Unbelievable Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder what that arsehole David Craig is about to peddle then. It's all based around the 25m. Same with SSN's coverage. Trying to keep their 'sources' happy. So are SSN really focusing on KK not getting the full amount rather than being in the right with his constructive dismissal claim? All in all I am quite happy with this result. An independent tribunal has unveiled what most of us have known all along and the club doesn´t have to pay a penalty it couldn´t bare for the truth to have come out. Now to get those fuckwits out of our club asap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 It is remarkable that some people have are all over the £25 million thing. Are people so glum not to realise that TEAM ASHLEY knew what was coming, so Lambias leaked the story of the club going into administration if KK had of got all the figures mentioned in the claim. Our chief creditor is Ashley himself what is going to do appoint administrators who then pay him 10p in the £ . As the report makes clear these people will do things that are "nothing more than an exercise in public relations" I Agree that Ashley and co are lying pricks who only put this story out to muddy the waters further though. They knew Keegan wasn't going to get anything like £25m. Still Ashley isn't the only one who could appoint administrators IF the £25m payment had been awarded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder what that arsehole David Craig is about to peddle then. It's all based around the 25m. Same with SSN's coverage. Trying to keep their 'sources' happy. So are SSN really focusing on KK not getting the full amount rather than being in the right with his constructive dismissal claim? All in all I am quite happy with this result. An independent tribunal has unveiled what most of us have known all along and the club doesn´t have to pay a penalty it couldn´t bare for the truth to have come out. Now to get those fuckwits out of our club asap! Headline on F365 and most the comments are a good example: http://www.football365.com/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest itsTosh Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The issue seems to be the 25/26 million that KK apparently demanded, and the pertinent part of the ruling goes In view of our conclusion on the Sixth Issue, it follows, as was accepted on behalf of Mr Keegan, that he is entitled to no further damages. However, if we had had to address this issue, we would have decided that the publication of a finding by us that Mr Keegan had resigned because he had been constructively dismissed by the Club and not because he had decided to walk away, would restore his reputation and in evidence he agreed with that proposition. Moreover, he also accepted that he did not know whether or not anything that happened at the Club was going to stop him getting a job. Thus, even if he had been entitled to seek further damages (i.e. stigma damages), which we have found he is not, they would have amounted to very little. (Sorry for the long quote, but this is what the whole remaining argument is about, isn't it?) What this suggests to me is that Keegan responded to the attacks on him being put out by Llambias by making a massive counter-claim - essentially saying "If you want to play rough then take a bit of this." The judgement, in my reading, says that Keegan accepted the justice of getting his 2 million and absolute vindication, and was not really asking for anything more than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder what that arsehole David Craig is about to peddle then. It's all based around the 25m. Same with SSN's coverage. Trying to keep their 'sources' happy. So are SSN really focusing on KK not getting the full amount rather than being in the right with his constructive dismissal claim? All in all I am quite happy with this result. An independent tribunal has unveiled what most of us have known all along and the club doesn´t have to pay a penalty it couldn´t bare for the truth to have come out. Now to get those fuckwits out of our club asap! Yep. They've just had interviews with 'fans' outside the ground complaining about how much he wanted. I have a feeling the papers won't take quite the same angle, however. Chuffed to bits with the result but this has fucking ruined my day off! I had so much to do!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder what that arsehole David Craig is about to peddle then. It's all based around the 25m. Same with SSN's coverage. Trying to keep their 'sources' happy. So are SSN really focusing on KK not getting the full amount rather than being in the right with his constructive dismissal claim? All in all I am quite happy with this result. An independent tribunal has unveiled what most of us have known all along and the club doesn´t have to pay a penalty it couldn´t bare for the truth to have come out. Now to get those fuckwits out of our club asap! Headline on F365 and most the comments are a good example: http://www.football365.com/ That´s depressing.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Whole thing is convoluted to me tbh. It did not explicity say that Keegan had explicit say over transfers. The language in the contract was ridiculously ambiguous, but both parties agreed to it. I mean, a significant proportion of managers in Premier League do not have final say of transfers. It is baffling that this kind of langauge has made it into a final contract, which would have had to have been revised by agents, etc. I also find it slightly ridiculous that this has all come about because of a player we brought in on loan. I mean Keegan really was a poor appointment by the hierarchy of this club. This kind of signing occurs all the time, when you look at examples like the two Thais at City. It is only by sheer stupidity that the club has allowed this situation to develop to this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Knew it - didnt need this panel to tell me who was right BUT its a slap in the face of all those idiots that actually were having a go at Keegan How anyone could have backed the lying bastards over someone like Keegan is beyond me BUT this verdict surely should open their eyes (tho i suspect not) KEEEGAN :clap: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? How come you aren't responding to my post to you in t'other thread? Thought it was reasonable, no petty insults... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Jeez, give us a minute. I'll be over there soon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean? He means that any criticism of Keegan that might still remain in light of this verdict will only be to avoid having to admit being wrong in some way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean? I'm pretty sure your attitude towards this whole affair has been that Keegan was in the wrong. Now that it's been proven he wasn't, you've adopted your 'well he's a thieving cunt' stance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VegasToon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I can't believe I actually could hate Assley, Wise the cunt, and Llambiass even more then yesterday. Well I was just proven wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Iceman you are wasting your time - by and large the idiots having a go at Keegan wont admit they were wrong BUT will just move the goalposts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How anyone could have backed the lying bastards over someone like Keegan And some 'idiots' still see criticising Keegan in any way as automatically wanting Ashley's babies. No matter how many times they are told differently. Weird. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wally_McFool Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Also worth noting that KK agreed that the 'stigma' damages didn't need to be awarded if the tribunal published their findings and thereby restore his reputation (which imo it certainly did). Where was this stated because I seem to have missed it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Just read through bits and bobs of it and have a question (baring in mind i don't really know how it all works): If Keegan was right all along and has won his case, why did he not win the alleged £9/10m he was after, but a mere £2m? Because he was claiming for his wages until he was 65, and he was claiming for 'stigma damages' and I'm pretty sure he claimed a little extra to pay for a PS3, as he had nowt to do since they totally sacked him. There is fella in here Quayside who has posted why the claim would be so high, check it out. .. what? He's telling you to go read Quaysides posts on this. It would seem he has some legal knowledge. Of course, you knew that already. There are no posts in this thread by a user called Quayside, and no, I didn't not understand his post in the first place at all. I'm finding your petty jibes a little ridiculous, why are you unable to have a debate about something without being so petty? What was petty about that? Bit sensitive aren't you? I just don't see exactly why I should be repeatedly insulted for having a different opinon to you. Insulted?! Give over, man. Stop being so fucking precious. You're a grown man. FWIW, I think your opinion is nothing more than an exercise in saving face. You're gonna have to expand on that one, whatcha mean? I'm pretty sure your attitude towards this whole affair has been that Keegan was in the wrong. Now that it's been proven he wasn't, you've adopted your 'well he's a thieving cunt' stance. Ok. Well I certainly didn't want him to walk away from the club, and really wish he had managed to get on with the job, even with the most inept boss in the world. This tribunal has really shown Ashley up for just how fucking awful he is at his job, and just how shit he was at choosing his staff. I personally just wished Mr Keegan would've stayed for longer, just to ensure that the first team didn't go to shit and then leave at an agreed and more convenient time. Obviously he deemed it untenable, I just wish he hadn't. The detail of his tribunal has changed my opinion on that definitely. However, this doesn't change my opinion on the compensation numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How anyone could have backed the lying bastards over someone like Keegan And some 'idiots' still see criticising Keegan in any way as automatically wanting Ashley's babies. No matter how many times they are told differently. Weird. Nowt to do with wanting Ashley's babies BUT the simple fact of the matter is - KEEGAN WAS RIGHT 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