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

[madras]

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.

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

[madras]

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.

it's equally possible the leak was keegan sided to use it as a threat to get more than the minimum (clause 14.8).

[Robster]

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

 

Does anyone happen to have a link or a copy of the story that came out about the whole Lampard/Henry signings etc ?

[madras]

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

 

Does anyone happen to have a link or a copy of the story that came out about the whole Lampard/Henry signings etc ?

tbf many had heard similar rumblings before the notw printed that.

 

yesterdays gareth barry story (in the chron which for weeks had been soilidly pro-keegan seemed strange)

 

edit...may i point out for the zillionth time before i get accused of keegan hating,pro-ashleyism or saying this is what happened...i'm not. i want to know what the truth of the whole situation was.

[bovineblue]

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

 

Does anyone happen to have a link or a copy of the story that came out about the whole Lampard/Henry signings etc ?

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/article22169.ece

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/1687894/Mike-proves-money-walks.html

[madras]

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

 

Does anyone happen to have a link or a copy of the story that came out about the whole Lampard/Henry signings etc ?

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/1687894/Mike-proves-money-walks.html

i look forward to keegan persuing ashley and co through the civil court then.

 

oh and wheres the proof that it was misinformation,as yet i've never heard keegan deny it,thats the sort of thing i'd hoped would come out of the case.

[bovineblue]

true it had nothing to do with the case but it has a lot to do with what was going on at the club. was no-one a little surprised that the whole thing centered round a loan signing. it is mentioned that it was the "last straw" etc so i don't think it is asking too much to ask what the other straws were.

 

as i've said before IF keegan wanted unrealistic signings it changes the complexion of the issue. i want to know if there was any substance to the lampard/wright philips stories (i notice gareth barry got a mention in these terms in yesterdays chronicle) which would have been better in a court of law than an arbitration panel.

 

not defending ashley but at the same time i need to see more of the full picture before i can back keegan 100%.

 

Does anyone happen to have a link or a copy of the story that came out about the whole Lampard/Henry signings etc ?

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/1687894/Mike-proves-money-walks.html

i look forward to keegan persuing ashley and co through the civil court then.

 

oh and wheres the proof that it was misinformation,as yet i've never heard keegan deny it,thats the sort of thing i'd hoped would come out of the case.

 

Where's your proof that it isn't?

[Robster]

i look forward to keegan persuing ashley and co through the civil court then.

oh and wheres the proof that it was misinformation,as yet i've never heard keegan deny it,thats the sort of thing i'd hoped would come out of the case.

Perhaps he felt it was such a ludicrous statement, he didnt for 1 second, feel that anyone would consider it to be fact.

 

In all honesty, do you reallly think, taking one name out of there, that Keegan felt we had a chance of signing Frank Lampard ?

Personally I dont. Keegan is a dreamer and an optimist but I dont think he is that stupid.

 

 

EDIT : I am certainly not labelling you an Ashley lover

[madras]

i look forward to keegan persuing ashley and co through the civil court then.

oh and wheres the proof that it was misinformation,as yet i've never heard keegan deny it,thats the sort of thing i'd hoped would come out of the case.

Perhaps he felt it was such a ludicrous statement, he didnt for 1 second, feel that anyone would consider it to be fact.

 

In all honesty, do you reallly think, taking one name out of there, that Keegan felt we had a chance of signing Frank Lampard ?

Personally I dont. Keegan is a dreamer and an optimist but I dont think he is that stupid.

 

 

EDIT : I am certainly not labelling you an Ashley lover

someone on here not so long ago wrote a critique on how lampard was available and could have come here.......

 

there is talk in the article that keegan had been in touch..surely a story like that is so easy to squash but never was as it wasn't speculation but that he HAD been in touch.

 

 

what about the other names ?

[Robster]

someone on here not so long ago wrote a critique on how lampard was available and could have come here.......

there is talk in the article that keegan had been in touch..surely a story like that is so easy to squash but never was as it wasn't speculation but that he HAD been in touch.

what about the other names ?

The only name that I felt he may have bandied about was Beckham. I really could have seen Keegan approaching him. He is approaching the end of career. With the whole England/World Cup thing, i think the prospect of some form of return to the Premier League may have been a reason for him to at least talk to Kevin.

 

However, what doesnt fit in, especially in light of what came out about the "Commercial" aspect of the Nacho deal, is that I would have been amazed that Ashley would have laughed at that one. Even he could have spotted the Commercial benefit of having Beckam at the club. Even if it was some form of loan deal

 

EDIT : I know Beckhams name isnt in that NOTW report but I thought I recalled his name being mentioned somewhere

[Weezertron]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=682460&cc=5739

 

Nowt new like but a video none the less.

[bovineblue]

someone on here not so long ago wrote a critique on how lampard was available and could have come here.......

there is talk in the article that keegan had been in touch..surely a story like that is so easy to squash but never was as it wasn't speculation but that he HAD been in touch.

what about the other names ?

The only name that I felt he may have bandied about was Beckham. I really could have seen Keegan approaching him. He is approaching the end of career. With the whole England/World Cup thing, i think the prospect of some form of return to the Premier League may have been a reason for him to at least talk to Kevin.

 

However, what doesnt fit in, especially in light of what came out about the "Commercial" aspect of the Nacho deal, is that I would have been amazed that Ashley would have laughed at that one. Even he could have spotted the Commercial benefit of having Beckam at the club. Even if it was some form of loan deal

 

EDIT : I know Beckhams name isnt in that NOTW report but I thought I recalled his name being mentioned somewhere

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-509702/Keegans-big-Toon-target-David-Beckham.html

[Dave]

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-utd/newcastle-utd-news/2009/10/04/revealed-the-agent-at-centre-of-keegan-deal-79310-24845561/

Revealed: The agent at centre of Keegan deal

 

Oct 4 2009 by Neil Farrington, Sunday Sun

 

THE Sunday Sun can today shed dim new light on the transfer which forced Kevin Keegan out of Newcastle – and later won him his case for constructive dismissal.

 

We can reveal that just days after United signed Nacho Gonzalez as “a favour to two influential South American agents”, the middle man in the deal was accused of a massive tax fraud in Uruguay.

 

And Uruguayan “super agent” Paco Casal is still facing a tax evasion claim at one point said to be worth more than $100 million.

 

The signing of Gonzalez against Keegan’s wishes – after he was told by Newcastle’s then director of football Dennis Wise to look the Uruguayan up on YouTube – convinced the Magpies’ former Messiah to quit St James’s Park.

 

In the Premier League arbitration hearing into Keegan’s compensation claim against the club, United admitted to signing Gonzalez as a “commercial deal” to curry favour with the pair of South American agents.

 

And the agent who set up the bizarre Gonzalez deal is Casal – a hugely influential and controversial figure in his native Uruguay.

 

Gonzalez arrived at Newcastle from Valencia in August 2008, almost immediately after joining the Spanish side from Uruguayan club Danubio – a deal also brokered by Casal.

 

Casal’s status as the Mr Big of Uruguayan football had seen him secure transfers for a string of the country’s top players – some of whom he part-owned – to European clubs.

 

But when he engineered the three-way Gonzalez deal, Casal was already said by Uruguay’s tax authority, DGI, to owe an astonishing $104.5m in unpaid taxes, mostly on transfers of Uruguayan players to Europe.

 

Having investigated Casal’s (below) business dealings for six years, DGI froze $25m of his assets in April 2008 – four months before Gonzalez arrived on Tyneside.

 

And Casal was then accused of actual tax fraud in September 2008.

 

Although the criminal case against him was dropped in July this year, Casal still faces a civil action from DGI.

 

And the idea that Newcastle signed Gonzalez – and paid him an estimated £1m in wages – to win over someone like Casal will be widely seen as yet another indictment of the club’s decline under owner Mike Ashley.

 

[Unbelievable]

Official NUFC Statement: September 6

 

NUFC wished, at all times, to keep any dispute that it had with Kevin Keegan private.

 

It is therefore disappointing that information has reached the media through unnamed sources and a briefing has been given by the League Managers Association that could give rise to a misleading impression amongst the Club's fans.

 

Newcastle United have no desire to engage in a war of words but inaccurate reporting of factual matters and inaccurate allegations have to be corrected.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and to the Board.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan worked within that structure from 16th January 2008 until his resignation.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, as manager, had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the Team.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan was allowed to manage his specific duties without any interference from any Board member.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relating to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition or disposal of players.

 

It is a fact that NUFC is a business and operates, like all businesses, with financial constraints.

 

It is a fact that NUFC's financial constraints inform its transfer dealings.

 

The Board of NUFC have responsibility to ensure that the club is able to meet its commitments which include the wages and the transfer fees for players.

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

How ironic for them to have essentially owned up to lying to the fans about this very same issue one year later in an independent tribunal.

[Robster]

So Ashley going for Beckham is OK. Keegan going for Lampard/Ronaldinho/Henry is fanciful and unrealistic.

 

I just think the whole lot of it is newspaper garbage

 

EDIT :Cheers for finding that Bovine

[Dave]

'It is a fact that Kevin Keegan was allowed to manage his specific duties without any interference from any Board member.'

 

[TRon]

The Sunday Sun story is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned. This story about the agent has only come out because of the trbunal. I dread to think what Ashley and his cronies are getting up to behind the scenes.

[Unbelievable]

I love this bit:

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

One year later, in front of a tribunal and having been given ample time and opportunity to discuss their legal defence through they couldn't even comprehensively explain their own system themselves..

[Dave]

I love this bit:

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

One year later, in front of a tribunal and having been given ample time and opportunity to discuss their legal defence through they couldn't even comprehensively explain their own system themselves..

 

[madras]

Official NUFC Statement: September 6

 

NUFC wished, at all times, to keep any dispute that it had with Kevin Keegan private.

 

It is therefore disappointing that information has reached the media through unnamed sources and a briefing has been given by the League Managers Association that could give rise to a misleading impression amongst the Club's fans.

 

Newcastle United have no desire to engage in a war of words but inaccurate reporting of factual matters and inaccurate allegations have to be corrected.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and to the Board.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan worked within that structure from 16th January 2008 until his resignation.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, as manager, had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the Team.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan was allowed to manage his specific duties without any interference from any Board member.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relating to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition or disposal of players.

 

It is a fact that NUFC is a business and operates, like all businesses, with financial constraints.

 

It is a fact that NUFC's financial constraints inform its transfer dealings.

 

The Board of NUFC have responsibility to ensure that the club is able to meet its commitments which include the wages and the transfer fees for players.

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

How ironic for them to have essentially owned up to lying to the fans about this very same issue one year later in an independent tribunal.

how is it this very same issue and not the issue of "final say". it hardly seems explicit.

[madras]

The Sunday Sun story is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned. This story about the agent has only come out because of the trbunal. I dread to think what Ashley and his cronies are getting up to behind the scenes.

as i've already posted this deal ought to be investigated by the FA/FIFA/UEFA.

[Robster]

The Sunday Sun story is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned. This story about the agent has only come out because of the trbunal. I dread to think what Ashley and his cronies are getting up to behind the scenes.

as i've already posted this deal ought to be investigated by the FA/FIFA/UEFA.

It must be classed as bribery

[Unbelievable]

Official NUFC Statement: September 6

 

NUFC wished, at all times, to keep any dispute that it had with Kevin Keegan private.

 

It is therefore disappointing that information has reached the media through unnamed sources and a briefing has been given by the League Managers Association that could give rise to a misleading impression amongst the Club's fans.

 

Newcastle United have no desire to engage in a war of words but inaccurate reporting of factual matters and inaccurate allegations have to be corrected.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and to the Board.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan worked within that structure from 16th January 2008 until his resignation.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, as manager, had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the Team.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan was allowed to manage his specific duties without any interference from any Board member.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relating to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition or disposal of players.

 

It is a fact that NUFC is a business and operates, like all businesses, with financial constraints.

 

It is a fact that NUFC's financial constraints inform its transfer dealings.

 

The Board of NUFC have responsibility to ensure that the club is able to meet its commitments which include the wages and the transfer fees for players.

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

How ironic for them to have essentially owned up to lying to the fans about this very same issue one year later in an independent tribunal.

how is it this very same issue and not the issue of "final say". it hardly seems explicit.

 

Eh?

[madras]

The Sunday Sun story is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned. This story about the agent has only come out because of the trbunal. I dread to think what Ashley and his cronies are getting up to behind the scenes.

as i've already posted this deal ought to be investigated by the FA/FIFA/UEFA.

It must be classed as bribery

or even money laundering.

[madras]

Official NUFC Statement: September 6

 

NUFC wished, at all times, to keep any dispute that it had with Kevin Keegan private.

 

It is therefore disappointing that information has reached the media through unnamed sources and a briefing has been given by the League Managers Association that could give rise to a misleading impression amongst the Club's fans.

 

Newcastle United have no desire to engage in a war of words but inaccurate reporting of factual matters and inaccurate allegations have to be corrected.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and to the Board.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan worked within that structure from 16th January 2008 until his resignation.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, as manager, had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the Team.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan was allowed to manage his specific duties without any interference from any Board member.

 

It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relating to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition or disposal of players.

 

It is a fact that NUFC is a business and operates, like all businesses, with financial constraints.

 

It is a fact that NUFC's financial constraints inform its transfer dealings.

 

The Board of NUFC have responsibility to ensure that the club is able to meet its commitments which include the wages and the transfer fees for players.

 

The structure at NUFC is clear, and has been clear from 16th January 2008.

 

How ironic for them to have essentially owned up to lying to the fans about this very same issue one year later in an independent tribunal.

how is it this very same issue and not the issue of "final say". it hardly seems explicit.

 

Eh?

 

that doesn't necessarily allude to that article when the vast majority of the case was beased around the issue of "final say".