Keegan vs Ashley and Co case settled - KK awarded 2m

[Dave]

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.

 

'when cross-examined, Mr Keegan very fairly accepted that Clause 14.8.1 was fair and reasonable.'

 

Do you think he will appeal the ruling and try for more money?

[SteveMc]

He says he's looking at some technicalities that he can't comment on yet.  But his language didn't sound like he was looking to appeal to me. 

[madras]

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.

 

'when cross-examined, Mr Keegan very fairly accepted that Clause 14.8.1 was fair and reasonable.'

 

Do you think he will appeal the ruling and try for more money?

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

[gazza ladra]

Is this the youtube vid?

 

My name is Dennis.

 

Looks like something some agents put up. Comments disabled.

[Mick]

I find it hard to believe that anybody could take the side of the club over Keegan on this issue, it's proven who was in the wrong and it wasn't Keegan.  He gave them every chance to take a step backwards before signing a player who Keegan clearly didn't want yet they pushed on with the signing and got what they deserved. 

 

Keegan was promised final say on all transfers and they know it, they are a bunch of lying bastards and have no place at this club.  Anybody who defends the club over this is fighting a losing battle and should just give up.

 

I’m sure that Keegan did have a promise of final say on transfers and the lies were not when they told us that.  The lies have come since then to try and cover up for Keegan being forced out as they’ve tried to prevent him from getting his pay-off.

 

I wouldn't be bothered if Keegan had claimed £250 million, the point is that he felt he was right to walk and an independent panel have agreed with him.  The lies from within the club are far worse than anything Keegan claimed and making an issue of Keegans claim is a strange thing to focus on.

 

[Guest pont-toon]

I find it hard to believe that anybody could take the side of the club over Keegan on this issue, it's proven who was in the wrong and it wasn't Keegan.  He gave them every chance to take a step backwards before signing a player who Keegan clearly didn't want yet they pushed on with the signing and got what they deserved. 

 

Keegan was promised final say on all transfers and they know it, they are a bunch of lying bastards and have no place at this club.  Anybody who defends the club over this is fighting a losing battle and should just give up.

 

I’m sure that Keegan did have a promise of final say on transfers and the lies were not when they told us that.  The lies have come since then to try and cover up for Keegan being forced out as they’ve tried to prevent him from getting his pay-off.

 

I wouldn't be bothered if Keegan had claimed £250 million, the point is that he felt he was right to walk and an independent panel have agreed with him.  The lies from within the club are far worse than anything Keegan claimed and making an issue of Keegans claim is a strange thing to focus on.

 

 

here here 

[madras]

I find it hard to believe that anybody could take the side of the club over Keegan on this issue, it's proven who was in the wrong and it wasn't Keegan.  He gave them every chance to take a step backwards before signing a player who Keegan clearly didn't want yet they pushed on with the signing and got what they deserved. 

 

Keegan was promised final say on all transfers and they know it, they are a bunch of lying bastards and have no place at this club.  Anybody who defends the club over this is fighting a losing battle and should just give up.

 

I’m sure that Keegan did have a promise of final say on transfers and the lies were not when they told us that.  The lies have come since then to try and cover up for Keegan being forced out as they’ve tried to prevent him from getting his pay-off.

 

I wouldn't be bothered if Keegan had claimed £250 million, the point is that he felt he was right to walk and an independent panel have agreed with him.  The lies from within the club are far worse than anything Keegan claimed and making an issue of Keegans claim is a strange thing to focus on.

 

nobody is taking the side of the club but there are still too many gaps to back keegan 100%

[Mick]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

[Mick]

nobody is taking the side of the club but there are still too many gaps to back keegan 100%

 

I don't see any gaps, at least none that matter. 

[madras]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

[madras]

nobody is taking the side of the club but there are still too many gaps to back keegan 100%

 

I don't see any gaps, at least none that matter. 

because i want to know the ins and outs. i want to know for sure that the lampard et al story was all shit. its a reticence based unfortunatly on keegan himself. the peter garland story, the original walk out, the story of him leaving citeh cos they said he wouldnt have as much cash to spend.

 

good coach but i don't trust the man.

[Guest pont-toon]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

 

if you also had your reputation cast into doubt (preventing you from alternative employment) as a direct consequence then you would have good reason to do so would you not ?

[madras]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

 

if you also had your reputation cast into doubt (preventing you from alternative employment) as a direct consequence then you would have good reason to do so would you not ?

i'd have good reason to claim...but not 8 years slary, especially as mif i won any compensation my reputation would be vindicated.

[Guest pont-toon]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

 

if you also had your reputation cast into doubt (preventing you from alternative employment) as a direct consequence then you would have good reason to do so would you not ?

i'd have good reason to claim...but not 8 years slary, especially as mif i won any compensation my reputation would be vindicated.

 

not necessarily - usually arbitrations are private affairs and the facts dont get into the public domain and so there was a chance that reputation may still be tainted (mud sticks and all that). The unusual steps to make the findings/specifics public have helped keegan in this regard. Winning i concede was a good start though

[Cronky]

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.

 

'when cross-examined, Mr Keegan very fairly accepted that Clause 14.8.1 was fair and reasonable.'

 

Do you think he will appeal the ruling and try for more money?

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

I read somewhere that both parties agreed beforehand to abide by the findings of the tribunal and not to take further legal action after the decision.

[madras]

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

Why does it matter that he was after £25 million?

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

 

if you also had your reputation cast into doubt (preventing you from alternative employment) as a direct consequence then you would have good reason to do so would you not ?

i'd have good reason to claim...but not 8 years slary, especially as mif i won any compensation my reputation would be vindicated.

 

not necessarily - usually arbitrations are private affairs and the facts dont get into the public domain and so there was a chance that reputation may still be tainted (mud sticks and all that). The unusual steps to make the findings/specifics public have helped keegan in this regard. Winning i concede was a good start though

but that wasn't the case here was it. hence everyone reading the PDF.

[Thespence]

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.

 

'when cross-examined, Mr Keegan very fairly accepted that Clause 14.8.1 was fair and reasonable.'

 

Do you think he will appeal the ruling and try for more money?

i don't think he will but  in the pdf after being awarded the £2mill "mr keegan contends that this clause(14.8.1) does not apply,alternativly that it is unenforcable with the result that he is entitled to damages as set out in paragraph 1 (the £25mill)" it seems like he tried.

 

I read somewhere that both parties agreed beforehand to abide by the findings of the tribunal and not to take further legal action after the decision.

 

This is true but they still have the right to legal action. Although what I read said something like that the judge/people sitting in would be very much against the person/club bringing the case after they had already agreed to go with the findings of industrial panel.

[Mick]

because its an outlandish and greedy figure. the equivilent of me being constructivly dismissed and claiming 3 years salary then wanting another 5 years on top.

 

The claim has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the case, it's proven that Keegan was right to walk and that's all that matters.  His claim will not be something which he came up with, he will have been advised what to go for and will have had to follow legal advice.

[Mick]

because i want to know the ins and outs. i want to know for sure that the lampard et al story was all s***. its a reticence based unfortunatly on keegan himself. the peter garland story, the original walk out, the story of him leaving citeh cos they said he wouldnt have as much cash to spend.

 

good coach but i don't trust the man.

 

I don't think any of the above was ever going to come out because it had nothing to do with the case.  The fact that the club didn't use the Lampard stuff tells its own story as they've tried everything else to win.  Including happily being seen as liars not only to Keegan but the fans and I find that staggering.

[Scoreboard82]

The way i see it, the people running our club have been proven to be incompetent, devious liars. I'm pleased KK was proved right, though i'm confused by his proclaiming his love for the club, while at the same time claiming an amount of compo that could've potentially ruined us.

It's as good an outcome as i could have hoped for i suppose. KK proved right to leave, but walking away with a relatively small amount. Would have prefered that 2 million to stay within the club, but it shouldn't be enough to have a massive financial impact.

 

[Dave]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/newcastleunited/6256508/Henry-Winter-Newcastle-United-board-pay-price-for-undermining-manager.html

Henry Winter: Newcastle United board pay price for undermining manager

 

When Kevin Keegan was told by Dennis Wise to check out Ignacio Gonzalez on the internet, the then Newcastle United manager must have felt the phrase YouTube rather neatly summed up the club's executive director (football).

 

By Henry Winter

Published: 10:10PM BST 02 Oct 2009

 

Wise's interference in Keegan's team-building plans was resented by the manager at the time and deservedly ridiculed by a tribunal on Friday.

 

So forget the £2 million awarded to Keegan as his due compensation for constructive dismissal. What Keegan really won was a principle beyond price.

 

Dressing room 1 Boardroom 0.

 

The former manager of Newcastle has now shown that it can be wrong legally, let alone ethically, for directors to meddle in team affairs. By signing an unknown Uruguayan against the manager's will, the Newcastle board broke Keegan's contract and have now paid for their arrogance.

 

An emotional but honourable type, Keegan may not have been the greatest manager in history, as those who have chronicled his teams' meltdowns will concur, but he will be royally toasted at the next League Managers' Association dinner.

 

Friday was a significant moment in managerial rights. Kevin Keegan: the Emily Pankhurst of the dugout.

 

It is one thing advising a manager against buying a troublesome player because he could damage the club's image, as one distinguished board successfully did over Joey Barton, but quite another foisting a footballer on an unwilling manager. That is the road signposted "madness''.

 

No wonder Keegan was so angry when talking after Newcastle's 3-0 defeat to Arsenal at the Emirates on Aug 30, 2008. The transfer deadline was looming and Keegan knew that Wise and Tony Jimenez, Newcastle's vice-president (player recruitment), were negotiating to bring in Gonzalez on loan from Valencia. Keegan kept shrugging his shoulders when asked whether he talked to Wise, whether he felt undermined, whether arrivals were his choice. Five days later, he resigned.

 

Keegan wears his heart on his sleeve, and his departure was depicted in certain quarters as the remaining toys flying out of a familiar pram launching site, yet he had every justification to rail against Wise, Jimenez and the club's owner, Mike Ashley. Boards must trust their manager's judgment.

 

Look at the leading lights in the nation's technical areas over the past few seasons: Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, Rafael Benítez, David Moyes and Martin O'Neill. None would tolerate interference. Some have bought occasional pups but most invest shrewdly. If a board does want to get involved, it should focus on the manager. Either back him or sack him.

 

Newcastle fans will not know whether to howl with laughter or fury over the claim that their club signed Gonzalez "to 'do a favour' for two South American agents'', according to Keegan. Managers cannot be saddled with unwanted players simply because the club want to keep some middle-men happy. At least the meddle-men were put in their place by Keegan yesterday.

[Robster]

The way i see it, the people running our club have been proven to be incompetent, devious liars. I'm pleased KK was proved right, though i'm confused by his proclaiming his love for the club, while at the same time claiming an amount of compo that could've potentially ruined us.

It's as good an outcome as i could have hoped for i suppose. KK proved right to leave, but walking away with a relatively small amount. Would have prefered that 2 million to stay within the club, but it shouldn't be enough to have a massive financial impact.

I am pretty sure Kevins lawyers would have kown that the £2 million clause (was it 14.8?) was going to be upheld.

As has been mentioned, I feel that the £25 million bit was used as leverage to make the thing public and to allow Kevin to clear his name fully.

Loss of earnings is a very difficult thing to prove in court and I am sure that had he genuinely sought that kind of figure, his lawyers would have advised against it.

 

P.S. I have no connection with the legal industry but I was in court recently where a client of ours tried to counter-claim against us for loss of earning and profit and the judge almost laughed at him and it highlighted to me that you have to have so much back up if you are ever going to go down that road.

[Thespence]

From Dennis Wise Wiki

 

After the death of Sir Bobby Robson, The Sun's Bob Harris wrote how Robson told him: "My biggest disappointment was Dennis Wise, a director of football who was hardly seen at the ground, and who brought in players who were neither suitable, nor right, for Newcastle United. I forgive most people, but I am not sure I can forgive Wise for what he did to my club."

[Raconteur]

Well, I have to admit that being a fence-sitter at the time of Keegan's dismissal, leaning in the Ashley/Wise direction, there is now no doubt that I was one of thousands hoodwinked by the PR shenanigans highlighted in the arbiters findings. All those months of saying "What did Wise do that caused him to be the target of such hate" - well, I feel a right goose now!

 

I guess what really annoys me is that the "continental system" has real potential - but only if it is the one the club claimed they had, not the horrible reality they actually created. The system will work if the owner is progressive, and if the manager and director of football work closely together and yet there is a clear demarcation of responsibility. The Wise/Vetere/Jiminez/Keegan team had none of that - and could not have been exemplified better with the "YouTube" remark, which is a clear slap in the face to Keegan.

 

There are a few questions that remain unanswered, but the one I want answered is "Exactly how injured was Gonzalez for the 2008-09 season?" Was it all just another lie to keep him out of the limelight?

 

[Incognito]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/newcastleunited/6256508/Henry-Winter-Newcastle-United-board-pay-price-for-undermining-manager.html

Henry Winter: Newcastle United board pay price for undermining manager

 

When Kevin Keegan was told by Dennis Wise to check out Ignacio Gonzalez on the internet, the then Newcastle United manager must have felt the phrase YouTube rather neatly summed up the club's executive director (football).

 

By Henry Winter

Published: 10:10PM BST 02 Oct 2009

 

Wise's interference in Keegan's team-building plans was resented by the manager at the time and deservedly ridiculed by a tribunal on Friday.

 

So forget the £2 million awarded to Keegan as his due compensation for constructive dismissal. What Keegan really won was a principle beyond price.

 

Dressing room 1 Boardroom 0.

 

The former manager of Newcastle has now shown that it can be wrong legally, let alone ethically, for directors to meddle in team affairs. By signing an unknown Uruguayan against the manager's will, the Newcastle board broke Keegan's contract and have now paid for their arrogance.

 

An emotional but honourable type, Keegan may not have been the greatest manager in history, as those who have chronicled his teams' meltdowns will concur, but he will be royally toasted at the next League Managers' Association dinner.

 

Friday was a significant moment in managerial rights. Kevin Keegan: the Emily Pankhurst of the dugout.

 

It is one thing advising a manager against buying a troublesome player because he could damage the club's image, as one distinguished board successfully did over Joey Barton, but quite another foisting a footballer on an unwilling manager. That is the road signposted "madness''.

 

No wonder Keegan was so angry when talking after Newcastle's 3-0 defeat to Arsenal at the Emirates on Aug 30, 2008. The transfer deadline was looming and Keegan knew that Wise and Tony Jimenez, Newcastle's vice-president (player recruitment), were negotiating to bring in Gonzalez on loan from Valencia. Keegan kept shrugging his shoulders when asked whether he talked to Wise, whether he felt undermined, whether arrivals were his choice. Five days later, he resigned.

 

Keegan wears his heart on his sleeve, and his departure was depicted in certain quarters as the remaining toys flying out of a familiar pram launching site, yet he had every justification to rail against Wise, Jimenez and the club's owner, Mike Ashley. Boards must trust their manager's judgment.

 

Look at the leading lights in the nation's technical areas over the past few seasons: Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, Rafael Benítez, David Moyes and Martin O'Neill. None would tolerate interference. Some have bought occasional pups but most invest shrewdly. If a board does want to get involved, it should focus on the manager. Either back him or sack him.

 

Newcastle fans will not know whether to howl with laughter or fury over the claim that their club signed Gonzalez "to 'do a favour' for two South American agents'', according to Keegan. Managers cannot be saddled with unwanted players simply because the club want to keep some middle-men happy. At least the meddle-men were put in their place by Keegan yesterday.

 

For once,Winter has written exactly what I believe.Although he must have a degree in the bleeding obvious.This whole facade all goes to show what brain dead,despicable cretins we have in charge of our club.