The Kevin Keegan thread

[Guest afternoonfix]

wonder if keegan is watching the team he 'loves'?

Liverpool were on last night mate.

 

so true,newcastle , his cash cow.

[Dave]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Cronky]

As you get older and wiser, you learn to be more careful about who you fall in love with. There are glamorous people who promise the earth but are in reality selfish. They end up leaving and hurting you. There are others less attractive who end up delivering the goods. You can carry on not learning the lesson, parading your bleeding heart like it's a badge of honour and end up like a battered wife, or you can build a real relationship. That takes time and patience, of course.

 

Caulkin's articles are like a Chinese meal. Superficially good but lacking substance.

 

Football isn't only about dreaming, it's about winning. Keegan has won nothing. Nada. Zilch. Rien.

 

Apologies to go back to this post, but only just updating myself on this thread. Aside from this being a rather patronising post (look at me, i'm a cynic, i know better than you,but one day you'll learn young padowan) can I ask who the people you fell in love with at Newcastle are, Bob? Not to touch a sensitive area, but i'm guessing you are older than a lot on here, but unless you're over 50 I doubt you have many memories of us winning anything more meaningful than the first (second) division under Keegan and even if over 50, to have allowed yourself to only fall in love with one Newcastle team / manager must be a pretty depressing state of affairs for a big football fan, i'd honestly question why you even bother.

 

To further your analogy and make it slightly more specific as one of the comments on the discussed article did, I'd rather have f***ed Cheryl Cole in the face a few times and have the photos to prove it, even if that meant getting dumped for Ashley fricking Cole and humiliated. As your analogy feels pretty much like one tired cliche, here's another - better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. If someone told me we could have one trophy but none of the Keegan years I know which I would choose. Do you think being a Portsmouth fan and having won an FA Cup against Cardiff would make you feel more excited about the game than watching our team in the 90s?

 

I suppose I took the risk of being patronising, but I was irritated by what I felt was a silly article and the way lots of people were reacting to it.

 

Loving and losing and not loving at all aren't the only options. That's the point. The winning mentality combines passion with the ability to think clearly, remain focused and remain strong when things are going against you.

 

Another problem with falling in love is that you can lose sight of reality. That's what seems to happen with a lot of supporters of Keegan.

 

An issue with our club is this tendency to indulge in hero-worship. At times, it feels like a substitute for success, or at least it acts like a block to it.

 

Ok, they're all fair points, but my original question still stands - who are those, in your time as a Newcastle fan, you have really loved? I can see how it gets annoying with the 'keegan can do no wrong' argument (although i think all but the most blinkered accept this isn't the case), but aren't you at risk of going too far the other way, into the realms of a bit of a misery guts? For anyone between the ages of 20 - 45 I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say the time Keegan was at Newcastle as manager (first time) was their best time as a toon fan. Regardless of title losses, mental breakdowns, walk outs, etc. they were our best times as Newcastle fans. He is the man most responsible for those great times. It's irrelevant whether someone else could have done better with the resources he had at the time, they didn't as they weren't here and we didn't want anyone else here. Yes, recent happenings have tarnished that, but that doesn't stop the fact that what he did was something pretty spectacular. So by all means, hate him for what he's done now (i certainly don't, but that's a different argument) but please don't try and take away from what he did to this club in the early / mid nineties. It was a special time in a lot of people's lives because of what he did. That's not sentimentality from a personal perspective, it's a fact.

 

I'm still passionate about our club, and football in general. At times it feels more like an obsession than love, but the desire is still there. I've loved watching certain players in action - Tony Green, Gazza, Rob Lee, Beardsley, Bellamy and Shearer (before his decline) are particular favourites.

 

I don't know if you're any the wiser there. I'm aware that I was pissing on people's parade a bit with my take on the Caulkin article and that's why I might have seemed a misery. Maybe I should have let it pass but there was something there that really annoyed me.

 

I enjoyed the Keegan rise to the top just like everyone else. I think I enjoyed Sir Bob's upward charge more because I really felt the team was over-achieving, but yeah, of course there were good times with KK. Keegan's not without his qualities - he showed drive and passion and that was important in energising the whole club and persuading players to join. He wouldn't have done it without the heavy financial backing, but yes overall of course it was an achievement.

 

But we didn't win any major trophies, and Keegan hasn't done so throughout his managerial career, which has been very stop-start. I don't think that's bad luck. I think there are certain qualities which the real winners have that Keegan lacks. That's all I was saying.

 

I've posted a lot in this thread and I don't want to be repeating myself, but I'll give you a concrete example of what I think separates the Fergusons of this world from the Keegans.

 

It was 1992 when Ferguson had his first real tilt at the title. There was a neck and neck race with Leeds that year, and Man U just lost out, somewhat undeservedly. Now at that time there was real pressure on the Man U manager. They hadn't won the league since 1967, and a string of managers since Matt Busby had tried and failed. It's a bit like Liverpool now, only worse.

 

Ferguson's master stroke was that in the following close season, he bought precisely nobody. The expectation was that he would do what previous Man U managers had done and try and get in those extra one or two players who would supposedly make the difference. Instead, he gave his players the message that they were good enough and so they were able to move forward from failure. That took both guts and brains, because if they'd failed again, everyone would have been pointing at Ferguson's inaction and blaming that.

 

Halfway through the season, he spent a modest £2million on a certain Frenchman who hadn't held down a regular place at Leeds and who had a reputation for indiscipline. It was completely unexpected and regarded as a risk. Again, Ferguson wasn't afraid and backed his own judgement.

 

How did Keegan respond to failure? He went and spent a world record fee on the England centre forward. Shearer was a very good player but scoring wasn't the problem and the money could have been spent somewhere else. He compounded the error by taking the No 9 shirt from last season's leading goalscorer. Halfway through the season, he lost heart and walked.

 

Basically, Ferguson faced up to failure and kept a cool head. Keegan had the stuffing knocked out of him and his nerve and judgement followed. I don't know if you saw that recent 'Time of our Lives' programme with Ginola, Howey and Bez, but what came across was their anger and frustration at Keegan's failure to push on from 2nd place. The mark of the winner is the ability to respond and learn from a setback.

 

What utter bullshit.

 

I was going to say. They were more angered at him leaving, especially Ginola who promised to stay for Keegan. Not his inability to build on the 2nd place.

 

You've got me scratching my head here. We're talking about the same thing.

 

They felt that all that was needed was minor improvements here and there, and that with the experience they'd collected, they'd be able to push on. Keegan's decision to quit / failure to build on 2nd place / lack of motivation to keep going - whatever you want to call it - left them bewildered. Keegan had previously talked Ginola out of moving to Barcelona so he was fuming.

[cp40]

Anybody who witnessed that tired dross last night should appreciate what they saw under keegan all the more.

[OzzieMandias]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

[Dave]

Who, Mike Ashley?

 

I quite agree.

[Cronky]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

 

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it.

 

I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there.

 

I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament.

 

The other element in past success that wasn't taken on board was the role of the heavy financial backing that was given to Keegan for new players. We'll never know whether this, that or the other manager would have done better or worse with the same support, but it was a factor. Every time the momentum stalled, Keegan was able to go out and buy more players. When the money ran out, he decided it was time to go. Coincidence? You decide.

[Robster]

They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge.

With employers like this, you blame Kevin for struggling to be able to deal whatever he had to work with day in day out?

[Thespence]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

 

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it.

 

I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there.

 

I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament.

 

They brought in Dennis to look after the football side of things what more could they of done, I noticed he is quite happy with his payoff or is he still on the payroll?  They whacked a clause in KK's contract if he left a clause KK was well aware of I would imagine so to walkout & know you could be whacked for that takes f***ing balls especially when your other business is meant to be on it arse.  

[TRon]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

 

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it.

 

I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there.

 

I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament.

 

The other element in past success that wasn't taken on board was the role of the heavy financial backing that was given to Keegan for new players. We'll never know whether this, that or the other manager would have done better or worse with the same support, but it was a factor. Every time the momentum stalled, Keegan was able to go out and buy more players. When the money ran out, he decided it was time to go. Coincidence? You decide.

 

In which case Keegan must be the stupidest choice as manager ever if there were never any funds available for team strengthening. Ashley might be incompetent but surely no one's that thick?

 

 

[Tooj]

Same person who told me Keegan was coming back the day before it was announced also said that he was told he would have at least £40 million to spend. They just never said that was over a decade. 

[TRon]

Same person who told me Keegan was coming back the day before it was announced also said that he was told he would have at least £40 million to spend. They just never said that was over a decade. 

 

Can't say I am happy about Keegan walking away with compensation but he was clearly led up the garden path by the cockney spivs. There just wasn't any need for it.

[UV]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

 

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it.

 

I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there.

 

I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament.

 

The other element in past success that wasn't taken on board was the role of the heavy financial backing that was given to Keegan for new players. We'll never know whether this, that or the other manager would have done better or worse with the same support, but it was a factor. Every time the momentum stalled, Keegan was able to go out and buy more players. When the money ran out, he decided it was time to go. Coincidence? You decide.

 

I stand to be corrected on my figures (fees from nufc.com), but by my reckoning to get from a relegation facing Div2 side to 2nd in the league, we spent £25m net over 4 years (up to and including Batty).

 

We subsequently sold players Keegan bought during that time for a total of £25.6m.

[OzzieMandias]

Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

So maybe if we just stop obsessing about what we saw 15 years ago and concentrate on the present and future, we might get something like those days back again.

 

On this occasion, it wasn't me who started it.

 

I like the convuluted logic, but there's also a serious point there.

 

I don't think the Halls or Shepherd were consulted about Keegan's return, because Ashley and co had fallen out with the old regime over what they felt were hidden loan repayment clauses which ought to have been brought to their attention. They made the appointment largely on the basis of the kind of heroic account which the likes of Caulkin is putting forward. They'd have got a more complete picture if they'd talked to people with inside knowledge. The bit of history that got repeated as a result was the walkout and the flaky temperament.

 

The other element in past success that wasn't taken on board was the role of the heavy financial backing that was given to Keegan for new players. We'll never know whether this, that or the other manager would have done better or worse with the same support, but it was a factor. Every time the momentum stalled, Keegan was able to go out and buy more players. When the money ran out, he decided it was time to go. Coincidence? You decide.

 

I stand to be corrected on my figures (fees from nufc.com), but by my reckoning to get from a relegation facing Div2 side to 2nd in the league, we spent £25m net over 4 years (up to and including Batty).

 

We subsequently sold players Keegan bought during that time for a total of £25.6m.

 

I guess arithmetic just isn't your strong point.

 

From the figures given on nufc.com. I make the total spent £43.9 million. Didn't bother to tot up the outgoings.

[Robster]

I guess arithmetic just isn't your strong point.

From the figures given on nufc.com. I make the total spent £43.9 million. Didn't bother to tot up the outgoings.

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account 

[OzzieMandias]

I guess arithmetic just isn't your strong point.

From the figures given on nufc.com. I make the total spent £43.9 million. Didn't bother to tot up the outgoings.

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account 

 

You are correct.

 

I wonder, then, why UV bothered to put in the outgoing figure?

 

Or omitted the money for Shearer.

[Mowen]

I guess arithmetic just isn't your strong point.

From the figures given on nufc.com. I make the total spent £43.9 million. Didn't bother to tot up the outgoings.

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account 

 

You are correct.

 

I wonder, then, why UV bothered to put in the outgoing figure?

 

Or omitted the money for Shearer.

 

Presumably because the outgoing figure was what those players were sold for after KK had left, gives a decent demonstration of the fact the money was sensibly invested and not just being spunked up the wall for the sake of it with no hope of return (i.e. it was hardly spending in the Chelsea or Man City vein). The Shearer money distorts it somewhat and was spent shortly before he left, but even if you count it a total of £40m net in 5 years is hardly outrageous.

[UV]

I guess arithmetic just isn't your strong point.

From the figures given on nufc.com. I make the total spent £43.9 million. Didn't bother to tot up the outgoings.

 

As Robster pointed out, I guess comprehension just isn't yours.

 

I stuck the tables in Excel & it came out with £44.9m out £19.9m in.

 

I stopped at Batty because bobyule was talking about the money spent to accumulate the team that KK made throw away the league.

 

 

Presumably because the outgoing figure was what those players were sold for after KK had left, gives a decent demonstration of the fact the money was sensibly invested and not just being spunked up the wall for the sake of it with no hope of return (i.e. it was hardly spending in the Chelsea or Man City vein). The Shearer money distorts it somewhat and was spent shortly before he left, but even if you count it a total of £40m net in 5 years is hardly outrageous.

 

Precisely. The money spent by KK remained as value within the squad which was later traded on. Ignoring Shearer, Keegan cost the club roughly zero in transfer fees when residual sales are considered (or made £10m profit if you include the sales of Watson, Clark & Elliott who weren't in the £25.6m total I quoted above).

 

Shearer would of course distort any figures as he was at the club for the rest of his career, you can't blame KK for that (well maybe Ozzie can). If he'd been sold on 4 or 5 years later he'd still have fetched back a lot of his fee. However you could argue the transfer paid for itself anyway in other non-footballing ways (ie marketing & bringing in foreign support, etc).

 

 

Never mind, it was obviously a great idea to put an expert like Dennis Wise in charge of transfers to stop Keegan blowing all Ashley's cash on Beckham, Lampard & Henry.

[cp40]

uv, is obsessed with Keegan

[UV]

Head over heals in love tbh

[NG32]

We would storm this division with KK in charge, FACT.

[cp40]

We would storm this division with KK in charge, FACT.

 

 

at least we would attack and play with passion, unlike last shite.

[Paully]

Why on earth does Keegan get so much abuse from some our so called fans?

 

The times he gave the club as player and manager were out of this world and we will NEVER enjoy our football like we did from 92-97.

 

"A grade A cunt" - Dear me.

[Mr. Snrub]

Why on earth does Keegan get so much abuse from some our so called fans?

 

Probably something to do with walking out on us for a second time and trying to bleed the club of 10 million, which given our current situation, is really shit.

 

Just because he did great things for us in the past doesn't mean he's forever void of criticism and can do no wrong until the day he dies.

[cp40]

Why on earth does Keegan get so much abuse from some our so called fans?

 

Probably something to do with walking out on us for a second time and trying to bleed the club of 10 million, which given our current situation, is really shit.

 

Just because he did great things for us in the past doesn't mean he's forever void of criticism and can do no wrong until the day he dies.

 

 

-----go to square 1