Guest johnson293 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The original post has been added to at .COM, by way (it seems) of an attempt at explaining the outcome.... The first is that, while the face value of Mr Keegan’s claim was £25m or so, the claim over and above the £2m Mr Keegan was awarded took up “only a very small proportion” of the hearing and the preparation for the hearing. That would imply that neither side took it very seriously. The second point is that it appears that the Club did offer at least as much as Mr Keegan was awarded (the Tribunal wouldn’t have bothered to refer to offers unless they were at least as much as the award) but on the condition that they not be disclosed, that the facts underlying the dispute be confidential and that the club not acknowledge having dismissed him.. This would suggest that Mr Keegan’s motivation was indeed to clear his name. A reason the costs are going to be high is that it is clear from the award that Keegan's team were operating on a CFA (Conditional Fee Arrangement). This means that his solicitors/barrister wouldn't have been paid if he'd lost , and so to compensate for this risk they get to uplift their costs if they win. The uplift can be as much as 100% , so KK's legal team have had a bonanza. The club has to pay this and also has to pay its own lawyers, of course, even though it seems that they did a pretty hopeless job . ATE means after the event insurance - Kev would have insured his liability for the club's costs if he'd have lost. We now get to pay the premium. This is the no win:no fee arrangement that you see on the TV ads. Indemnity costs are rare - they are only awarded where the conduct of the losing party was so bad that the Court/Tribunal decides to punish them. Hardly a surprise that they've done that here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The original post has been added to at .COM, by way (it seems) of an attempt at explaining the outcome.... The first is that, while the face value of Mr Keegans claim was £25m or so, the claim over and above the £2m Mr Keegan was awarded took up only a very small proportion of the hearing and the preparation for the hearing. That would imply that neither side took it very seriously. The second point is that it appears that the Club did offer at least as much as Mr Keegan was awarded (the Tribunal wouldnt have bothered to refer to offers unless they were at least as much as the award) but on the condition that they not be disclosed, that the facts underlying the dispute be confidential and that the club not acknowledge having dismissed him.. This would suggest that Mr Keegans motivation was indeed to clear his name. A reason the costs are going to be high is that it is clear from the award that Keegan's team were operating on a CFA (Conditional Fee Arrangement). This means that his solicitors/barrister wouldn't have been paid if he'd lost , and so to compensate for this risk they get to uplift their costs if they win. The uplift can be as much as 100% , so KK's legal team have had a bonanza. The club has to pay this and also has to pay its own lawyers, of course, even though it seems that they did a pretty hopeless job . ATE means after the event insurance - Kev would have insured his liability for the club's costs if he'd have lost. We now get to pay the premium. This is the no win:no fee arrangement that you see on the TV ads. Indemnity costs are rare - they are only awarded where the conduct of the losing party was so bad that the Court/Tribunal decides to punish them. Hardly a surprise that they've done that here. Itll be less than 50k I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Newcastle United to pay Keegan's legal fees Fixed. Yeeeey, more money wasted.. woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Which has the judgement proved is the fault of the board of Newcastle United and not Kevin Keegan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Newcastle United to pay Keegan's legal fees Fixed. Yeeeey, more money wasted.. woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Which has the judgement proved is the fault of the board of Newcastle United and not Kevin Keegan. Correct. Point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 All Ashleys fault and all totally aviodable. I'm sorry but either the fucknut is is totally clueless on how to manage people (not his mates) and cluess on running a football club or he is desroying us on purpose. Only one other knacker in recent history springs to mind that was on a massive donward spiral of bad decision making, his name was Adolf Hitler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Paragraph 4 is quite revealing: "Moreover, we reject the Clubs attempt to rely on the various offers which it made both prior to and during the hearing to settle the claim since none of them involved the Clubs acceptance that he had been constructively dismissed and all of them involved a condition of secrecy or confidentiality." So, contrary to most reports, they did offer to settle (which is exactly what Wise said had happened) but wanted the whole thing kept quiet so no one would get to know the true extent of their incompetence and lack of integrity. What an absolute mess. I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4m to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me. I wonder how much they did offer? and does it mean keegan is a proven liar ? No - Keegan was very specific in his choice of words and only referred to an offer of £4 million and no other sum. I drew attention to this on here at the time and suggested it might be a true statement but a bit misleading. I seem to remember being told that KK would not play with words in that way..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKSC Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Only one other knacker in recent history springs to mind that was on a massive donward spiral of bad decision making, his name was Adolf Hitler. Do you think they'll do lectures at university or business college on 'Ashley's annexation of the geordies'? Even if it's only as a 'how not to run a business' lesson. Or maybe they could teach it in some sociology class on how to make an entire area of the country simultaneously depressed. Serious question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 What is it about Newcastle that attracts such ugly, low class owners? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Newcastle United to pay Keegan's legal fees Fixed. Yeeeey, more money wasted.. woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Which has the judgement proved is the fault of the board of Newcastle United and not Kevin Keegan. Correct. Point? Ashley's shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Paragraph 4 is quite revealing: "Moreover, we reject the Clubs attempt to rely on the various offers which it made both prior to and during the hearing to settle the claim since none of them involved the Clubs acceptance that he had been constructively dismissed and all of them involved a condition of secrecy or confidentiality." So, contrary to most reports, they did offer to settle (which is exactly what Wise said had happened) but wanted the whole thing kept quiet so no one would get to know the true extent of their incompetence and lack of integrity. What an absolute mess. I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4m to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me. I wonder how much they did offer? and does it mean keegan is a proven liar ? No - Keegan was very specific in his choice of words and only referred to an offer of £4 million and no other sum. I drew attention to this on here at the time and suggested it might be a true statement but a bit misleading. I seem to remember being told that KK would not play with words in that way..... so do i....shame no-one seems to care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Paragraph 4 is quite revealing: "Moreover, we reject the Clubs attempt to rely on the various offers which it made both prior to and during the hearing to settle the claim since none of them involved the Clubs acceptance that he had been constructively dismissed and all of them involved a condition of secrecy or confidentiality." So, contrary to most reports, they did offer to settle (which is exactly what Wise said had happened) but wanted the whole thing kept quiet so no one would get to know the true extent of their incompetence and lack of integrity. What an absolute mess. I want to state categorically that the allegation that has been made in the press that I turned down an offer of £4m to settle the claim is simply untrue. No such offer was made to me. I wonder how much they did offer? and does it mean keegan is a proven liar ? No - Keegan was very specific in his choice of words and only referred to an offer of £4 million and no other sum. I drew attention to this on here at the time and suggested it might be a true statement but a bit misleading. I seem to remember being told that KK would not play with words in that way..... so do i....shame no-one seems to care. It was actually me that said that I didn't think Keegan would do that. That's on practical rather than moral grounds. The truth was bound to emerge when they discussed legal costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 More money that Ashley's cost the club through his inability to not be a cunt for a few seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 so do i....shame no-one seems to care. Why does it matter whether Keegan turned down 4 or 44 million ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afternoonfix Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 thats our kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 so do i....shame no-one seems to care. Why does it matter whether Keegan turned down 4 or 44 million ? the fact that we all know he was playing semantic games to make it appear that he had been made no offer at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Thats us fucked for incoming buys in Jan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 so do i....shame no-one seems to care. Why does it matter whether Keegan turned down 4 or 44 million ? the fact that we all know he was playing semantic games to make it appear that he had been made no offer at all. Do you think it was the club that leaked the story about the £4 million pound offer ? It appears strange that such a specific number should be quoted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 so do i....shame no-one seems to care. Why does it matter whether Keegan turned down 4 or 44 million ? the fact that we all know he was playing semantic games to make it appear that he had been made no offer at all. Do you think it was the club that leaked the story about the £4 million pound offer ? It appears strange that such a specific number should be quoted if it were you'd think they'd leak the correct ammount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael F Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Maybe he'll buy him a yacht next, as Keegan seems to be squirming every penny he can out of us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Maybe he'll buy him a yacht next, as Keegan seems to be squirming every penny he can out of us You blame KK rather than ashley then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 if it were you'd think they'd leak the correct ammount. Or maybe that was the correct amount Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 if it were you'd think they'd leak the correct ammount. Or maybe that was the correct amount even i dont think keegan would tell that much of a bare faced lie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael F Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Maybe he'll buy him a yacht next, as Keegan seems to be squirming every penny he can out of us You blame KK rather than ashley then? I blame the pair of them, equally Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I blame the pair of them, equally 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