James Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 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 More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Out of interest, if Keegan had gone to the press with the story about the South American agents, whilst he was still in the job, would he have been given the sack and a payout? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. 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 More sharing options...
madras Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. 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 More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. 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 More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. 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 More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 Wouldn't be surprised if it was you making a right tit of yourself there, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 Wouldn't be surprised if it was you making a right tit of yourself there, like. Was thinking exactly the same about you! 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michaelfoster Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life It's alright, Simon O'Rourke is a Mackem. It would have been no great loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life she's canny fit like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 the female presenters face when they cut back to the studio is class, i think she fears for his life It's alright, Simon O'Rourke is a Mackem. It would have been no great loss. He said he almost smacked the bloke when I asked him about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Wow, this happened in October so I basically missed this whole thread completely. Interesting stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 That is just..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 That is bad, but i just like seeing Keegan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Legend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidAK Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Worst acting ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 ha ha i fucking love Keegan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 ha ha i f***ing love Keegan Good lord, man. Where is your avatar from?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Do we need any further proof that KK is broke and desperate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 That is fucking awful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Worst acting ever. Not as good as his effort at the employment tribunal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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