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

[Guest johnson293]

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.

 

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Gonzalez deal was the focus as it was seen as the 'final straw'.

 

Doesn't matter whether the gonzalez signing was a loan or permanent one - its the situation surrounding that deal that was the final straw - i.e. Wise told KK to look him up on Youtube - he was signed when KK said no - the whole reason for signing him as a financial deal/sweetener for two agents.

[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.

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

 

It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it.

 

What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me.

[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.

 

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Gonzalez deal was the focus as it was seen as the 'final straw'.

 

Doesn't matter whether the gonzalez signing was a loan or permanent one - its the situation surrounding that deal that was the final straw - i.e. Wise told KK to look him up on Youtube - he was signed when KK said no - the whole reason for signing him as a financial deal/sweetener for two agents.

so were others signed when he said no..if so,who ? and surely a permanent signing would carry more weight than a loan.

 

do you think even in that situation had keegan been a llowed a free hand till then,given an abramovich ammount and the club were doing great the situation would have turned out like this.

 

thats why the background is vitally important and to just say "the final straw" whilst not given details as to the other straws seems a bit of a cop out.

[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.

 

It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it.

 

What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me.

no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know.

 

for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know.....

 

keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london.

 

wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it.

 

 

keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie

 

keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini.

 

 

keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value.

 

 

keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers.

 

keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money.

 

would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ?

 

yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently)

 

 

[madras]

and still nobody wants to address the clause in the contract saying that keegan would be responsible for "first team fitness,selection,motivation,tactics"

[Dave]

and still nobody wants to address the clause in the contract saying that keegan would be responsible for "first team fitness,selection,motivation,tactics"

 

The contract also said he would take on the standard roles of a Premier League manager. Why would this not include buying and selling players, given that's what every other Premier League manager does?

 

The contract was wishy-washy at best, but it certainly leans in favour of Keegan. And the tribunal agreed.

[timnufc22]

Keegan says he was verbally told at the meeting he'd have final say. Ashley denied it. Believe who you want.

[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.

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

 

It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it.

 

What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me.

no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know.

 

for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know.....

 

keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london.

 

wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it.

 

 

keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie

 

keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini.

 

 

keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value.

 

 

keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers.

 

keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money.

 

would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ?

 

yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently)

 

 

 

If that had all happened do you think the tribunal would have still found in Keegan's favour?

 

There were obviously other things going on, that's why they vindicated him over the Gonzalez issue ('the final straw'). If there weren't other things going on, why would they vindicate him?

[SEMTEX]

Just wondering... Shouldn't this thread be called Kevin Keegan vs NUFC LTD, as described in the unquestionnable pdf..? 

[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.

 

It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it.

 

What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me.

no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know.

 

for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know.....

 

keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london.

 

wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it.

 

 

keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie

 

keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini.

 

 

keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value.

 

 

keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers.

 

keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money.

 

would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ?

 

yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently)

 

 

 

If that had all happened do you think the tribunal would have still found in Keegan's favour?

 

There were obviously other things going on, that's why they vindicated him over the Gonzalez issue ('the final straw'). If there weren't other things going on, why would they vindicate him?

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

 

dave, if your lass is in a strop wityh you and declares that is the last straw i'm pretty sure you'd be concerned as to knowing what the other straws were.

[Dave]

Yes I'd want to know but if there was NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of me finding out I wouldn't keep banging on about it.

[UV]

and still nobody wants to address the clause in the contract saying that keegan would be responsible for "first team fitness,selection,motivation,tactics"

 

During the continuance of his employment, Kevin Keegan will … perform such

duties as may be usually associated with the position of a Manager of a Premier

League Football Team (including but not limited to those specific duties set out in

Schedule 1) together with such other duties as may from time to time be reasonably

assigned to him by the Board

[TRon]

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.

 

It's answered the pertinent details, that's why they were able to make a judgement based on it.

 

What are you saying here, that KK shouldn't have walked? The Premier League vindicated his actions and found he was right to do so. That's all that matters to me.

no. the details and the lead up may well have been enough to walk but without them we can't know.

 

for example, not for one moment saying this happened but until we know.....

 

keegan wants modric so does NUFC but the player wants to go london.

 

wise wants dierdyok (sorry again re spelling) deal set up,keegan disagrees,deal collapses because of it.

 

 

keegan wants and gets bassong and guthrie

 

keegan is ok with jonas and coloccini.

 

 

keegan wants gareth barry and SWP but is told we cant afford them/can't justify spending that much on barry cos of age with little re-sale value.

 

 

keegan wants to keep milner but understands that the ammoung of cash can't be turned down for the good of the clubs coffers.

 

keegan wants warnock but the player wants lucas neill type money.

 

would your view of what happened change if this was the scheme of things ?

 

yes technically keegan was right to walk over the gonzalez deal but i'm pretty sure plenty of managers have put up with a permanent signing not made/sold by them (robinho,speed,duff,shevchenko,apparently)

 

 

 

Keegan was clearly being led up the garden path by Ashley and his team, you might recall his complaints on tv that he found it very hard to get hold of Ashley to discuss things and was pretty much just left to get on with things while the big boys sat in London. Keegan also gave the impression when he took the job that he believed there would be significant money to spend. There was definitely a general consensus in the media at the time that this was the case.

[madras]

Yes I'd want to know but if there was NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of me finding out I wouldn't keep banging on about it.

thats the point, they should know and we should have found out.

 

i'll ask again, could the answers to those things i listed change your perception as to what was happening at the club ?

[Cronky]

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.

 

If there had been other signings that had been made against Keegan's wishes, they would have been cited as further evidence by Keegan and been dealt with in the report. Part of Ashley's defence was that one loan signing didn't represent a substantial breach, so if there had been other cases that would have come out.

 

There was clearly a lot of material that was brought up regarding the lead-up which was regarded ultimately as inconclusive or irrelevant to the breach of contract / constructive dismissal issue. It'd be interesting to see it, but ultimately it's best that the Tribunal didn't publish all of that. There's been enough bloodshed as it is.

 

 

[NJS]

The contract also said he would take on the standard roles of a Premier League manager. Why would this not include buying and selling players, given that's what every other Premier League manager does?

 

As they also pointed out, Kinnear did have "full" duties including transfers - I wonder what his contract said?

 

 

[Dave]

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?

[Dave]

Yes I'd want to know but if there was NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of me finding out I wouldn't keep banging on about it.

thats the point, they should know and we should have found out.

 

i'll ask again, could the answers to those things i listed change your perception as to what was happening at the club ?

 

It wouldn't change any of the facts that came out of the tribunal, so no. I don't see what difference they would have made. I'm in no doubt that some of went on goes on at other clubs. Still makes no difference.

 

Whether it was just this instance or not, the facts are they shit on him (and us) and he has been vindicated in his actions by an independent tribunal. I don't really see the point of disputing their findings on the basis of details they've not reproduced and don't think needed to be.

[madras]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Howaythelads]

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.

[madras]

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.

[madras]

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.

and thats what i'm saying. i don't think it's  beyond reasonable to want to know what the other straws were and i'm surprised they weren't published to strengthen the case.

[Paully]

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.

 

Are you still trying to get digs in at Keegan? Dear me.

 

For the 574757489th time, Keegan is a man of honour and principle - he COULD quite easily have said NOTHING and remained at the club and seen his contract out which in total was worth £13 million.

 

How anyone can seemingly support the lying shithouses who have dragged our club through the dirt is bryond me.

 

 

[JH]

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.

 

Are you still trying to get digs in at Keegan? Dear me.

 

For the 574757489th time, Keegan is a man of honour and principle - he COULD quite easily have said NOTHING and reamined at the club and seen his contract out which in total was worth £13 million.

 

How anyone can seemingly support the lying shithouses who have dragged our club through the dirt is bryond me.

 

FYI, people seriously need to stop the whole 'supporting Ashley' thing. Just because someone has something against Keegan, doesn't mean they're on Ashley's side. But then again, anyone who says anything negative about the great Kevin Keegan is obviously the anti-christ!