midds Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 There is nothing to suggest that he interfered with any first team transfer activity, as everything mentioned in the media was pure speculation and has yet to be proved/disproved. Apart from the club's official statement when KK left? And Keegan’s elation at signing Xisco and Nacho. Didn't Xisco say he met Keegan who told him his plans for the club before signing? Not really the actions you would expect from someone who didn't want the player. He did. I still think KK got Xisco & Nacho dumped on him rather than had a say on it. That word there is the biggest problem with all versions of events people come up with about what happened. Sadly I don't think we'll ever find out the truth. I think it is fair to say it had a lot to do with transfers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 There is nothing to suggest that he interfered with any first team transfer activity, as everything mentioned in the media was pure speculation and has yet to be proved/disproved. Apart from the club's official statement when KK left? And Keegans elation at signing Xisco and Nacho. Didn't Xisco say he met Keegan who told him his plans for the club before signing? Not really the actions you would expect from someone who didn't want the player. He did. I still think KK got Xisco & Nacho dumped on him rather than had a say on it. That word there is the biggest problem with all versions of events people come up with about what happened. Sadly I don't think we'll ever find out the truth. if it gets to court we will, if not Ashley will have to settle out of court with KK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 So even though Keegan didn't want Xisco, he sat down with the lad, spoke to him about his plans for the future and encouraged him to come here only to walk out the next day, then releasing a statement insinuating that these signings were to blame for him walking out? What a cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. Seriously? Like as if he would have walked out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. Seriously? Like as if he would have walked out? You would have expected KK to just ignore Xisco and turn his back when the lad said hello presumably? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 There is nothing to suggest that he interfered with any first team transfer activity, as everything mentioned in the media was pure speculation and has yet to be proved/disproved. Apart from the club's official statement when KK left? And Keegan’s elation at signing Xisco and Nacho. Didn't Xisco say he met Keegan who told him his plans for the club before signing? Not really the actions you would expect from someone who didn't want the player. but why at the other day as i remeber he said the opposite thing?? Who? xisco... he said he never met keegan? When? Here obviously http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1052723/Xisco-Dont-blame-Keegan-farce--I-just-want-score-Newcastle.html He said: 'My dream move must not be tarnished by these rumours. 'When I flew in on Monday, the club presented me to Kevin Keegan. He talked to me in a bit of detail about his plans for the footballing development of the club. 'That was an important moment for me in my decision to accept this incredible turn of events. 'I just can’t believe he won’t be there when I get back from international duty. I’d love to know what plan KK sold him. I bet it wasn’t we’re skint and our best players will soon be leaving for more ambitious clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 he's an easy scapegoat, and us newcastle fans bloody love an easy target. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 he's an easy scapegoat, and us newcastle fans bloody love an easy target. Unfortunately our recruitment cant find any easy targets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. Seriously? Like as if he would have walked out? You would have expected KK to just ignore Xisco and turn his back when the lad said hello presumably? He could have quite easily put him off without being that extreme. But then you probably know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 he's an easy scapegoat, and us newcastle fans bloody love an easy target. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. I'll be more than happy to change my opinion if you have any proof to back yours up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 he's an easy scapegoat, and us newcastle fans bloody love an easy target. Unfortunately our recruitment cant find any easy targets. good. i'd rather we didnt buy shit players clubs are desperate to sell. but, each to their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 If people are so unsure over what his duties are, or should be, and what he's currently doing, then how is it possible to apportion blame? We're in the s*** but just how much of it can 100%, incontrovertibly be traced back to him and him alone? People suspect he is an interference with the first team, and dont agree with that - the suspicion has grown because of any lack of denial from Wise himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. Seriously? Like as if he would have walked out? You would have expected KK to just ignore Xisco and turn his back when the lad said hello presumably? he did far worse when he basically named him as a reason why he quit in that press release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. I'll be more than happy to change my opinion if you have any proof to back yours up. "Kevin Keegan's chief complaint, amongst others, is that it was always agreed that the director of football could not impose a player that the manager did not want." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 If people are so unsure over what his duties are, or should be, and what he's currently doing, then how is it possible to apportion blame? We're in the s*** but just how much of it can 100%, incontrovertibly be traced back to him and him alone? People suspect he is an interference with the first team, and dont agree with that - the suspicion has grown because of any lack of denial from Wise himself. That's a fair point; why hasn't Wise himself had anything to say on, well anything? If he's just a youth scout then fair enough, but why the fancy title, 'assisting the board' etc? All we've had are these anonymous statements which when compared to one another are as clear as mud. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 If people are so unsure over what his duties are, or should be, and what he's currently doing, then how is it possible to apportion blame? We're in the s*** but just how much of it can 100%, incontrovertibly be traced back to him and him alone? People suspect he is an interference with the first team, and dont agree with that - the suspicion has grown because of any lack of denial from Wise himself. That's a fair point; why hasn't Wise himself had anything to say on, well anything? If he's just a youth scout then fair enough, but why the fancy title, 'assisting the board' etc? All we've had are these anonymous statements which when compared to one another are as clear as mud. If he came out and said anything would people believe him? The possibility of a claim for constructive dismissal from Keegan probably plays some sort of part in the lack of comments on people's roles from the club tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 It's fairly clear what he does as it says in the article. It's just to what capacity does he carry out those roles. For example how involved is he in player recruitment? Eh? His job is defined as: Dennis will assist the Board on football-related matters, including the development of the Club's Academy and player recruitment. Basically Ashley and the board didn't (and possibly still don't) have a scooby how to run a football club so they asked Wise to not advise them on footballing matters due to his experience in the game. This as it says above conducting their end of the transfer business and adding to the academy. The problem is defining how far those roles of "assisting" the board go. Does he go scouting? Does he sit on the negotiating table and most importantly does he work with or above the manager. Like you say, it's ambiguous but it's a starting point hence being "fairly clear" as a pose to being "crystal clear". Youve said it yourself, and showed why people are suspicious, its not clear enough is it (especially in amongst all the speculation)? Yes, he's an easy target for who he is. But what makes me angry is the fact his role has been described in such a way that it cover's a lot of potenial roles. It makes me angry that this system, i.e. him bieng involved in the first team, and potentially forcing players on the manager, has had a negative effect on a potential positive direction the club could have went under Keegan, and that a legend such as KK deserves much better. It is annoying that even now, amongst all the speculation, Wise has still not confirmed what his role is definetely about. That not only worries me in terms of the structure and the credibility ofi it, but the silence also feels like two fingers up at the fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. I'll be more than happy to change my opinion if you have any proof to back yours up. "Kevin Keegan's chief complaint, amongst others, is that it was always agreed that the director of football could not impose a player that the manager did not want." And that is supposed to prove what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 If people are so unsure over what his duties are, or should be, and what he's currently doing, then how is it possible to apportion blame? We're in the s*** but just how much of it can 100%, incontrovertibly be traced back to him and him alone? People suspect he is an interference with the first team, and dont agree with that - the suspicion has grown because of any lack of denial from Wise himself. That's a fair point; why hasn't Wise himself had anything to say on, well anything? If he's just a youth scout then fair enough, but why the fancy title, 'assisting the board' etc? All we've had are these anonymous statements which when compared to one another are as clear as mud. If he came out and said anything would people believe him? The possibility of a claim for constructive dismissal from Keegan probably plays some sort of part in the lack of comments on people's roles from the club tbh. Fair enough, as you say there would be many waiting to pounce on anything he said. But as I said before, if he's merely a glorified scout, what is there to be afraid of? If he and his team are responsible for the young players then nobody can find fault with that. If he and his team were responsible for bringing in the likes of Bassong and Jonas on the cheap then nobody can find fault with that. If they're keeping quiet because of the Keegan claim, what does that say to us lot? It suggests they have something to hide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. I'll be more than happy to change my opinion if you have any proof to back yours up. "Kevin Keegan's chief complaint, amongst others, is that it was always agreed that the director of football could not impose a player that the manager did not want." And that is supposed to prove what? That players were imposed on Keegan. Didn't think anything else need pointing out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I can't see what Xisco has to do with anything. Keegan spoke to him therefore he supported his signing over the players he wanted? From what I know of KK and his relationship with players, I wouldn't have expected him to just ignore Xisco and refuse to talk to him regardless of whether he'd wanted him or not. I thought Xisco and Gonzales coming in were the main reason for Keegan walking out? Baggio is consistently banging this drum that Keegan approved Xisco because he spoke to him. As if he would have done anything else ffs. KK also seemed happy at the time we became a PLC. Baggio is like NE5 he barricades himself into a standpoint & does not change. I'll be more than happy to change my opinion if you have any proof to back yours up. "Kevin Keegan's chief complaint, amongst others, is that it was always agreed that the director of football could not impose a player that the manager did not want." And that is supposed to prove what? That players were imposed on Keegan. Didn't think anything else need pointing out. I didn't say that wasn't the case though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now