80 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Then I guess the club have nothing to worry about, they will win the case, keep the money. Roll on the summer when the money will be spent on strengthening the team Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a s*** tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Let the courts decide tbh,i felt the same twinge everyone else did when he came back,however its kinda like forgiving a bird who has been shagging around behind your back,you want things to work but you know sooner or later they are going to go looking for new sausage. He wasnt here for the long term,anyone who thinks he was is clearly deluded,and its time for people to stop looking for people to blame.. I personally think theres nowt wrong with the new business model,however i agree we need to plough some money into the first team,the only problems that i see is our fans being not prepare to embrace the changes and always thinking that people are out to screw "Their Club". Meh... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Then I guess the club have nothing to worry about, they will win the case, keep the money. Roll on the summer when the money will be spent on strengthening the team Let's hope so. I'd much rather the club had the £9 million than Soccer Circus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Then I guess the club have nothing to worry about, they will win the case, keep the money. Roll on the summer when the money will be spent on strengthening the team Let's hope so. I'd much rather the club had the £9 million than Soccer Circus. either "soccer circus" or "the soccer circus" will get the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 What don't you understand? What FS would have done what all the other clubs with high wages and debt do. Maybe you can enlighten me so that I know the answer. You know the ans goes they are all above us in the table. There's zero evidence to show we were heading up the table under FS. Strange don't remember saying that. If the others have managed to reign in wages and continue sensible spend on players not sure why we can't. Feel free to point out what I'm missing. Paying for players upfront is madness, nobody does it and there are some good reasons not to. Why would we want to? Every team is keen to keep an eye on debt under the new fianacial scenario, but they don't do it to the extent that it might endanger PL status. and on and on.... i understand that nobody does it but can't think of any good reasons why not to (except that nobody else does it). i'm pretty sure football would be better if it were made a uefa rule that all transfer fees had to be paid up front. on a side note i wonder if anyone has worked out how much we were actually paying year on year for transfer fees doing it this way instead of the usual "add all the total ffes up" style ? another side note for the new beelzebubs (accountants/financial workers) out there........these fees that are paid in stages or we are to receive in the summer ie given. how does it affect tax if the monies are received in a different financial year....could it be advantageous for example to get the money off citeh in the summer as opposed to now ? (it's not an excuse for not getting the money up front,the should have...and a damn sight more than 5.9mill) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a s*** tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. He was given promises & took the job on the grounds of having the final say on players. Those promises we're broken. 2m clause is then not justifiable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. It was for the benefit of those who'll blame him for taking compensation but will also take an out of court settlement as evidence he was in the wrong all along. It seems that for many, Keegan has to pay £2m to Ashley to prove he isn't a mercenary scumbag as 1) legally disputing who was in the wrong sees him accused of thieving from ordinary supporters and 2) if his case were valid, he wouldn't duck the court date and take less/no money. As I said, his accepting an out of court settlement might be to prevent indirectly his taking money from the supporters he loves. It would be pretty unwarranted to assume that's the case, however - in the same way other deductions have unwarranted quantities of faith placed in them. Your post essentially reasserts my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a s*** tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. He was given promises & took the job on the grounds of having the final say on players. Those promises we're broken. 2m clause is then not justifiable You obviously have inside information that I do not possess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Then I guess the club have nothing to worry about, they will win the case, keep the money. Roll on the summer when the money will be spent on strengthening the team Let's hope so. I'd much rather the club had the £9 million than Soccer Circus. Have we changed our name? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. It was for the benefit of those who'll blame him for taking compensation but will also take an out of court settlement as evidence he was in the wrong all along. It seems that for many, Keegan has to pay £2m to Ashley to prove he isn't a mercenary scumbag as 1) legally disputing who was in the wrong sees him accused of thieving from ordinary supporters and 2) if his case were valid, he wouldn't duck the court date and take less/no money. As I said, his accepting an out of court settlement might be to prevent indirectly his taking money from the supporters he loves. It would be pretty unwarranted to assume that's the case, however - in the same way other deductions have unwarranted quantities of faith placed in them. Your post essentially reasserts my point. You're putting yourself into contortions because you want to believe he loves you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 My guess is that both sides should and will share the blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a s*** tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. He was given promises & took the job on the grounds of having the final say on players. Those promises we're broken. 2m clause is then not justifiable You obviously have inside information that I do not possess. Just saying thats obviously Keegans view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I've jut had a thought, if Keegan took us to an Industrial Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal the maximum award possible is around £69,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 If he is asking for the quoted £9,000,000 that is equivalent to about £225 from each of the season ticket purchased this year. Lets all bow down to the messiah who loves Newcastle and the supporters. This.Thats all. Wouldnt they be suing him for 2m? Couldnt give a shit tbh,i just know if something meant so much to me i wouldnt be trying to skank money from it. Seeing as he was contractually obliged to pay up £2m if he broke the deal, he'd only avoid that if he claimed that they'd broken the deal. Bearing that in mind might explain him accepting an out of court settlement, eh? Doesn't want to be wrongfully sued but doesn't want to screw the club he loves - a settlement would thus not suggest his case wasn't watertight. Flawless logic, so far as I'm aware. Flawless logic? He was contractually obliged to pay the club £2 million if he walked. He walked. He doesn't want to pay the £2 milion to the club so he sued them in what is essentially a defensive action. Occam's razor, my man. It was for the benefit of those who'll blame him for taking compensation but will also take an out of court settlement as evidence he was in the wrong all along. It seems that for many, Keegan has to pay £2m to Ashley to prove he isn't a mercenary scumbag as 1) legally disputing who was in the wrong sees him accused of thieving from ordinary supporters and 2) if his case were valid, he wouldn't duck the court date and take less/no money. As I said, his accepting an out of court settlement might be to prevent indirectly his taking money from the supporters he loves. It would be pretty unwarranted to assume that's the case, however - in the same way other deductions have unwarranted quantities of faith placed in them. Your post essentially reasserts my point. You're putting yourself into contortions because you want to believe he loves you. What suggests that's the case? I'm not the one who's placed any faith in competing explanations for events in this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I've jut had a thought, if Keegan took us to an Industrial Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal the maximum award possible is around £69,000. Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? It's the maximum but I don't think football uses the Industrial Tribunal, I think some other body looks after these things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? It's the maximum but I don't think football uses the Industrial Tribunal, I think some other body looks after these things. Willie MacKay? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I've jut had a thought, if Keegan took us to an Industrial Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal the maximum award possible is around £69,000. Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? This is starting to sound like an expensive divorce case between a rich husband and a gold-digging wife. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I've jut had a thought, if Keegan took us to an Industrial Tribunal for Constructive Dismissal the maximum award possible is around £69,000. Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? This is starting to sound like an expensive divorce case between a rich husband and a gold-digging wife. to be fair i never thought keegan looked up for it from almost the start Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? It's the maximum but I don't think football uses the Industrial Tribunal, I think some other body looks after these things. correct, they dont use industrial tribunals, the contracts, are not straightforward contracts of employment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Getting a contract from a football club these days is like winning the lottery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Getting a contract from a football club these days is like winning the lottery. in the higher reaches. not so much lower down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Looks to me like KK will be paid off to keep him quiet. 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