcement about the tribunal from the club. Theres a surprise. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10278~1808465,00.html Eh? They've confirmed the Premier League tribunal have retired to make their judgement. There is no decision yet. Oopps, silly me! It's actually very good news because it confirms that the shouting is over. We now wait for the outcome, which will not be very long. Also means the papers actually had a clue this time. Let's hope they were right about the takeover being close too. 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. Milner wanted out. Handed in a transfer request, keegan failed to persuad him to stay, or didn't fancy him more than the money, so he got his wish and left. Amazingly we couldn't persuade Swienstiger to jump on board. Ronaldo? I'm sure old red nose was livid he didn't get at least Messi, christ, the board couldn't even get him Ribéry despite assurances. INSTANT SULK? No, he gets on with it. As for the s*** Wenger has had to put up with... Keegan pushes out his bottom lip far too often. Wenger and Furguson might support their fellow managers but have had to deal with worse themselves, dealt with it, and got into a position that deserves respect if they walked on principle. Keegan on the other hand, has not. Keegan says it's fine, we may not get anyone in this transfer window but the money will be used to add to the squad with quality when we can. Ferguson scouted Valencia for at least a year. Most top clubs have multiple targets. Most top clubs let the manager pick who they sign, who is available for sale. Ferguson and Wenger do get on with it, they are allowed to without hindrance from anyone. Without hindrance? Wenger has alway been forced into sales. Keegan said he was happy with the Milner money whether it was spent that summer or later. Its' not a case of being lied to about Swienstieger. We didnt get him. End of. Keegan may have had other irons in the fire, but it was too late in the day for that window, he changed he tune and buggered off. End of. He would have been willing to move on if you miss a target... Woodgate, Modric, etc but when players are forced onto you.. then... what would Wenger do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Dunno if this was posted. http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-6418.html?LMAS=9b4bf6098cebe39936072ae851bde032 25 Sep 2009 LMA STATEMENT REGARDING KEVIN KEEGAN Following the conclusion of the arbitration process between Kevin Keegan and Newcastle United Football Club, Richard Bevan, Chief Executive of the LMA made this statement; “Having heard the evidence from both sides, the Panel has reserved judgement and there will be no further comment on the process until the Panel have published their findings.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 How long is that likely to be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 How long is that likely to be? Couple of working days at most I'd guess (based on nothing). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 How long is that likely to be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts