Cronky Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 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. Posts like this are really starting to piss me off. Read the f***ing facts you nutsack! KK said he was happy to take the £2m settlement if both parties agreed that the court findings would be made public. This is the only way he could clear his name and have a chance at working in the media or the game again. If he hadn't agreed to that we'd still be scratching our heads wondering what the f*** had gone on, and would be none-the-wiser about what had actually caused him to walk away. The only way KK could've been totally vindicated is for the beans to be spilt. Everyone knows the facts now and Keegan doesn't have to worry about future earnings because he's no longer being painted out as some nut-job bottler. If someone (wrongly) ruined the chances of you ever being employed again wouldn't you want some compensation for lost future earnings ? Not so. The Tribunal was asked by both parties 'at the outset' to make their findings public and this was agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club? If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. So you believe him now? Hmm. I'm not 100 % confident, seeing you ask. That's why I said 'probably'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Bobyule promoting his anti KK agenda as usual, what's new ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I've not looked deep in to this saga, but I don't need to. I'm not sure what the current discussion involves but this is my view on Mike Ashley's role at the club against Kevin Keegan's. I couldn't give a shit about why Kevin Keegan was sacked, or why he walked for that matter. Kevin Keegan has been a great influence of Newcastle United, creating and moulding the best team we've had in recent years. I have no doubt that Keegan has the tendency to run away from minor problems, I also know he's an incredibly talented individual who served us well. On to my second point. I don't give a shit about the reasons why Mike Ashley bought us, I just hoped that someone would run the club in the clubs benefit. Mike Ashley has ran the club on an extremely poor level, he's the reason why we're in the position we are now, not Kevin Keegan. I believe it's as simple as that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: “Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club?” If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the shite you post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Has he said anything on ESPN tonight? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Has he said anything on ESPN tonight? Yes, at half time he said it wouldn't be too long before Steven Ireland came on - low and behold not 5 mins into the second half who comes on? And he only got £2m!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leazes1986 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Has he said anything on ESPN tonight? Yes, at half time he said it wouldn't be too long before Steven Ireland came on - low and behold not 5 mins into the second half who comes on? And he only got £2m!? What a guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Has he said anything on ESPN tonight? Yes, at half time he said it wouldn't be too long before Steven Ireland came on - low and behold not 5 mins into the second half who comes on? And he only got £2m!? Kinnear would have called him Steven Eire though. The men are worlds aparts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Has he said anything on ESPN tonight? Yes, at half time he said it wouldn't be too long before Steven Ireland came on - low and behold not 5 mins into the second half who comes on? And he only got £2m!? Kinnear would have called him Paddy O'doors though. The men are worlds aparts fyp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Justice!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Kinnear would have called him Paddy O'doors though. The men are worlds aparts fyp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michaelfoster Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That TF article is awful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: “Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club?” If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? thats obvious. if he'd been offered 4mill he thought he could get more. If that is true the KK will have to pay his own legal costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That TF article is awful Some of it could get them/the writer into a lot of trouble. He's spot on about Mort though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club? If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the shite you post? Extract from Keegan's statement on the LMA website after the Tribunal - 'I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4million to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me.' Over to you, mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 When they leaked the £25m thing last week they already knew that that had effectively been dropped during the hearing - so as far as I can see they are focusing on his initial claim rather than what had already been ruled out. I still see the hearing converation being paraphased as: "£25m - howay Kev you're taking the piss" "Aye, you're right - lets drop that one eh" Or perhaps "£25m - leave it aht son, you're having a giraffe" Either way they leaked it at a time when they knew KK was never going to get that sort of money but had some of us thinking administration + points deduction. These cunts know we had already suffered losing our awesome record in the SR postcode district & relegation but thought fuck all about cranking up the misery by making us think administration + the club losing points in the season it is looking to bounce back into the premiership. Fair play to the fuckers for highlighting this if at the time it was still on the table when they & there mate from Sky started chucking the story about but it wasnt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club? If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the s**** you post? Extract from Keegan's statement on the LMA website after the Tribunal - 'I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4million to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me.' Over to you, mate. And if he was offered anything other than the exact sum of £4 million KK is still telling the truth btw. I believe that the way it works is - if one side wants to settle for a particular sum they "pay the money into court" which means they cough up what they want to settle for and it is stuck into an independent bank account. Once they have done that the offer to settle is official. If the final judgement on the case is for less than what was offered as a settlement then the plaintiff (KK in this case) picks up the costs. But if no money was paid into court then it's all hot air .i.e. Ashley verbally offers £3.9 million and KK says no but no money is paid into court then that = a big nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 From the mouth of Dennis Wise: Wise also took a swipe at Keegan for seeking more than £25m in compensation. He said: Mike Ashley offered Kevin Keegan more money to settle the dispute out of court than was actually paid out in compensation. If Kevin had won £26m in compensation, what effect would that have had on the football club? If it was about money why didn't KK just take what Fat Mike offered and run? It must be clear to all but the most deluded of gibbons that KK perceviered to get the judgment and all the facts out into the open regardless of cost or settlement. Keegan has denied getting any offer of an out-of-court settlement. Wise is probably just repeating the story that he would have read in the papers a few days ago. Is there no end to the s**** you post? Extract from Keegan's statement on the LMA website after the Tribunal - 'I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4million to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me.' Over to you, mate. And if he was offered anything other than the exact sum of £4 million KK is still telling the truth btw. I believe that the way it works is - if one side wants to settle for a particular sum they "pay the money into court" which means they cough up what they want to settle for and it is stuck into an independent bank account. Once they have done that the offer to settle is official. If the final judgement on the case is for less than what was offered as a settlement then the plaintiff (KK in this case) picks up the costs. But if no money was paid into court then it's all hot air .i.e. Ashley verbally offers £3.9 million and KK says no but no money is paid into court then that = a big nothing. Just to re-iterate, because people seem to me getting a bit jumpy - I was not accusing Keegan of not telling the truth. I was accepting the truth of Keegan's statement, and saying that Wise was probably mistaken on the basis of newspaper stories. I don't believe either that Keegan is playing the kind of games that you are outlining there - ie that there was an offer, but it wasn't for £4 million, or there was an offer, but it was only verbal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 This was a decision about money and the entitlement to that money under the current 'understanding' of terms (words) in a document (contract) and UK employment law. Keegan's constructive dismissal case would have failed under French law, thats how complicated these cases are. I know this because i consulted a big law firm about my own case before resigning 3 weeks ago. We all knew that Wise and his cronies had acted like utter cunts to KK, we didnt need a tribunal to tell us that. The tribunal was held to solve the legal issues, the moral ones have always been clear to me, KK was treated like a cunt by a bunch of inexperienced, amateur fuckwits. The only question about the affair for me is that since the £2m figure is in the contract, why would he need to sue for £26m to get the figure that was already specified? Some people suggest it might have been a negotiation tactic but thats not how the law works and careful reading of the judgement suggests otherwise. According to my reading of the judgement, all he needed to do was prove that their behaviour constituted a dismissal on their behalf, thus invoking a clause (for £2m) that was already specified clearly in the contract. Due to this clause, if he wanted £2m then all he had to do was sue for constructive dismissal, not £26m. Apart from this one confusing element, i was quite satisfied with the verdict although i was dismayed (but not shocked) to learn the depth of the idiocy at play behind the scenes. What an utter shambles of a club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Well said Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Good post Adam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
binnsy Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 That TF article is awful If your talking about the latest LIAR article i couldn't disagree more i think Mick Martin is spot on, only thing i would complain about is why he put the FS bit in, otherwise i was nodding in agreement all the way through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Chez, I think Keegan's argument (or that of his legal team) was that the existing £2m clause in the contract wasn't broad enough to cover constructive dismissal and any defamation of his character. The tribunal ruled it was, so he only got £2m... don't think it was a forgone conclusion though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 This was a decision about money and the entitlement to that money under the current 'understanding' of terms (words) in a document (contract) and UK employment law. Keegan's constructive dismissal case would have failed under French law, thats how complicated these cases are. I know this because i consulted a big law firm about my own case before resigning 3 weeks ago. We all knew that Wise and his cronies had acted like utter cunts to KK, we didnt need a tribunal to tell us that. The tribunal was held to solve the legal issues, the moral ones have always been clear to me, KK was treated like a cunt by a bunch of inexperienced, amateur fuckwits. The only question about the affair for me is that since the £2m figure is in the contract, why would he need to sue for £26m to get the figure that was already specified? Some people suggest it might have been a negotiation tactic but thats not how the law works and careful reading of the judgement suggests otherwise. According to my reading of the judgement, all he needed to do was prove that their behaviour constituted a dismissal on their behalf, thus invoking a clause (for £2m) that was already specified clearly in the contract. Due to this clause, if he wanted £2m then all he had to do was sue for constructive dismissal, not £26m. Apart from this one confusing element, i was quite satisfied with the verdict although i was dismayed (but not shocked) to learn the depth of the idiocy at play behind the scenes. What an utter shambles of a club. Good post. To think the cunt Wise was reportedly on £1m a year for his expert advise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now