madras Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 what happened about the other transfers ? They state 6. Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan’s appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan’s resignation on 4 September 2008. which I work out covers everything before & are really looking at the straw that broke the camel's back. i can't see it that way without the evidence. for example, keegan agrees with it but goes mental over ganzalez is totally different to everyone being bought without anysay form him and him having reasonable targets of his own. Were not going to see the evidence for stuff that went on before. which is a shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 just read the entire judgement and a few little things i'd like to point out. what happened about the other transfers ? the club f***ed up by using terms like "usually" instead of specifics in the contract. it seems like the club thought it had itself covered by saying coaching,selection motivation etc keegan f***ed up by agreeing to clause 14.8.1 (iirc) and by the sounds of it he did try to claim for £25mill (so much for it being a smear). i'd have no problem with the club bringing in players without the managers say so if they are hopefully to be sold on at a profit providing the manager within reason gets players agreeable to him to use in his team. still no mention of the players keegan actually wanted. not too fussed about the lies,all clubs and businesses tell them. i hope the FA/UEFA/FIFA look into the "favour" for a pair of south american agents. It makes me despair that anyone could look at the opinion given today as anything other than a vindication of Keegan's position. The club did not 'fuck up' by using the language they did in the contract that they agreed to; they breached the contract in as much as they failed to abide by it, a pretty basic 'commercial' error. Keegan did not claim £25m. He simply underpinned his position by expressing his potential earnings before the age of 65 that might be damaged if the club's position had been believed by some notional moron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I'd imagine Milner, Mr. Missing-left-back and Mr. Missing-right-back would be pretty high up the list. Pointless discussing it like until the inevitable books come out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 what determines whether something is a smear isnt the truth of what is said but the intention with which it is said. someone couldve leaked the £25m thingy months ago when proceedings began. instead club sources leaked the info after it was pretty well established through the tribunal that this money wouldn't be paid out, and also after they realised they weren't going to win their case. they did this, implying that the club could be forced into administration, to try and smear keegan, anticipating events by spinning them away from the club's humilitation and defeat in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. I know which one of the two was more unlikely.... Now you're saying because it turned out that Keegan made a claim for £25m you're gonna believe everything in the papers? **** me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Noticing a lot of forum lurker types have chimed up about this one. Interesting, verrry interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Noticing a lot of forum lurker types have chimed up about this one. Interesting, verrry interesting. Like who? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Finally what most of us knew has been printed in black and white, hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin for ashley and we can move on sooner rather than later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Erm that's what I meant - idiot2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. I know which one of the two was more unlikely.... Now you're saying because it turned out that Keegan made a claim for £25m you're gonna believe everything in the papers? **** me. are you saying i should now believe only the pro keegans stories regardless ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. Do you think Kevin wanted the money or that that figure was used, as a means of bringing the matter to a public head so that he could clear his name and let the public know what he had been dealing with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Erm that's what I meant - idiot2 I like how you typed that out. Top forumming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. I know which one of the two was more unlikely.... Now you're saying because it turned out that Keegan made a claim for £25m you're gonna believe everything in the papers? **** me. are you saying i should now believe all the pro keegans stories regardless ? No, but use your common sense. Even if you can't prove whether a story is true or not you can use your common sense and decide what is more likely. The crap about Henry et al started after a radio interview when KK said Henry would be his 'dream' signing. The press then did their usual thing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Madras is wobbling, give him a shove, he might fall off that fence.. go on shake it, its getting windy madras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The tribunal confirmed that Keegan wasn't entitled to his claim because the clause was sufficient. He wouldn't have got £1 if that had been his claim for seven years of potential work. I don't really know why it matters what he claimed tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. I know which one of the two was more unlikely.... Now you're saying because it turned out that Keegan made a claim for £25m you're gonna believe everything in the papers? **** me. are you saying i should now believe all the pro keegans stories regardless ? No, but use your common sense. Even if you can't prove whether a story is true or not you can use your common sense and decide what is more likely. The crap about Henry et al started after a radio interview when KK said Henry would be his 'dream' signing. The press then did their usual thing... and a week ago the £25mill claim was a smear because of the timing of the case. thats all the type of stuff i wanted out in the open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Erm that's what I meant - idiot2 I like how you typed that out. Top forumming. Quite deliberate and that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Erm that's what I meant - idiot2 Quite deliberate and that I like how you typed that out. Top forumming. Just like that quoting? Nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The tribunal confirmed that Keegan wasn't entitled to his claim because the clause was sufficient. He wouldn't have got £1 if that had been his claim for seven years of potential work. I don't really know why it matters what he claimed tbh. because as it say in the PDF his lawyers tried to get round clause 14.8 whatever to get more than the £2mill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 which is a shame. You cant surely believe the Lampard et al stories ? i didn't believe the £25mill claim stories either. I know which one of the two was more unlikely.... Now you're saying because it turned out that Keegan made a claim for £25m you're gonna believe everything in the papers? **** me. are you saying i should now believe all the pro keegans stories regardless ? No, but use your common sense. Even if you can't prove whether a story is true or not you can use your common sense and decide what is more likely. The crap about Henry et al started after a radio interview when KK said Henry would be his 'dream' signing. The press then did their usual thing... and a week ago the £25mill claim was a smear because of the timing of the case. thats all the type of stuff i wanted out in the open. Just because someone says that if a thing was believed about them they would lose £16.5m doesn't mean they're claiming £16.5m. Carefully read the opinion given today. Keegan was vindicated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Same here - but they've chosen not to report on anything bar Gonzalez. Wonder if Sweinsteiger would get a mention He wont get a mention in these findings:idiot2: Erm that's what I meant - idiot2 Quite deliberate and that I like how you typed that out. Top forumming. Just like that quoting? Nice. Repaired. It just takes a while. I'm old and have been drinking 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