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

[Thespence]

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

 

Yeah. Sam Wallace saying when KK got cross examined he quickly dropped the STIGMA claim.

 

Llambiarse & the fella from Sky put it around that if KK wins his £25 million that the club could go into administration days before the findings were released on Friday. Yet Llambliar would of known that the amount was never going to be that high because KK had dropped them claims so that the story got put around solely as another smear on madman King Kev of the circus.

[johnnypd]

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

 

Yeah. Sam Wallace saying when KK got cross examined he quickly dropped the STIGMA claim.

 

Llambiarse & the fella from Sky put it around that if KK wins his £25 million that the club could go into administration days before the findings were released on Friday. Yet Llambliar would of known that the amount was never going to be that high because KK had dropped them claims so that the story got put around solely as another smear on madman King Kev of the circus.

 

yep. they knew they had no chance at that point so tried to pre-empt their defeat with spin and smear.

[Dave]

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.

 

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

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.

 

Bravo

[Mowen]

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.

 

Class post.

[NG32]

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.

 

BAM!

[Optimistic Nut]

To be honest, there's not a massive amount of difference between Shepherd & Ashley when you look at the facts. Roeder admitted Shepherd bought him Duff without him necessarily wanting him...basically because he could. Souness admitted to basically being tricked into allowing the Luque transfer as pointed out in another thread because he said he'd be cheaper than he was, as well as the whole Anelka/Owen affair, and as for dodgy agent dealings, two words...Willie McKay.

 

Hopefully both of these shady, dodgy characters are in the club's history...and also hope Ashley's failings don't give Shepherd a rosier reputation than he should have.

[cp40]

To be honest, there's not a massive amount of difference between Shepherd & Ashley when you look at the facts. Roeder admitted Shepherd bought him Duff without him necessarily wanting him...basically because he could. Souness admitted to basically being tricked into allowing the Luque transfer as pointed out in another thread because he said he'd be cheaper than he was, as well as the whole Anelka/Owen affair, and as for dodgy agent dealings, two words...Willie McKay.

 

Hopefully both of these shady, dodgy characters are in the club's history...and also hope Ashley's failings don't give Shepherd a rosier reputation than he should have.

 

 

Shepherd - champions league

Ashley - championship.

[gazza ladra]

[Optimistic Nut]

To be honest, there's not a massive amount of difference between Shepherd & Ashley when you look at the facts. Roeder admitted Shepherd bought him Duff without him necessarily wanting him...basically because he could. Souness admitted to basically being tricked into allowing the Luque transfer as pointed out in another thread because he said he'd be cheaper than he was, as well as the whole Anelka/Owen affair, and as for dodgy agent dealings, two words...Willie McKay.

 

Hopefully both of these shady, dodgy characters are in the club's history...and also hope Ashley's failings don't give Shepherd a rosier reputation than he should have.

 

 

Shepherd - champions league

Ashley - championship.

 

You make it sound as if in two year we went from that, to the Championship just with the change of an owner. We finished 13th/14th the year he left, 12th in the first season with out him.

[cp40]

To be honest, there's not a massive amount of difference between Shepherd & Ashley when you look at the facts. Roeder admitted Shepherd bought him Duff without him necessarily wanting him...basically because he could. Souness admitted to basically being tricked into allowing the Luque transfer as pointed out in another thread because he said he'd be cheaper than he was, as well as the whole Anelka/Owen affair, and as for dodgy agent dealings, two words...Willie McKay.

 

Hopefully both of these shady, dodgy characters are in the club's history...and also hope Ashley's failings don't give Shepherd a rosier reputation than he should have.

 

 

Shepherd - champions league

Ashley - championship.

 

You make it sound as if in two year we went from that, to the Championship just with the change of an owner. We finished 13th/14th the year he left, 12th in the first season with out him.

 

 

you said there was little between them, i pointed out a big diffrence.

[Optimistic Nut]

Ok then, in terms of the cuntishness stakes, little difference.

[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.

Not in the slightest for me.

My take on this is that is a legal angle, based on making sure that the case went to the tribunal and didnt give Ashley the opportunity of settling out of court - which would have resulted in none of the story becoming public knowledge.

 

Do you not think that there's a simpler and more likely explanation of why he went to the tribunal? His contract explicitly states that he's only entitled to £2 million severence pay, so the only chance of getting more is to go to law.

 

If you look at the tribunal, it's clear that he tried very hard, through a number of convuluted legal arguments, to overturn that clause in his contract, but didn't succeed.

 

All he needed, to clear his name, was to have constructive dismissal confirmed - and that was made clear by the tribunal.

[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?

[bowlingcrofty]

I'm pretty sure when Colo signed he said he knew nothing about him?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/11/newcastleunited.premierleague1 - fairly damning peice.

[Robster]

Do you not think that there's a simpler and more likely explanation of why he went to the tribunal? His contract explicitly states that he's only entitled to £2 million severence pay, so the only chance of getting more is to go to law.

If you look at the tribunal, it's clear that he tried very hard, through a number of convuluted legal arguments, to overturn that clause in his contract, but didn't succeed.

All he needed, to clear his name, was to have constructive dismissal confirmed - and that was made clear by the tribunal.

I think inflating your claim to force the matter into a court of law is simple enough to be honest.

I have looked and read the tribunal. You may have to list for me, the "number" of convoluted arguments to get more than the £2 million.

Getting "Constructive Dismissal Confirmed" in the papers wouldnt have been enough. We would never have known about Dennis Wise's half arsed scouting techniques, the true nature of our worldwide network of contacts, nor the fact that despite having months of time to prepare, the hierachy at the club, were still unable to present, in a court of law, what the structure at the club was. The true magnitute of the clubs inadequacies needed to come out.

[Cronky]

Do you not think that there's a simpler and more likely explanation of why he went to the tribunal? His contract explicitly states that he's only entitled to £2 million severence pay, so the only chance of getting more is to go to law.

If you look at the tribunal, it's clear that he tried very hard, through a number of convuluted legal arguments, to overturn that clause in his contract, but didn't succeed.

All he needed, to clear his name, was to have constructive dismissal confirmed - and that was made clear by the tribunal.

I think inflating your claim to force the matter into a court of law is simple enough to be honest.

I have looked and read the tribunal. You may have to list for me, the "number" of convoluted arguments to get more than the £2 million.

Getting "Constructive Dismissal Confirmed" in the papers wouldnt have been enough. We would never have known about Dennis Wise's half arsed scouting techniques, the true nature of our worldwide network of contacts, nor the fact that despite having months of time to prepare, the hierachy at the club, were still unable to present, in a court of law, what the structure at the club was. The true magnitute of the clubs inadequacies needed to come out.

 

Okay, fine. I just think he wanted more money.

[Robster]

Okay, fine. I just think he wanted more money.

Fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinion. 

[NG32]

True-Faith Article - Liar

 

Where do you start?

 

There has been no shortage of condemnation following the publication of the FA Panel’s findings following the claim for Constructive Dismissal made by Kevin Keegan against NUFC and I suppose I’m about to add more to it. Let’s just start with the main players;

 

Ashley - Spiv 1

 

He has admitted to the panel that he and the people he appointed and employed - namely Wise, Mort, Jimenez and Llambias have lied to supporters and they have attempted to pass this off as a public relations exercise in order not to undermine the position of Kevin Keegan. He appears to have sanctioned that culture of lying. This casual dishonesty goes to the centre of the way Ashley has operated. Add venality to gross incompetence in the character profile of this clueless, charmless oaf. This illustrates the utter contempt Ashley has for the club, the supporters and the community which sustains it. Some have stated the publication of the Panel’s findings and KK’s subsequent statement to have taken away the last vestiges of credibility from Ashley. What vestiges of credibility? This information coming into the public domain merely confirms what some of us have known for sometime. You just cannot trust a single word coming out of NUFC - no-one in any position of authority in the executive management structure can be trusted. None. Lies and dishonesty come too easily. Ashley and his cohorts have attempted to blacken the name of KK (though see below) by the dissemination of lies and falsehoods and ruin his standing with the support of Newcastle United FC. That is a grotesque practice. Ashley is beneath contempt.

 

Wise - Spiv 2

 

Wise has lied to the supporters and the media. He has lied to Kevin Keegan. He told KK he had a good player in Gonzales who the club was taking on a year’s loan. This was not true. He was misrepresenting a serious piece of club business to the manager. He had not seen him play and he wanted KK to comply with the deal on the basis of some dodgy You-Tube footage. Wise then changed his story and told KK that signing Gonzales was to fulfil a favour with some So American agents which would curry favour for future deals. KK objected to £1m of club money going the way of Gonzales and his agent friends. There is a word for this which springs to my mind and it is corruption. I must hasten to add I have no evidence to prove what comes next and it is simply my opinion but could any of that £1m in wages paid to Gonzales have found its way back to Wise or Jimenez or Vetere? Who are the So American agents who need such sweeteners to do future business? Is this not a matter for FIFA / UEFA and the FA to investigate further? Are these agents the correct people to be representing players if their judgement on the advice they give to their clients is dependent upon the well, let’s call them what they are - bribes - which have been sent their way by people like Wise. Can the football authorities seriously allow men like these to operate as licensed agents who operate in such a way. For Wise read Jimenez and Vetere. I’m not the only one wondering who will give this cunt another job in football. I think I’d rather have a dose of the pox than him at NUFC.

 

Mort - Spiv 3

 

For some the softer, more acceptable face of the Ashley operation but for me and in my opinion as dishonest as the rest. The Freshfields lawyer may have got out at the right time and was not around when the real big shit hit the fan but he was around when KK and Wise were appointed and he did give evidence to the panel and appears happy for his name to be associated with the “public relations exercises” described to the panel. Public relations? Or organised lying? Mort made it his business to court fanzine lads and on a couple of occasions, along with people from The Mag, nufc.com and others, tf was invited for a pint and some pork scratchings in Shearer’s Bar. Some may yet seek to defend Mort but if the maxim of judging a man by the company he keeps is followed then Mort is damned. He was affable but there were certain questions we asked which he was not comfortable with which have nagged ever since. Why did Mort pass on the question: “what does a successful Newcastle United look like to Mike Ashley?” Mort got more from the publicity from those meetings with fanzines than we ever did. Part of a public relations con? Taken for saps? That’s certainly how I view it and have done for some time. Ever think you’ve been conned? Yes.

 

Llambias - Spiv 4

 

Another of Ashley’s idiots and liars who now cuts a tragic-comic figure at Gallowgate. As competent in the football business as he would be conducting brain surgery. As comfortable on Tyneside as he would be sitting bollock naked on top of a cactus plant. The self-confessed “pies and pints” man. The Baldrick of SJP is the kindest way to describe him, though Ashley’s wank hanky would be a Goebbels had he the brains. Another, in my opinion, who appears to be a stranger to the truth. Not everything about this slime-ball is in the public domain I’m sure but with every public utterance comes complete and total mistrust. Alleged to be the prime mover, aided and abetted by SKY’s David Craig in spreading the “administration” scare story so I’m told. Who knows if it was Llambias who planted the supposed offer of £4m to KK by way of settlement on the steps of the panel. An offer KK has denied he was made. Llambias was part of the Ashley camp giving evidence to the panel and is part of the scandalous “public relations” garbage spewed by them. Now we have further questions about potential lies spun to supporters - “we want Alan Shearer 110%” sitting alongside Ashley’s “best decision” statement. Lies? You decide. “We have more than two offers which have reached the £100m asking price”. Lies? You decide. Llambias running Newcastle United? He couldn’t run a fucking bath. Is the club even up for sale?

 

Jimenez - Vetere

 

Bit part players in this farce. Jimenez is alleged to have been the prime mover behind the “Madness of King Kev” shite planted in the media last year and shamefully propagated by the News of the World. Vetere? Wasn’t his role to bypass the greasing of agents allegedly so prominent in the way Shepherd ran the club? Well, it looked like that got fucking nowhere didn’t it?

 

And back to Ashley. Why has he kept faith with these men who have helped ruin his business aka Newcastle United? Why has he kept faith with men who have singularly demonstrated their incompetence and unsuitability for the posts he appointed them to? Loyalty? Give me a break - men like Ashley would stab their granny and flog their false teeth if there was a profit to be had. Is Ashley so far up to his neck in shit he needs to keep these knaves onside? Is Wise still being paid by NUFC? Is this hush money for yet more scandal? Was Xisco part of the deal to keep agents sweet? Was Coloccini? There are some claims the Argentine defender had been offered to some clubs for a great deal less than the £11m we paid to Deportivo? Well, you’ll struggle to get an honest answer from anyone at SJP.

 

Kevin Keegan

 

There is no doubt, Kevin Keegan has been found to be completely vindicated. The man was operating within a “structure” of lies and incompetence. Ashley, Wise and Llambias made his life impossible and forced him out of his job. Constructive Dismissal. His resignation was unavoidable. That is indisputable fact. Further, Kevin Keegan declined to be party to a deal to bring Gonzales to NUFC because it would sweeten a couple of South American agents. To me, that sounds like someone who has retained some integrity. For me it confirms someone working for Newcastle United not Mike Ashley. There is a world of difference.

 

However, the case might have damaged the standing of Kevin Keegan. The details of the claim against NUFC involve some eye-watering amounts of money. Amounts of money that are beyond the comprehension of most supporters. KK has made a public statement regarding the claim and that he was following counsel. I want to believe him. KK is an NUFC icon, a man who has done more for NUFC than any other in the last 50 years. But that does not confer upon him sainthood. Money is important to KK. Those who have read his biography will testify to the detail it gives to his earners. Greedy or a grafter? That’s a matter of opinion.

 

As a player KK was probably the first football millionaire in the 70s, leaving a successful, European Cup winning Liverpool in its pomp to chase new challenges and more money on the continent and going out of his way to chase the kind of sponsorship deals which are common practice these days. Brut? Superstars? Special K was right amongst it.

 

Indeed when he was at NUFC, only a fool would deny it had been the financial package put together by NUFC and S & N which clinched the deal. A basic of £3K per week and a share of the gate? An unprecedented amount of money.

 

There are those who believe KK walked out of NUFC in ’96 because of the club’s dash for cash under the flotation and his unhappiness with the role of city boy Mark Corbridge assisting with the deal. Or was it because he wasn’t going to earn what he thought he was worth? Who knows.

 

What I do know is this. Kevin Keegan gives Value For Money. When you have KK on the payroll and he has the kind of support any manager needs in football, he will deliver the goods for you and he will be committed 100%. Ask Man City fans? Ask Fulham fans? Ask Mags? Ask the FA? When he came up short for the England job, he didn’t wait around to be sacked and be paid up like McClaren - he was off - that to me is a man who likes to be paid for his achievements but cannot look someone in the eye and take money for failure. Reading this Graeme Souness? His northern work ethic will see him going 100mph on and on and on. You will get more from KK than you pay him. But he will want to be paid and he will want to be paid very well. KK will not undervalue himself. There’s evidence of that from back when he joined Liverpool all those years ago. He’s not daft. What is wrong with that?

 

As a player KK gave Mags of a certain age the best two seasons of their lives following NUFC. The man gave everything for us in our shirt and those who witnessed his tireless displays from 82 - 84 cannot fail to recognise and warmly remember that. He was selfless - ask the young players who came through at that time what they think of KK’s contribution to their careers - Beardsley, Waddle and Gascoigne captivated by his aura - learning that industry must be allied to art in order to succeed. Think of the club KK joined in ‘82 and think of the club he left in ‘84 - set up to kick on as a First Division outfit. And think of how the club lost its way in the 80s without his driving force and the high standards he demanded from those around him - above, alongside and below.

 

Kevin Keegan is the most positive influence on Newcastle United in the last 50 years. Don’t give me Sir John Hall and the other puffed up, self regarding greedy bastards whose part in our decline is often undersold by a local media still beholden to them. It was KK. It was KK who inspired the fight against relegation to Div 3 in 92. It was KK who forced Sir John Hall’s hand to release money for the players we’d need to get promoted. It was KK who put the team together which ripped the arse out of the old Second Division that season. It was KK whose team brought the masses back to SJP after years, decades of failure and who forced the construction of one of the greatest stadiums in Europe. It was KK’s team which ripped through the old order of the PL and came so close to winning a title his team so richly deserved. It was KK’s team of entertainers which shifted the SKY packages, which sold out stadiums around the country as Cole, Beardsley and later Ferdinand, Ginola, Asprilla, Lee et al played the kind of football which lit up the country and which supporters want to see rather than the grind put out by Bolton, Sunderland, Blackburn, Stoke et al.

 

When KK returned to NUFC in January 2008 I was surprised and not exactly encouraged. Simply because I thought KK’s fire had gone out. Certainly his flame was dimmed by the strait-jacket put on him by Ashley-Mort-Wise but in that short period, KK improved NUFC again. We played some good football, we got some good results - we fucking murdered the SMB at SJP and exposed their false prophet, Roy Keane - then feted by a sycophantic media while a better man, a better football man in KK was reviled by the same no-marks. He wrung the best from Viduka - a task his predecessor and successor singularly failed to achieve. He had Owen happy in a B&W shirt and found a new role for our then No.10 which exploited his football brain and accounted for his loss of pace. He had Owen ready to sign a new contract. In that desperate summer of 2008, while Wise was wanting to grease the palms of South American agents, KK brought in Bassong for coppers. A year later he was sold to Spurs for £8m. We’ve still got £11m PL flop Coloccini on £70K per week in WTCTSDTD. Not so Wise, Dennis.

 

Is KK a great manager? Probably not. But he is a good manager and every club he has touched has supporters which will welcome him back and recall his time fondly - but then what do we know? After all, people like Rod Liddle (The Times) think NUFC has been best been served by men like Roeder and Kinnear. He must have been in the kind of mood he was in when he was alleged to have slapped his pregnant girlfriend about when he wrote that shite. And KK still has probably got more in his locker than half of the shysters in the PL - McLeish, Hodgson, Megson, Bruce, Pulis, Brown, Allardyce, Martinez, McCarthy, Hart, Zola, Redknapp - you seriously tell me they are better managers than KK? Give me a fucking break, man! O’Neill? Moyes? Hmm. Debatable. Even now?

 

The truth is KK has never been paid what he has been worth at NUFC. Consider this - there are players like Maric, Marcelino, Viana, Boumsong, Luque, Babayaro - Joey fucking Barton for Christ’s sake - who have earned more money from Newcastle United than Kevin Keegan. And that is a fact.

 

*

 

And opining on the latest chapter of comedy at NUFC is none other than Freddie Shepherd - our ex-manager who had he not been bought out by Ashley may have NUFC in the same position threatening to engulf Portsmouth. Shepherd has stated he has KK’s letters of resignation wallpapering his netty wall. I’m surprised he can see them under all the NUFC tenners decorating his gaff. And then there is Shepherd, once again attempting to re-write history with his crack about how he managed to quickly pay up his managers after he’d sacked them. Well, he certainly got plenty practice but Shepherd appears to have forgotten about the legal disputes involving Kenny Dalglish and of course the late SBR who had to wait near to 12 months to be paid up. Apart from that, aye Freddie, you managed the situation really well - let’s not mention how much that largesse generated by your mismanagement cost the club, like. By the way, how’s the warehouse in Byker these days? I said warehouse!

 

*

 

And so to the football. We’ve drawn two games at home this last week we should have won and in the game against QPR in particular, looked uncomfortable up against pace, something repeated in patches against Bristol City. At times our midfield looked tired, sluggish and cumbersome. But with a bit more luck we could have won both games. Had Guthrie’s penalty gone in, we’d have gone onto win and against Bristol we were in enough positions to win several games but were the victims of great goalkeeping and some quite extraordinary incompetent refereeing.

 

This is a well-earned break. The last two games have been disappointing but well, we are top. But what we do know is this isn’t going to be a cake walk.

 

For those of you still awake - apologies for going on a bit this week.

 

And we know more than ever we simply have to get rid of Ashley - there is surely nothing stopping any takeover now.

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Okay, fine. I just think he wanted more money.

Fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinion. 

 

Sorry if I misread the verdict, but wasn't pretty much the first paragraph of the outcome stating that he did ask for around £25m?

[Robster]

Okay, fine. I just think he wanted more money.

Fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinion. 

Sorry if I misread the verdict, but wasn't pretty much the first paragraph of the outcome stating that he did ask for around £25m?

Yup

[Scoreboard82]

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.

I think it's missing the point to call it an insignificant loan signing. It wouldn't matter if they'd brought in Ronaldo/Messi. The point is, he was brought in against the managers wishes. A point of principle.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I've been very busy just lately and haven't logged on for awhile, so I'll go through this thread when I get a chance. All I'd like to say right now before I read the thread is that I hope all those morons who have slagged Keegan have had the decency and the balls to admit they were talking s****, like they were told they were doing, of course. I won't be surprised if they're still backing Ashley though and stupidly slagging Keegan.

 

I guess I was one of those 'morons' that refused to condemn Ashley without any evidence... and I openly said that Keegan had gone down a lot in my estimation because he walked out on us.

 

As I've said in this thread (sure you'll read it when you can be arsed), I now think a lot better of KK over this whole farce and it's now clear that Ashley's running of the club was a shambles.

 

I still don't think I was wrong to take the stance I did at the time though, we had no facts then.

 

Believing anything from Ashely (given what can be seen of the state of the club) ahead of Keegan =

 

Besides that, it's mildly interesting that you say you refused to condemn Ashely without evidence yet you were willing to condemn Keegan without evidence. So as I said...

 

 

I never condemed Keegan, I just thought he had let us down to a certain extent... I thought he could have stuck it out. After the truth has come out, I still think that would have been possible but I now don't blame him for what he did.

 

It wasn't a matter of choosing Ashley's side either by the way, I never did that. So to say it was 'ahead of Keegan' doesn't make any sense.

 

Nice use of the smilies though.

[ikri]

Souness reckons money & time are the key to do well at Newcastle & any football club.

 

See, that's where the club has been going wrong.  The club's plan has basically been to pin all hope on magic pixie dust, it takes a real managerial genius to see that you need time and money to succeed.

 

Fucking hell, he got paid for that?  What's he going to say next week?  He believes water is wet?  The sky might be blue? 

[Robster]

I never condemed Keegan, I just thought he had let us down to a certain extent... I thought he could have stuck it out. After the truth has come out, I still think that would have been possible but I now don't blame him for what he did.

It wasn't a matter of choosing Ashley's side either by the way, I never did that. So to say it was 'ahead of Keegan' doesn't make any sense.

Nice use of the smilies though.

No, No, No, No, No. Ian.

Surely not, even after everything that they have done to us subsequent to Keegan leaving, up to and especially including their performance in the tribunal.

You cant honestly think that there was a way he could have stuck it out ?