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

[madras]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the fuck were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

 

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

[Dave]

There's a ridiculous piece in tomorrow's Mirror by Stan Collymore about this. I'd post it but that would give it the attention it craves.

 

All I can say is: cunt.

[johnnypd]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the fuck were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

[madras]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

[NJS]

Good point in the TF piece that "nice" Mr Mort shouldn't be forgotten either.

 

 

 

[Cronky]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in.

[Thespence]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in

 

At one point we were led to belive KK had never seen a football game since leaving Man City, yet come the summer he snapped up 3 players from La Liga. Two were South American were we buying more favours?!?!?

[BottledDog]

There's a ridiculous piece in tomorrow's Mirror by Stan Collymore about this. I'd post it but that would give it the attention it craves.

 

All I can say is: cunt.

 

What are you, the freaking gestapo? Link the article.

[Big Geordie]

Brilliant piece by True Faith there. Right on the money lads.

[Cronky]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in

 

At one point we were led to belive KK had never seen a football game since leaving Man City, yet come the summer he snapped up 3 players from La Liga. Two were South American were we buying more favours?!?!?

 

I genuinely didn't understand that. Are you saying that Jonas and Colocinni were foisted on Keegan against his will, like Nacho?

[Big Geordie]

Here's the link to The Mirror/Collymore piece;

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/stan-collymore/Greedy-Kevin-Keegan-is-more-mercenary-than-Messiah-article179425.html

 

Very bitter from Stan, IMO. Been caught out and about dogging again I wonder?

[Big Geordie]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in

 

At one point we were led to belive KK had never seen a football game since leaving Man City, yet come the summer he snapped up 3 players from La Liga. Two were South American were we buying more favours?!?!?

 

I genuinely didn't understand that. Are you saying that Jonas and Colocinni were foisted on Keegan against his will, like Nacho?

 

I've read today that KK apparently wanted Hyppia as he didn't think Coloccini was good enough. Wise ignored him and brought the latter in. Who's judgement on a player do you prefer? It's a no brainer, surely!

[Frazzle]

Why do papers employ idiots like this. 

 

Cascarino = wife beater;

Collymore = wife beater and dogger.

 

FFS some people do journalism and English degrees, nowt like 'expert' knowledge though eh? 

[johnnypd]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in.

 

I don't know, the document for the court case only focused on the Gonzalez deal as the 'final straw'. I'd imagine there were similar deals, yes, but none quite so blatant and clear cut, as corrupt and devious, as unprofessional and stupid, as extreme and unexpected, as this particular one.

 

of course, you are entirely free to question the performance of mike ashley and the board over the past year and a bit, or to respond to the few dozen points that other people have raised. or you can continue to stick your head in the sand. i know it is your preferred method of debate to ignore a whole wealth of arguments that expose your view to be ridiculous, or to try and avoid any question you may be asked, in favour of focusing on pointless tiny details. but i suppose everyone's different. 

[madras]

Here's the link to The Mirror/Collymore piece;

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/stan-collymore/Greedy-Kevin-Keegan-is-more-mercenary-than-Messiah-article179425.html

 

Very bitter from Stan, IMO. Been caught out and about dogging again I wonder?

it's not bitter. it's  a lot of journalism today is very talk sportish in knowing nothing about wahts gone on,stick your finger in the wind and write the opposite way to hope it causes a ripple.

 

 

phil k may well be apoplectic mind.

[johnnypd]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

[Thespence]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

 

So do you think that other players were foisted on Keegan, in the same way as Gonzalez?

 

I'd really like an answer to that question. Anyone else is welcome to chip in

 

At one point we were led to belive KK had never seen a football game since leaving Man City, yet come the summer he snapped up 3 players from La Liga. Two were South American were we buying more favours?!?!?

 

Are you saying that Jonas and Colocinni were foisted on Keegan against his will, like Nacho?

 

I wouldn't be able to answer the against his will as only KK could answer that. But the article you used the other day from NUSC did have the line Llambliar/Williamson saying

"Jonas was next to be named as a Wise buy. “Pick your top five players this season and you’ll see that they were Dennis’ players”

 

 

[madras]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

what i'm asking is what i've been asking all along. what has been going on ?, whats been the truth ? yes the gonzalez business was by the book grounds for keegan walking out. had keegan got his way on other things would he have walked over that ? to what point were the club to blame for keegan not getting his own way over modric etc ? did keegan get his own way over dierdyok(sp?) ? if bassong and guthrie were his who wasn't ?

 

 

do you think keegan would have walked out over gonzalez if he had got his own way over other things ? and if he didn't get his way what were the reasons fr it ?

[johnnypd]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

what i'm asking is what i've been asking all along. what has been going on ?, whats been the truth ? yes the gonzalez business was by the book grounds for keegan walking out. had keegan got his way on other things would he have walked over that ? to what point were the club to blame for keegan not getting his own way over modric etc ? did keegan get his own way over dierdyok(sp?) ? if bassong and guthrie were his who wasn't ?

 

do you think keegan would have walked out over gonzalez if he had got his own way over other things ? and if he didn't get his way what were the reasons fr it ?

 

as you know those things werent covered by the tribunal and i always expected they wouldnt be. there's been more info released than i expected and it is all pretty damning for the club. i dont know if keegan would've walked out over gonzalez had he got his own way over other things, however, the tribunal does touch on another matter, called the "final final straw", and that shows the club, in trying to keep keegan, tried to permanently remove any influence he had over transfers. so it wasnt just one transfer, it was going to be all transfers from that point on, which is something those who say "resigned over one transfer" should keep in mind, as well as the fact legally he was constructively dismissed.

[madras]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

what i'm asking is what i've been asking all along. what has been going on ?, whats been the truth ? yes the gonzalez business was by the book grounds for keegan walking out. had keegan got his way on other things would he have walked over that ? to what point were the club to blame for keegan not getting his own way over modric etc ? did keegan get his own way over dierdyok(sp?) ? if bassong and guthrie were his who wasn't ?

 

do you think keegan would have walked out over gonzalez if he had got his own way over other things ? and if he didn't get his way what were the reasons fr it ?

 

as you know those things werent covered by the tribunal and i always expected they wouldnt be. there's been more info released than i expected and it is all pretty damning for the club. i dont know if keegan would've walked out over gonzalez had he got his own way over other things, however, the tribunal does touch on another matter, called the "final final straw", and that shows the club, in trying to keep keegan, tried to permanently remove any influence he had over transfers. so it wasnt just one transfer, it was going to be all transfers from that point on, which is something those who say "resigned over one transfer" should keep in mind, as well as the fact legally he was constructively dismissed.

so bassong and guthrie weren't his then. also wouldn't it have been easier to make a case out of a full signning he had no say in as opposed to a loan ?

[johnnypd]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

what i'm asking is what i've been asking all along. what has been going on ?, whats been the truth ? yes the gonzalez business was by the book grounds for keegan walking out. had keegan got his way on other things would he have walked over that ? to what point were the club to blame for keegan not getting his own way over modric etc ? did keegan get his own way over dierdyok(sp?) ? if bassong and guthrie were his who wasn't ?

 

do you think keegan would have walked out over gonzalez if he had got his own way over other things ? and if he didn't get his way what were the reasons fr it ?

 

as you know those things werent covered by the tribunal and i always expected they wouldnt be. there's been more info released than i expected and it is all pretty damning for the club. i dont know if keegan would've walked out over gonzalez had he got his own way over other things, however, the tribunal does touch on another matter, called the "final final straw", and that shows the club, in trying to keep keegan, tried to permanently remove any influence he had over transfers. so it wasnt just one transfer, it was going to be all transfers from that point on, which is something those who say "resigned over one transfer" should keep in mind, as well as the fact legally he was constructively dismissed.

so bassong and guthrie weren't his then. also wouldn't it have been easier to make a case out of a full sinbning he had no say in as opposed to a loan ?

 

who said bassong and guthrie 'weren't his'? It also depends what you mean by that - does it refer to who gave the transfer the final clearance (may not be keegan) or who initially targeted the player (was keegan). i dont think that point has anything to do with my previous post, either.

 

as for being easier to use a signing rather than a loan, events show otherwise.

[madras]

I've been anti-Keegan over the whole affair and my opinion hasn't changed. I won't repeat myself but I posted on the other Keegan thread.

 

There was a good discussion on Sunday Supplement about the Keegan affair. Anyone else see it?

 

Fine if people want to still support Keegan on this, but I'd be intrigued to know whether notwithstanding that any of you are just a teeny-weeny-weeny bit bothered that he tried to take £25 million out of the club (about a third of our entire annual turnover I'd think), particularly when his contract only entitled him to £2 million?

 

Likewise that the resignation issue was over one relatively insignificant loan signing, and none of the permanent ones that were made?

 

I think these are the two elephants in the room.

 

 

the resignation was not just over the loan signing, which has been pointed out numerous times. you make it sound like everything was rosy and then, bang, he resigns over one little thing. the pdf of the judgement specifically says that keegan was not being opportunistic in this. you may repeat your claim as many times as you wish, but clause 34 PROVES, actually proves in a court of law, that you are quite simply wrong.

 

The pdf further outlines that there were numerous other issues leading up to this which made the Nacho deal the 'final straw' (clause 33). Not only was it without keegan's say but it was done in a corrupt fashion, while Wise's childish behaviour (telling keegan to watch youtube) undermined the working relationship. Furthermore the document also outlines that there was a 'final final straw' (clause 40) which was the club trying to codify the fact that Keegan would have no control over transfers. This would've made his situation untenable as, rather than being one single transfer, it would've taken control out of keegan's hands for every single transfer the club made from that point onward.

 

It is also worth pointing out that it was only after keegan went to resign that the club tried to codify this - before that there had been no clear structure - amazingly amatuer - as we were basically being ran as a lad's club, friends appointed here, favours done there etc. In fact the situation was so bad and unprofessional that the club could not even produce a coherent outline of the managerial structure at the tribunal, having had many months to get their arguments straight. If you feel you disagree with any of what i've just wrote then don't bother to respond to me personally but take it up with the relevant legal authorities, as that is who your beef is actually with.

 

anyway you're a good one to talk about elephants. the fact is this issue isn't primarily ABOUT kevin keegan, a bloke who is no longer at the club, but about the people running newcastle united. you've singularly failed to address this and it's getting to a comical stage now that you're so obviously hiding from the issue.

the resignation wasn't just over the loan signing.....but what was it over..it doesn't spell it out. if you wanbt to conject that it happened all the time then it should have been able to prove categorically enough to put to the panel (which isn't a court of law!!), as such the mainargument wouldn't have been about a loan signing. as you say "further outlines" what the f*** were they, again it seems strange that throughout a couple of multi million pound signings it comes down to a loanee.

 

 

you are right about it being run amateurly, seemingly hoping everyone would agree on who to bring in.

 

the two elephants in the room for me are what happened before gonzalez.........

 

why did the modric deal fall through  as it seems both keegan and the club wanted him?

 

if we were after dierdyok (swiss forward sorry about the spelling) why did that collapse or who pulled the plug ?

 

if bassong and guthrie were keegans signings why did they say no to "his" others ?

 

who were keegans other targets ?

 

what was the full story behind the milner transfer ?

 

what was the truth behind the warnock saga ?

 

the answers to these at least to me have a massive bearing on where we ended up and would keegan have walked regardless  of gonzelez if the answers to these questions had met answers to keegans liking.

 

elephant 2.

 

what was the purpose in keegans contract of the clause...."kevin keegan will be responsible for the training,coaching,selection and motivation of the team" ?

 

 

 

i dont think those are 'elephants in the room' so to speak, as that phrase refers to something obvious and right in front of you that you dont want to confront, whereas those are things we simply don't know.

ok then only the second one is an elephant in the room.

 

do you think the answers to the other questions has more than a little bearing on the outcome ?

 

tbh im not sure what you are asking here. did they have bearing on the constructive dismissal case? don't know, doesn't seem like it. I'd guess that they caused a bit of a rift while keegan was working here though, ie, the stuff leading up to the "final straw".

what i'm asking is what i've been asking all along. what has been going on ?, whats been the truth ? yes the gonzalez business was by the book grounds for keegan walking out. had keegan got his way on other things would he have walked over that ? to what point were the club to blame for keegan not getting his own way over modric etc ? did keegan get his own way over dierdyok(sp?) ? if bassong and guthrie were his who wasn't ?

 

do you think keegan would have walked out over gonzalez if he had got his own way over other things ? and if he didn't get his way what were the reasons fr it ?

 

as you know those things werent covered by the tribunal and i always expected they wouldnt be. there's been more info released than i expected and it is all pretty damning for the club. i dont know if keegan would've walked out over gonzalez had he got his own way over other things, however, the tribunal does touch on another matter, called the "final final straw", and that shows the club, in trying to keep keegan, tried to permanently remove any influence he had over transfers. so it wasnt just one transfer, it was going to be all transfers from that point on, which is something those who say "resigned over one transfer" should keep in mind, as well as the fact legally he was constructively dismissed.

so bassong and guthrie weren't his then. also wouldn't it have been easier to make a case out of a full sinbning he had no say in as opposed to a loan ?

 

who said bassong and guthrie 'weren't his'? It also depends what you mean by that - does it refer to who gave the transfer the final clearance (may not be keegan) or who initially targeted the player (was keegan). i dont think that point has anything to do with my previous post, either.

 

as for being easier to use a signing rather than a loan, events show otherwise.

now why would events show otherwise ? maybe he went along with what went before, maybe the club couldn't be blamed for players wanting to go elsewhere ? maybe it's all as keegan says ?

 

 

 

in every case when someone says thats the final straw you want to know what the other straws were....why is this different ?

[dustynrg]

There's a ridiculous piece in tomorrow's Mirror by Stan Collymore about this. I'd post it but that would give it the attention it craves.

 

All I can say is: c***.

 

The guy is an a-grade tosser, seems to be the new journalism, shock jock style. Apparently Talkshite have adopted this method in their panic to attract their ever decreasing audience. "You say A and I'll say B and that will attract the listeners to spend 50 pence a time on sending in inane texts"*

 

It's pathetic and so is he.

 

*Good job this forum doesn't charge to post 

[thewellander]

I haven't read this whole thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned (and I'm sure it has), but this verdict and Wise's explanation makes me really feel bad for young Nacho. He was basically treated like a piece of property by the agents and Ashley and co., and he ended up wasting a year at NUFC when he could have been playing regular football somewhere else. I wonder if he was aware of the nature of his loan deal.

[ohmelads]

Speaking solely about this Nacho Fonzalez deal. It was supposedly a shady deal designed to get us in the good books of two, presumably prominent, agents in South America, with the aim of getting first refusal on up and coming players.

 

Well the Nacho deal went ahead, so where are these other South American players? Gonzalez was signed well over a year ago, two transfer windows have passed since and there's been no activity. Does anyone expect us to start signing these other players any time soon?

 

For the sake of losing a manager it was hardly done for "the greater good" as Wise put it. The fallout from this episode has ended up in relegation.