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

[Mowen]

The cunt's still on £1m a year if you believe certain reports.

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

Other than deflecting away from the real issues, wtf is the relevance of this stuff you're babbling on about?

[Howaythelads]

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.

 

 

Excellent post.

[quayside]

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 c***s 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 c*** 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.

 

 

Well yes, the presence of c**tishness from Ashley’s posse could not be in doubt from their actions (or lack of them) in most areas involved in running the club. However there was always the possibility of KK having contributed to the situation by throwing a hissy fit. His gifts as a manager are obvious but the downside is a somewhat fragile temperament. The judgement does substantially vindicate KK and if he did throw a hissy fit it was fully justified.

 

I think the £26 million was thrown in by KK’s legal team simply because they would be deemed negligent if they don’t launch a claim for the maximum possible sum, but I can’t believe there was any expectation of getting anywhere near that. The £2 million clause does, as you say, define the value of damages in the event of dismissal however one of the aspects that the panel had to decide upon was whether that clause was valid or not. The issue was whether it was too restrictive and, as such, whether KK could be entitled to more if he successfully proved constructive dismissal. Having decided that the clause was valid (and KK himself saying he thought it fair) the value of damages was not in any doubt.

 

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

 

Excellent post.

 

Agreed, it seems to me that keegan was badly advised by his lawyers over this

[SEMTEX]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

[Guest neesy111]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

 

same i was, hounded down by it on friday

[Mowen]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

 

Slight difference with Chez and bob (if that's what you're referring to) is that bob ignored literally every other aspect that was covered cos he hates Keegan innit.

[Dokko]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

 

Because all that mattered to some was that Keegan had won, anything else was a side issue.

 

Don't worry, they'll come crawling out of Keegan's arse sometime today to have a pop. 

[SEMTEX]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

 

Slight difference with Chez and bob (if that's what you're referring to) is that bob ignored literally every other aspect that was covered cos he hates Keegan innit.

 

I'm not really referring to bob, just the concern many others (including myself) have professed over the £25m.

 

Perhaps I asked for it with my rather incendiary first post

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Maybe one consideration was that if Keegan had just taken the £2m and gone away, it would never have needed a Premier League hearing and none of this would have been made public?

 

I'd like to think that was the reason.

[Guest]

Maybe one consideration was that if Keegan had just taken the £2m and gone away, it would never have needed a Premier League hearing and none of this would have been made public?

 

I'd like to think that was the reason.

 

I'd have agreed had he just been asking for the remainder of his contract. That would have been enough to get it public, etc. It's the rest of it for "loss of potential future earnings", that makes me believe money was a motivation as well.

[Dave]

I don't see Chez calling Keegan 'a thieving cunt', for a start.

[Mowen]

I don't see Chez calling Keegan 'a thieving cunt', for a start.

 

Also mentioned as a slight concern in an overall satisfying outcome. Rather than being jumped on as the main point of focus and the most important thing to come out of this.

[Parky]

Chez has shown the exact same concerns about this £25m claim as many others have, yet he's a fucking hero for it? This place is messed up.

 

FWIW I agree with everything said in Chez's post, I'm just suprised that many others have now decided they agree with it..

 

Lawyers nearly always go for the maximum. They don't sit down and say "Oh let's go for the minimum"....

[Guest icemanblue]

I don't see Chez calling Keegan 'a thieving cunt', for a start.

 

Also mentioned as a slight concern in an overall satisfying outcome. Rather than being jumped on as the main point of focus and the most important thing to come out of this.

 

What they said. Not quite sure how you can compare the two.

[ChezGiven]

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 c***s 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 c*** 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.

 

 

Well yes, the presence of c**tishness from Ashleys posse could not be in doubt from their actions (or lack of them) in most areas involved in running the club. However there was always the possibility of KK having contributed to the situation by throwing a hissy fit. His gifts as a manager are obvious but the downside is a somewhat fragile temperament. The judgement does substantially vindicate KK and if he did throw a hissy fit it was fully justified.

 

I think the £26 million was thrown in by KKs legal team simply because they would be deemed negligent if they dont launch a claim for the maximum possible sum, but I cant believe there was any expectation of getting anywhere near that. The £2 million clause does, as you say, define the value of damages in the event of dismissal however one of the aspects that the panel had to decide upon was whether that clause was valid or not. The issue was whether it was too restrictive and, as such, whether KK could be entitled to more if he successfully proved constructive dismissal. Having decided that the clause was valid (and KK himself saying he thought it fair) the value of damages was not in any doubt.

 

 

I think that captures it, due to the complexity of the contract situation and the nature of constructive dismissal cases, i think KK's legal team were probably going for earnings across the contract (as per Allardyce). In fact, it should not be forgotten that KK would have been entitled to around £8m if the clause had not been in the contract.

 

The lifetime earnings bit is still confusing for me though. When i looked into it, lifetime earnings were mentioned since bringing a constructive dismissal case could mean that you never work in the industry again. Therefore, you sue for this as the case itself may prejudice your future employment. Seems to have been the opposite here, due to the nature of KK's career i guess. The case has restored his credibility and reputation, so ultimately he didnt really need to sue for lifetime earnings.

 

Anyway, i would refer back to the first sentence in my post above, which is that the case provided a basis for the financial compensation, not a moral compass. Having read the judgement, you have to be satisfied that KK left for the right reasons.

[Mowen]

Chez "The case has restored his credibility and reputation, so ultimately he didnt really need to sue for lifetime earnings. "

 

Whilst I agree this should be the case it essentially hasn't. In the eyes of people who've looked into it he's vindicated - in the eyes of the vast majority of football fans who'll believe any much they read he's a money grabbing bottler, and I can't see him ever getting employed at a club if the fans really have that view of him. It's a tricky one.

[Cronky]

Managers get sacked or quit all the time, but I've never heard of anyone asking for anything remotely like £25 million, let alone getting it.

 

It's perfectly possible to be unhappy with that aspect of the case, whilst still acknowledging that the club was being run in an amateurish and bungling way.

 

It's not a question of 'either / or'. None of the parties come out of this train wreck with much credit.

[Dave]

He didn't get sacked or quit.

[madras]

i'm still very surpised no-one is bothered about the details of the other transfer details and what went on.

as right now it seems to be painted that the gonzalez deal was the standard, if it were surely the main point of the findings wouldn't have been a loan signing.

[Dave]

i'm still very surpised no-one is bothered about the details of the other transfer details and what went on.

as right now it seems to be painted that the gonzalez deal was the standard, if it were surely the main point of the findings wouldn't have been a loan signing.

 

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more.

 

Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered.

[Dave]

I'd love to know what else went on but there's no point moaning about it because until KK (or Wise, or Llambias etc) writes a book about it we won't know.

 

And even then people will twist the accounts to suit their agenda anyway.

[Mowen]

i'm still very surpised no-one is bothered about the details of the other transfer details and what went on.

as right now it seems to be painted that the gonzalez deal was the standard, if it were surely the main point of the findings wouldn't have been a loan signing.

 

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more.

 

Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered.

 

Yup. I'd love to know the details of all the transfers that happened (and some that didn't) in KK's tenure but there's not a chance we'll find out. Unless he brings out a book

[madras]

i'm still very surpised no-one is bothered about the details of the other transfer details and what went on.

as right now it seems to be painted that the gonzalez deal was the standard, if it were surely the main point of the findings wouldn't have been a loan signing.

 

The tribunal have delivered their verdict/report; there's not going to be any more.

 

Just because nobody is demanding answers they'll never get doesn't mean no-one is bothered.

come off it dave. as far as most are concerned the report has answered everything.