Jump to content

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


Taylor Swift

Recommended Posts

Clause 14.8.1 in KK's contract could explain the real reason for the club's failure to secure the services of a permanent manager.

Which was what sorry?

 

It was the £2m sacking clause. In the past, all managers from all top clubs have been entitled to much much more compensation, and slipping that clause in seems like a typical Ashley rejection of regular football practices (see transfer installments). The reality is that not many managers would agree to that clause, and the fact that this particular clause was being challenged by LMA lawyers could have also been a trigger for Ashley to reject the idea of a permanent managerial appointment, especially due to its perceived cost if the new owners didn't want the current manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it would have found in his favour as the gonzalez case was proven regardless of anything that happened before

 

What's the problem then?

 

If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

 

We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered?

because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal.

 

And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening?

 

He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. :lol:

 

Ashley and his wide-boys are rotten to the core. Can't believe some still appear to support Ashley / slag Keegan.

unfortunatly typical that you as so many others do see that one has to equal the other.

 

Try again in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it would have found in his favour as the gonzalez case was proven regardless of anything that happened before

 

What's the problem then?

 

If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

 

We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered?

because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal.

 

And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening?

 

He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. :lol:

 

Ashley and his wide-boys are rotten to the core. Can't believe some still appear to support Ashley / slag Keegan.

unfortunatly typical that you as so many others do see that one has to equal the other.

 

Try again in English.

you know what it means...as does everyone else.
Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it would have found in his favour as the gonzalez case was proven regardless of anything that happened before

 

What's the problem then?

 

If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

 

We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered?

because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal.

 

And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening?

 

He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. :lol:

 

Ashley and his wide-boys are rotten to the core. Can't believe some still appear to support Ashley / slag Keegan.

unfortunatly typical that you as so many others do see that one has to equal the other.

 

Try again in English.

you know what it means...as does everyone else.

 

I don't, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it would have found in his favour as the gonzalez case was proven regardless of anything that happened before

 

What's the problem then?

 

If it was all about Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

If it was about other stuff then Gonzalez - they vindicated him.

 

We all would like to know what went on beforehand, but if you agree it would have made no difference to the outcome why are you so bothered?

because the outcome in the end has little bearing on what was actually happening at the club that year. technically keegan could have been given an abramovic ammount, we could have won all our games and be seen as a better side than madrid of the late 50's and the outcome would have been the same.....the manager had a player forced on him therefore constructive dismissal.

 

And you believe Keegan would have walked out if those things were happening?

 

He walked because the Gonzalez affair was 'the final straw'. The club was rotten to the core and he'd had enough. We're going around in circles here. :lol:

 

Ashley and his wide-boys are rotten to the core. Can't believe some still appear to support Ashley / slag Keegan.

unfortunatly typical that you as so many others do see that one has to equal the other.

 

Try again in English.

you know what it means...as does everyone else.

 

I don't, tbh.

He means that one supporting one does not mean you have to slag off the other. Sort of like saying that someone who wasnt keen on one player automatically likes Shola Ameobi and thinks he will be the best player ever etc etc etc......
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Guest Geordiesned

Found this by chance and can't remember seeing it at the time...

 

...probably not a good idea to repost it if it has already been posted as the Mackem Minger will make up a story about it! :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Geordiesned

Wouldn't be surprised if it was you making a right tit of yourself there, like.

 

Was thinking exactly the same about you!  :kinnear:

 

Incidentally, have you got this site rigged up so that you get an email sent everytime someone posts in a Keegan/Ashley/Shepherd/Board thread? You were on like a flash! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest michaelfoster

the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Geordiesned

the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life :D

 

It's alright, Simon O'Rourke is a Mackem. It would have been no great loss.  >:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Heneage

the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life :D

 

It's alright, Simon O'Rourke is a Mackem. It would have been no great loss.  >:D

He said he almost smacked the bloke when I asked him about it. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...