They are getting ready to blame KK for less transfer money (smoke, mirrors etc).

[Bad Mongo]

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

I assume he might not get the full £9M, even if he wins.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

[TRon]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

Have you told those sitting at the tribunal all this yet? The judge might not have access to all the facts you seem to have.

[David Icke - Son of God]

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

 

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

 

I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co.

 

People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

 

You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

 

How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of shite.

 

If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

[ChezGiven]

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

I assume he might not get the full £9M, even if he wins.

 

Based on your employment litigation experience or just because you can imagine the words in your head?

 

Empty speculation based on nowt.

[ChezGiven]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

[TRon]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

 

Are they giving him £4m? It would be useful to know that's a fact before going into whys or wherefores..

[ChezGiven]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out.

 

[David Icke - Son of God]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out.

 

It's looking likely it's going to be settled out of court, with MA parting with some cash. If Keegan is liable why may MA be about to give him £4 million? Sensible answer please.

[Baggio]

Where has this £4 million figure come from?

[Bad Mongo]

Based on your employment litigation experience or just because you can imagine the words in your head?

 

Empty speculation based on nowt.

 

No, based on the fact that no one else seems to get £9M when being sacked from their clubs. It doesn't seem like reasonable compensation.

[ChezGiven]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out.

 

It's looking likely it's going to be settled out of court, with MA parting with some cash. If Keegan is liable why may about MA be giving him £4 million? Sensible answer please.

Eh? Then i do apologise for all my responses in this thread. I was going on publically available information which suggests that the tribunal will go on for a few months and that both parties are fighting their corner.

 

Can you quote me something that suggests i should update this assumption?

 

Where is the information which suggests they will settle?

 

Where is the information which quotes 4m?

 

"The Journal understands that, while there is a preliminary hearing between the two legal teams to discuss the case early next month, it is highly unlikely an agreement will be reached then."

 

I thought it was still all up in the air.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan.

 

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

 

 

A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know.

 

But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further.

 

Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality.

 

Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not.

 

"Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court".

 

Genius. 

 

Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed.

 

Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry.

 

Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes.

 

With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything.

If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million?

Oh sorry, i've just realised you live in cloud cuckoo land and Ashley has already paid out.

 

It's looking likely it's going to be settled out of court, with MA parting with some cash. If Keegan is liable why may about MA be giving him £4 million? Sensible answer please.

Eh? Then i do apologise for all my responses in this thread. I was going on publically available information which suggests that the tribunal will go on for a few months and that both parties are fighting their corner.

 

Can you quote me something that suggests i should update this assumption?

 

Where is the information which suggests they will settle?

 

Where is the information which quotes 4m?

 

"The Journal understands that, while there is a preliminary hearing between the two legal teams to discuss the case early next month, it is highly unlikely an agreement will be reached then."

 

I thought it was still all up in the air.

 

Llambias is the one saying a settlement is very close.

[ChezGiven]

Based on your employment litigation experience or just because you can imagine the words in your head?

 

Empty speculation based on nowt.

 

No, based on the fact that no one else seems to get £9M when being sacked from their clubs. It doesn't seem like reasonable compensation.

 

"Keegan is believed to be seeking as much as £9m after he sued the club for constructive dismissal following his controversial departure back in September."

 

I presume he's suing for 9m knowing that compensation will be better than if he just goes for 1m.

[quayside]

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

 

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

 

I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co.

 

People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

 

You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

 

How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****.

 

If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

 

I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were.

 

Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this.

 

Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract.

 

For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal.

 

As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

[Mick]

 

Llambias is the one saying a settlement is very close.

 

The settlement might be that neither side pays the other for all we know, where is the £4 million from?

[Mick]

 

I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were.

 

Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this.

 

Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract.

 

For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal.

 

As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

 

Good post and accurate.

[Dokko]

So the £4m settlement has just been pulled out of someone's arse to suit their argument?

 

Crikey, new low in this thread, and there's a few lows to be had.

 

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

 

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

 

I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co.

 

People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

 

You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

 

How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****.

 

If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

 

I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were.

 

Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this.

 

Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract.

 

For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal.

 

As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

 

you're a solicitor AND an account?

[quayside]

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

 

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

 

I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co.

 

People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

 

You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

 

How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****.

 

If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

 

I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were.

 

Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this.

 

Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract.

 

For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal.

 

As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

 

you're a solicitor AND an account?

 

No I'm not a lawyer mate - I have had some previous with employment law. f*cking minefield it is too 

[mrmojorisin75]

If the club had a leg to stand on they'd take him all the way. The out of court settlement is on the table because their case is flimsy, as seen by the very public contradictions, not because they want to avoid upsetting the fansa again.

 

If their case is so flimsy then Keegan won't take a settlement and will take it all the way and win £9 million.........lets see if that happens.

 

I'd hazard a guess that neither side wants a protracted legal battle but the fact the clubs stance has altered so significantly since the words 'court case' were first mentioned is a huge hint that they're talking bollocks, as is the various contradictions from MA & co.

 

People on here don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. I'm gobsmacked at some of the drivel posted on here.

 

You are hazarding guesses, you keep hurling insults and yet its obvious that you, like the rest of us, have no knowledge of the sequence of events leading up to Keegan's departure. Do you know what Keegan's contract says about his job and responsibilities? Do you know which clause in the contract Keegan is claiming was breached by the club? Do you know what evidence Keegan has for that breach? Of course you don't - you've made your mind up that Keegan = Geordie hero = in the right. Ashley = fat cockney slug = in the wrong. Clueless and childish logic.

 

How am I hazarding guesses? Ashley has came out and contradicted himself on what went on when Keegan was here and what his exact role was whereas despite Libertine's tedious quoteathon earlier in the thread there is no evidence Keegan submitted any responsibility for the buying and selling of players to Wise, Jiminez, Vetere and Llambias. Yes, there are quotes saying he welcomes the help scouting and selecting players but that's a different barrell of s****.

 

If I am in fact right about the above assumptions, which there is heavy evidence for, then why are we here? Why did Keegan leave and why is he taking the club to court (or at least trying to)? Why did Joey Barton send a baffling text to Jim White when a transfer to Portsmouth looked in the offing on the evening of the transfer window? Why did Llambias say he wanted to wallop Keegan? Feel free to post your mad cap conspiracy theories.

 

I assumed that you are hazarding guesses because you said you were.

 

Never mind conspiracy theories its staggering reading the absolute certainty that you appear to have on this.

 

Constructive dismissal is a complex area, it really is not black and white. Keegan would have to prove that there was a "fundamental breach" of his employment contract by the club, and that left him no choice but to leave. He has then got to prove that what the club did was unfair, so in effect he must also prove a claim for unfair dismissal. This can be hard because sometimes employers have to make decisions that are in the interests of their business even though they cut across an employee's contract.

 

For the sake of example lets say Keegan's contract gives him the right of veto and approval on any players the club buys or sells. Lets go back to the end of the summer transfer window and Keegan is expecting 3 or 4 players that he wants to be brought in by Wise and co. The negotiations on these players break down. Its getting close to the deadline and getting hard to find alternatives that Keegan wants and the squad needs more players. So Wise authorises the Gonzalez and Xisco deals. Its against Keegan's contract but the club was taking commercial action that it thought necessary. Tribunals have been known to accept such action by an employer as a successful defence in cases of constructive dismissal.

 

As I have said before we don't know exactly what happened in the Keegan case but its a huge mistake to think these cases are straightforward, there is rarely such a thing as a watertight case. And that is why many of these actions get settled out of court.

 

you're a solicitor AND an account?

 

No I'm not a lawyer mate - I have had some previous with employment law. f*cking minefield it is too 

 

freaked me out, takes all my time doing hard porn and cancer research, wondered if there was two of us out there!

[Guest The Libertine]

So the £4m settlement has just been pulled out of someone's arse to suit their argument?

 

Crikey, new low in this thread, and there's a few lows to be had.

 

 

 

 

he seems to know far more about this case than the rest of us. i say we believe him.

[TRon]

So the £4m settlement has just been pulled out of someone's arse to suit their argument?

 

Crikey, new low in this thread, and there's a few lows to be had.

 

 

 

 

he seems to know far more about this case than the rest of us. i say we believe him.

 

He is the Son of God, he's entitled to know a bit more in all fairness 

[timnufc22]

I think people are referring to this:

 

“We are hoping to reach two important settlements in the next week or so which potentially could cost the club a lot of money,”

 

“One of those is the settlement with Kevin Keegan and the other is the fee for Jonas Gutiérrez. We are talking about millions of pounds here and, if we have to pay out a vast sum of money, that will hit our revenue elsewhere.”

 

They stated many times "Kevin has the final say on players"

 

Then Keegan says "Imo a manager should not a player imposed on him"

 

Then came the FACT statement... surely if the bit in bold was true, they would have listed "It is a fact Kevin Keegan had the final say on players”? Instead of "It is a fact Kevin Keegan agreed to the system”?

 

The dodgyness of the DOF system seems to be very telling by the fact they want Joe Kinnear long term, a better manager coming in would give credibility to the system, surely they'd want that if there’s nothing dodgy about it?