Keegan not new Hamburg manager

[Dokko]

Who gives a f*** if he ditched over teams? Would still love the man if he had taken a dump in the centre circle at Craven Cottage.

 

I just think sometimes people need to take their black & white tinted glasses off and realise that outside of Newcastle, not many people rate Keegan as highly as manager.

They must be fuckwits.

 

The important thing is what a manager achieves not the manner of their exit, and Keegan did a good job at City, a good job at Fulham, a good job at Newcastle the second time round and performed a minor miracle in his first managerial stint at SJP.

 

Most managers get sacked; quitting is largely the preserve of the good ones.

 

 

I don't rate Keegan much at all, not these days anyway.

 

He spent a fortune at City and wasted most of it on utter rubbish. Despite a couple of decent league finishes it ended up going pear shaped and by the time he left they were in a real mess. He was a terrible England boss too.

 

He did a good job at Fulham (albeit with a lot of financial muscle compared to his rivals) and did brilliantly at yourselves the first time round.

 

That first stint is ancient history now though. George Graham, Howard Kendall, Kenny Dalglish and Terry Venables wouldn't still get any decent jobs on the back of being quality managers years ago. Their shelf life is up and I think Keegan has reached that stage now.

 

Tin hat on.

I see Keegan as an impact manager. Somebody who comes in and breathes life into a club - he needs a bit of money but in the long run it’s a sound investment. He did it at NUFC and he did at Fulham, who wouldn’t have been a whisker away from winning a European trophy it hadn’t been for the foot up KK gave them. And you can criticise his time at City but he did get them promoted with a record points haul and they haven’t been relegated since. Not bad for a club that was in the third division not that long back.

 

What he’s not very good at is pragmatism. He always wants to aim high and he always wants to play open football, which is why he was totally unsuitable for the kind of manager Ashley wanted.

 

If you look back at his career (distinguished career at Liverpool, twice European football of the year with Hamburg, captain of his country, inspired NUFC to promotion as a player, two promotions with three clubs as a manager – including taking NUFC from the brink of the third division to the brink of the league title) branding him a quitter really is petty shit slinging. There’s very few people in football who have achieved as much as KK. It embarrassing to read NUFC supporters slagging him off after everything he has done for the club.

 

 

 

I think there's a balance, just the same when looking at Shearer, it wasn't all roses and sunshine. Some people, especially on here can see KK as some kind of demi-god and the video done by the spurs lad with Shearer could easily be them and the way they go on about Keegan.

 

i'll always feel let down by him, i'll never stop, he should have stood his ground for us, its what most NUFC fans would have done. We certainly wouldn't have been relegated. Then again the way he was undermined was appalling and very hard for such a proud man to take.

 

It's called balance, looking at the grey, but some people can only see in black & white, its a shame they are as one dimensional as that.

 

 

[dcmk]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

 

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

oh and top managers like Sir Bob managed to carry on when a player was sold without his say.

 

i cant recollect.  who was sold without his say?

gary speed.

 

Remember him saying was sad to see him go.

 

Any links at all?

i remember it mainly from an interview with gary speed. i'll have a look for a link.

 

 

edit...

Bolton did manage to poach Gary Speed from us, however, and therein lies another tale of how disjointed the manager-chairman relationship had become. On our tour of the Far East, John Carver suddenly informed me, “We’ve had an offer for Gary Speed from Bolton.” I knew nothing about it, so I went in search of the chairman for clarification. On no account did I want Gary Speed to leave.

 

First I caught up with the player himself. “Gary, what’s all this about you wanting to go to Bolton Wanderers? I know nothing about it. The chairman hasn’t mentioned it to me. When John Carver told me an hour ago I was aghast. What do you want to go to Bolton for?”

 

“The club are going to let me go,” Gary said. “If you don’t know anything about it, you’d better see the chairman.” “As far as I’m concerned, you’re not going to Bolton Wanderers,” I told him. “You’re staying here.”

 

That Saturday night, the day of our game, I tried the chairman’s room, reception, the restaurant and bar. Eventually, I was told he was out. I was so angry I sat in the foyer, waiting, for half an hour.

 

Finally, the chairman’s figure appeared in the doorway and I confronted him there and then.

 

Under cross-examination he denied all knowledge of Gary’s impending move. It was heading into the realms of farce.

 

The next step, naturally, was to go back to Gary. I spoke to him on our flight from Hong Kong. “The chairman says he knows nothing about this Bolton thing,” I said and left it there.

 

We arrived back in Newcastle on the Monday morning and, early that afternoon, the chairman called me. “Gary Speed is here with me, he wants to see you. He wants to say goodbye,” he said.

 

“What?” I exclaimed.

 

The deal had been completed that morning. Fifty years in the game had taught me that you cannot construct a transfer in four hours. The idea that a player of Gary Speed’s calibre can be sold in four hours is absurd and yet I was being told throughout the weekend that the club knew nothing of Bolton’s interest in one of our most valued players.

 

 

 

But would you say from this moment onwards it adversely affected his working relationship with Shepherd,  actually started damaging the club because SBR stood for this? 

[madras]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

 

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

oh and top managers like Sir Bob managed to carry on when a player was sold without his say.

 

i cant recollect.  who was sold without his say?

gary speed.

 

Remember him saying was sad to see him go.

 

Any links at all?

i remember it mainly from an interview with gary speed. i'll have a look for a link.

 

 

edit...

Bolton did manage to poach Gary Speed from us, however, and therein lies another tale of how disjointed the manager-chairman relationship had become. On our tour of the Far East, John Carver suddenly informed me, “We’ve had an offer for Gary Speed from Bolton.” I knew nothing about it, so I went in search of the chairman for clarification. On no account did I want Gary Speed to leave.

 

First I caught up with the player himself. “Gary, what’s all this about you wanting to go to Bolton Wanderers? I know nothing about it. The chairman hasn’t mentioned it to me. When John Carver told me an hour ago I was aghast. What do you want to go to Bolton for?”

 

“The club are going to let me go,” Gary said. “If you don’t know anything about it, you’d better see the chairman.” “As far as I’m concerned, you’re not going to Bolton Wanderers,” I told him. “You’re staying here.”

 

That Saturday night, the day of our game, I tried the chairman’s room, reception, the restaurant and bar. Eventually, I was told he was out. I was so angry I sat in the foyer, waiting, for half an hour.

 

Finally, the chairman’s figure appeared in the doorway and I confronted him there and then.

 

Under cross-examination he denied all knowledge of Gary’s impending move. It was heading into the realms of farce.

 

The next step, naturally, was to go back to Gary. I spoke to him on our flight from Hong Kong. “The chairman says he knows nothing about this Bolton thing,” I said and left it there.

 

We arrived back in Newcastle on the Monday morning and, early that afternoon, the chairman called me. “Gary Speed is here with me, he wants to see you. He wants to say goodbye,” he said.

 

“What?” I exclaimed.

 

The deal had been completed that morning. Fifty years in the game had taught me that you cannot construct a transfer in four hours. The idea that a player of Gary Speed’s calibre can be sold in four hours is absurd and yet I was being told throughout the weekend that the club knew nothing of Bolton’s interest in one of our most valued players.

 

 

 

But would you say from this moment onwards it adversely affected his working relationship with Shepherd,  actually started damaging the club because SBR stood for this? 

no i wouldn't.

[Big Geordie]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

[madras]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

the good massivly outweighs the bad........but some say there was no bad.

[Mowen]

Who gives a f*** if he ditched over teams? Would still love the man if he had taken a dump in the centre circle at Craven Cottage.

 

I just think sometimes people need to take their black & white tinted glasses off and realise that outside of Newcastle, not many people rate Keegan as highly as manager.

They must be fuckwits.

 

The important thing is what a manager achieves not the manner of their exit, and Keegan did a good job at City, a good job at Fulham, a good job at Newcastle the second time round and performed a minor miracle in his first managerial stint at SJP.

 

Most managers get sacked; quitting is largely the preserve of the good ones.

 

 

I don't rate Keegan much at all, not these days anyway.

 

He spent a fortune at City and wasted most of it on utter rubbish. Despite a couple of decent league finishes it ended up going pear shaped and by the time he left they were in a real mess. He was a terrible England boss too.

 

He did a good job at Fulham (albeit with a lot of financial muscle compared to his rivals) and did brilliantly at yourselves the first time round.

 

That first stint is ancient history now though. George Graham, Howard Kendall, Kenny Dalglish and Terry Venables wouldn't still get any decent jobs on the back of being quality managers years ago. Their shelf life is up and I think Keegan has reached that stage now.

 

Tin hat on.

 

I didn't study his time at city at all but a good mate of mine who's a huge city fan and the same age as me (24) reckons KK's the best manager they've had in his lifetime. He's a bit of a nutter (my mate, not KK) but I'm inclined to believe him. Possibly because I want to mind..

 

I actually think Keegan's underrated in this country because of his poor spell with England. I wouldn't say he's a world class manager however good he was for us but he's left every club in a better state than he found it (depending how you interpret his last departure) which is something very few managers can say.

[Big Geordie]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

the good massivly outweighs the bad........but some say there was no bad.

 

I've never denied that. Keegan is only human afterall but that doesn't mark him out for some of the comments that his tenure has received in this thread.

[madras]

Who gives a f*** if he ditched over teams? Would still love the man if he had taken a dump in the centre circle at Craven Cottage.

 

I just think sometimes people need to take their black & white tinted glasses off and realise that outside of Newcastle, not many people rate Keegan as highly as manager.

They must be fuckwits.

 

The important thing is what a manager achieves not the manner of their exit, and Keegan did a good job at City, a good job at Fulham, a good job at Newcastle the second time round and performed a minor miracle in his first managerial stint at SJP.

 

Most managers get sacked; quitting is largely the preserve of the good ones.

 

 

I don't rate Keegan much at all, not these days anyway.

 

He spent a fortune at City and wasted most of it on utter rubbish. Despite a couple of decent league finishes it ended up going pear shaped and by the time he left they were in a real mess. He was a terrible England boss too.

 

He did a good job at Fulham (albeit with a lot of financial muscle compared to his rivals) and did brilliantly at yourselves the first time round.

 

That first stint is ancient history now though. George Graham, Howard Kendall, Kenny Dalglish and Terry Venables wouldn't still get any decent jobs on the back of being quality managers years ago. Their shelf life is up and I think Keegan has reached that stage now.

 

Tin hat on.

 

I didn't study his time at city at all but a good mate of mine who's a huge city fan and the same age as me (24) reckons KK's the best manager they've had in his lifetime. He's a bit of a nutter (my mate, not KK) but I'm inclined to believe him. Possibly because I want to mind..

 

I actually think Keegan's underrated in this country because of his poor spell with England. I wouldn't say he's a world class manager however good he was for us but he's left every club in a better state than he found it (depending how you interpret his last departure) which is something very few managers can say.

to be fair at each club he's also been given a lot more money than the predecessors aswell (in fulham and citehs case a lot ,more than the opposition for a large part aswell).

 

nothing will take away his first two full season here though. the most exciting football i've watched and still hanker after ona budget aswell.

[Guest palnese]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

 

Why did he do that anyway?

[madras]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

 

Why did he do that anyway?

a ,mix of not wanting too many games ruining the pitch as there was a stupid idea at the time that reserve games should be played at the proper grounds and an idea,that has some merit, that many younger players will be better off playing first teram football down the leagyes rather than jogging about in the reserves.

[timnufc22]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

Wise "rang Keegan up and told him he had a great player for him", namely Gonzalez. When Keegan couldnt find any details of Gonzalez and told Wise, Wise told him to look at him on YouTube. He then told Keegan that he'd actually never seen him play before, and the real reason he wants Gonzalez is to do a favour for a couple of agents. This is all on the last day of the transfer window, when the squad needed strenghtening, and it was now or never if we were getting some new players in. That's taking the juice is it not?

 

I do agree with you that more should come out about the rest of the transfers, any goings on that summer etc. That it would fill in the picture even more. "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan's appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan's resignation on 4 September 2008." is from the tribunal.

 

But how would you feel if on the last day of the transfer window when your trying desparately to get some players in to boost the squad, to give the team a chance of doing something that season, to give hope to the fans you have a special relationship with... and your DOF rings you up, not only blatently lies to you about a player, but lets you know that his primary focus in those last hours of the window is to do a favour for some agents.

 

Keegan made it known to Wise, Ashley & Llambias he did not want Gonzalez signed, presumably he let them also know that it's not good enough they're more interested in doing a favour for agents than putting effort in to sign players at that stage of the window, and that Gonzalez cannot be signed because it was agreed he would be in charge...

 

... Next day/early morning, skysports news: Newcastle sign Gonzalez on one year loan, Nufc website: Uruguyan international signs for United.

 

You let your DOF and MD your not happy, as they knew full well you wouldnt be, and in response your MD basically changes the terms of your contract from what it was when you joined, writing a letter saying "you will have final say on transfers save for commercial signings, which will be soley at the boards discrection", basically backing you into a corner.

 

I've thought about if he had stayed and pubcially fought them/kept it to himself and carried on, but what about the next news conference... reporter - "So Kevin, you've got uruguyan Nacho Gonzalez on loan for a season, can you tell the fans what he will bring to the party?"... What can he say? He's having the piss taken out of him.

 

"Well, I've never seen him play, no-one has, and I'm not happy because I didnt sign him." - public soap drama, manager carrying on when he's obviously not happy, loses dressing room focus, and he would have got the sack anyway, position untenable basically.

 

"He's got good experience, he's a good passer, will bring flair, good addition" - I'm going to continue as manager, and lie to the fans of whom I want the best for and have a speical relationship with about not only this, but a fair amount of other things in the future too seen as though my terms have been changed.

 

And he wouldnt have been able to leave from that point onwards, as he would've agreed to the change of his terms of employment. Its as much about the practially impossible situation he would have been in if he'd continued (after their patheitc stance) as it is about Gonzalez.

 

Shafted man. Why would they back him into a corner? 3 year season tickets sold I suppose, total under-estimation of how popular was with the fans was the players, and jobs for the boys regime. Ashley seemingly hired mates, and stayed loyal to his mates, how ever much they were shitting on Keegan.

 

I'm not saying he's perfect. Its not a case of a black or white view, it is about being objective. I just think, in general, most of it points to manager who loves this club being backed into a corner, who painfully & regretfully had no other choice but to leave. And when I see snidy piss-taking I just dont understand it.

[LooneyToonArmy]

Armin Veh is the new coach

 

http://www.hsv.de/teams/meldungen/bundesliga/mai-2010/armin-veh-wird-trainer-des-hamburger-sv/

[Happy Face]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

 

He's left three out of 4 clubs he's managed in higher leagues than he found them and not left a single club lower than he found it.  How's that a risk?

 

David Moyes hasn't won a single major trophy either, Souness has shit loads though.  Which would you prefer?

[madras]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

Wise "rang Keegan up and told him he had a great player for him", namely Gonzalez. When Keegan couldnt find any details of Gonzalez and told Wise, Wise told him to look at him on YouTube. He then told Keegan that he'd actually never seen him play before, and the real reason he wants Gonzalez is to do a favour for a couple of agents. This is all on the last day of the transfer window, when the squad needed strenghtening, and it was now or never if we were getting some new players in. That's taking the juice is it not?

 

I do agree with you that more should come out about the rest of the transfers, any goings on that summer etc. That it would fill in the picture even more. "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan's appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan's resignation on 4 September 2008." is from the tribunal.

 

But how would you feel if on the last day of the transfer window when your trying desparately to get some players in to boost the squad, to give the team a chance of doing something that season, to give hope to the fans you have a special relationship with... and your DOF rings you up, not only blatently lies to you about a player, but lets you know that his primary focus in those last hours of the window is to do a favour for some agents.

 

Keegan made it known to Wise, Ashley & Llambias he did not want Gonzalez signed, presumably he let them also know that it's not good enough they're more interested in doing a favour for agents than putting effort in to sign players at that stage of the window, and that Gonzalez cannot be signed because it was agreed he would be in charge...

 

... Next day/early morning, skysports news: Newcastle sign Gonzalez on one year loan, Nufc website: Uruguyan international signs for United.

 

You let your DOF and MD your not happy, as they knew full well you wouldnt be, and in response your MD basically changes the terms of your contract from what it was when you joined, writing a letter saying "you will have final say on transfers save for commercial signings, which will be soley at the boards discrection", basically backing you into a corner.

 

I've thought about if he had stayed and pubcially fought them/kept it to himself and carried on, but what about the next news conference... reporter - "So Kevin, you've got uruguyan Nacho Gonzalez on loan for a season, can you tell the fans what he will bring to the party?"... What can he say? He's having the piss taken out of him.

 

"Well, I've never seen him play, no-one has, and I'm not happy because I didnt sign him." - public soap drama, manager carrying on when he's obviously not happy, loses dressing room focus, and he would have got the sack anyway, position untenable basically.

 

"He's got good experience, he's a good passer, will bring flair, good addition" - I'm going to continue as manager, and lie to the fans of whom I want the best for and have a speical relationship with about not only this, but a fair amount of other things in the future too seen as though my terms have been changed.

 

And he wouldnt have been able to leave from that point onwards, as he would've agreed to the change of his terms of employment. Its as much about the practially impossible situation he would have been in if he'd continued (after their patheitc stance) as it is about Gonzalez.

 

Shafted man. Why would they back him into a corner? 3 year season tickets sold I suppose, total under-estimation of how popular was with the fans was the players, and jobs for the boys regime. Ashley seemingly hired mates, and stayed loyal to his mates, how ever much they were shitting on Keegan.

 

I'm not saying he's perfect. Its not a case of a black or white view, it is about being objective. I just think, in general, most of it points to manager who loves this club being backed into a corner, who painfully & regretfully had no other choice but to leave. And when I see snidy piss-taking I just dont understand it.

the thing is you make it sound as if on that last day they put all their efforts into gonzalez,as if they couldn't work on two deals at once,although seemingly the deal was done without them.

 

what could keegan have said ? he could have said we've got a uruguayan intl on loan to give us a chance to have a good look at him. then not let him anywhere near the first team. as i've asked in the past. do you think he'd have let this stop him had he signed lampard,henry and modric ? i don't and the more i look at it the more i think the gonzalez deal was used as an excuse cos he didn't get what he wanted elsewhere (a more realistic version of n'zogbia using getting called insomnia as his reason for leaving)

 

 

edit...mourinho learned to put up with schevchenko whom it was widely reported he didn't want.

[Cronky]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

 

 

He's left three out of 4 clubs he's managed in higher leagues than he found them and not left a single club lower than he found it.  How's that a risk?

 

David Moyes hasn't won a single major trophy either, Souness has shit loads though.  Which would you prefer?

 

Well it doesn't look like Keegan has been flooded with offers since he left us. I suspect clubs view him as not worth the risk.

[Big Geordie]

So many WUM's in here re Keegan, it beggars belief if I'm honest - especially given all that he did for the club during his times as a player and a manager and the rotten way he was ultimately forced out of the club. He's the only man since 1927 to get us within a baw hair of the PL title, playing super football and putting a buzz back in the city. Sure he made mistakes (axing the reserve side was a biggie) but the good far outweighs the bad.

 

Why did he do that anyway?

 

It was something to do with a ruling that reserve games had to be played at St James at that time, and given the dodgyness of the pitch - KK didn't want the turf to be chewed up anymore than it already was.

[NG32]

Correct BG

[Pandamninator]

 

edit...mourinho learned to put up with schevchenko whom it was widely reported he didn't want.

 

 

If by put up you mean left him on the bench and then buggered off?

[dcmk]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

 

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

oh and top managers like Sir Bob managed to carry on when a player was sold without his say.

 

i cant recollect.  who was sold without his say?

gary speed.

 

Remember him saying was sad to see him go.

 

Any links at all?

i remember it mainly from an interview with gary speed. i'll have a look for a link.

 

 

edit...

Bolton did manage to poach Gary Speed from us, however, and therein lies another tale of how disjointed the manager-chairman relationship had become. On our tour of the Far East, John Carver suddenly informed me, “We’ve had an offer for Gary Speed from Bolton.” I knew nothing about it, so I went in search of the chairman for clarification. On no account did I want Gary Speed to leave.

 

First I caught up with the player himself. “Gary, what’s all this about you wanting to go to Bolton Wanderers? I know nothing about it. The chairman hasn’t mentioned it to me. When John Carver told me an hour ago I was aghast. What do you want to go to Bolton for?”

 

“The club are going to let me go,” Gary said. “If you don’t know anything about it, you’d better see the chairman.” “As far as I’m concerned, you’re not going to Bolton Wanderers,” I told him. “You’re staying here.”

 

That Saturday night, the day of our game, I tried the chairman’s room, reception, the restaurant and bar. Eventually, I was told he was out. I was so angry I sat in the foyer, waiting, for half an hour.

 

Finally, the chairman’s figure appeared in the doorway and I confronted him there and then.

 

Under cross-examination he denied all knowledge of Gary’s impending move. It was heading into the realms of farce.

 

The next step, naturally, was to go back to Gary. I spoke to him on our flight from Hong Kong. “The chairman says he knows nothing about this Bolton thing,” I said and left it there.

 

We arrived back in Newcastle on the Monday morning and, early that afternoon, the chairman called me. “Gary Speed is here with me, he wants to see you. He wants to say goodbye,” he said.

 

“What?” I exclaimed.

 

The deal had been completed that morning. Fifty years in the game had taught me that you cannot construct a transfer in four hours. The idea that a player of Gary Speed’s calibre can be sold in four hours is absurd and yet I was being told throughout the weekend that the club knew nothing of Bolton’s interest in one of our most valued players.

 

 

 

But would you say from this moment onwards it adversely affected his working relationship with Shepherd,  actually started damaging the club because SBR stood for this? 

no i wouldn't.

 

well from that moment onwards it went steadily downhill.

[dcmk]

However loved he may be on here, he walked out at the end of the transfer window when he was over-ruled over a loan-signing and then tried to take the club for £25 million. No club Chairman with half a brain is going to take the risk of appointing him, especially when we're talking about a manager who hasn't even won a single major trophy. And that's not taking into account his other walk-outs.

 

Top managers in England said they would have done exactly the same.

It would take a manager with half a brain to agree to sign a player based on youtube clips.

i'd guess even wise hadn't seen gonzalez on youtube. seemed to me like a standard middle managers remark when carrying out actions they dont necessarily agree with themselves (i have to put up with my gaffers doing it all the time) but because they are carrying it out they can't say it's wrong.

 

 

Wise "rang Keegan up and told him he had a great player for him", namely Gonzalez. When Keegan couldnt find any details of Gonzalez and told Wise, Wise told him to look at him on YouTube. He then told Keegan that he'd actually never seen him play before, and the real reason he wants Gonzalez is to do a favour for a couple of agents. This is all on the last day of the transfer window, when the squad needed strenghtening, and it was now or never if we were getting some new players in. That's taking the juice is it not?

 

I do agree with you that more should come out about the rest of the transfers, any goings on that summer etc. That it would fill in the picture even more. "Although we heard a considerable amount of evidence as to events which took place in the months which followed Mr Keegan's appointment, in view of our conclusions, we can proceed at once to the events which culminated in Mr Keegan's resignation on 4 September 2008." is from the tribunal.

 

But how would you feel if on the last day of the transfer window when your trying desparately to get some players in to boost the squad, to give the team a chance of doing something that season, to give hope to the fans you have a special relationship with... and your DOF rings you up, not only blatently lies to you about a player, but lets you know that his primary focus in those last hours of the window is to do a favour for some agents.

 

Keegan made it known to Wise, Ashley & Llambias he did not want Gonzalez signed, presumably he let them also know that it's not good enough they're more interested in doing a favour for agents than putting effort in to sign players at that stage of the window, and that Gonzalez cannot be signed because it was agreed he would be in charge...

 

... Next day/early morning, skysports news: Newcastle sign Gonzalez on one year loan, Nufc website: Uruguyan international signs for United.

 

You let your DOF and MD your not happy, as they knew full well you wouldnt be, and in response your MD basically changes the terms of your contract from what it was when you joined, writing a letter saying "you will have final say on transfers save for commercial signings, which will be soley at the boards discrection", basically backing you into a corner.

 

I've thought about if he had stayed and pubcially fought them/kept it to himself and carried on, but what about the next news conference... reporter - "So Kevin, you've got uruguyan Nacho Gonzalez on loan for a season, can you tell the fans what he will bring to the party?"... What can he say? He's having the piss taken out of him.

 

"Well, I've never seen him play, no-one has, and I'm not happy because I didnt sign him." - public soap drama, manager carrying on when he's obviously not happy, loses dressing room focus, and he would have got the sack anyway, position untenable basically.

 

"He's got good experience, he's a good passer, will bring flair, good addition" - I'm going to continue as manager, and lie to the fans of whom I want the best for and have a speical relationship with about not only this, but a fair amount of other things in the future too seen as though my terms have been changed.

 

And he wouldnt have been able to leave from that point onwards, as he would've agreed to the change of his terms of employment. Its as much about the practially impossible situation he would have been in if he'd continued (after their patheitc stance) as it is about Gonzalez.

 

Shafted man. Why would they back him into a corner? 3 year season tickets sold I suppose, total under-estimation of how popular was with the fans was the players, and jobs for the boys regime. Ashley seemingly hired mates, and stayed loyal to his mates, how ever much they were shitting on Keegan.

 

I'm not saying he's perfect. Its not a case of a black or white view, it is about being objective. I just think, in general, most of it points to manager who loves this club being backed into a corner, who painfully & regretfully had no other choice but to leave. And when I see snidy piss-taking I just dont understand it.

the thing is you make it sound as if on that last day they put all their efforts into gonzalez,as if they couldn't work on two deals at once,although seemingly the deal was done without them.

 

what could keegan have said ? he could have said we've got a uruguayan intl on loan to give us a chance to have a good look at him. then not let him anywhere near the first team. as i've asked in the past. do you think he'd have let this stop him had he signed lampard,henry and modric ? i don't and the more i look at it the more i think the gonzalez deal was used as an excuse cos he didn't get what he wanted elsewhere (a more realistic version of n'zogbia using getting called insomnia as his reason for leaving)

 

 

edit...mourinho learned to put up with schevchenko whom it was widely reported he didn't want.

 

How can you even make this comparison - its totally daft -  some of the best players in the world and a very promising prospect to a guy who has barely played anywhere he has been,  moving club to club all his career, signing for all the wrong reasons. 

 

Managers are judged on their signings as well as results, example of it this season has been Benitez & Aquiliani. 

 

When Keegan asked for more information about Gonzalez was told to look him up on Youtube.  Does that seem right..   

..an independant tribunal listening to all the facts thought it wasn't.

[Guest]

Keegan is not new Hamburg boss which was purpose of this thread, the topic's drifted way off and has been discussed to death over the last 18 months. Locked.