Interpolic Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Lies & Pies: The Mike Ashley Story. Would knock something up in MS Paint if I wasn't semi-retired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i would doubt he's lied more than any other club owner and we'll be at a disadvantage if he goes clean now.no manager ever has the final say with everything in life it depends what the lies are. i would expect anyone in charge of the club to say things are fine even when there is tension. what exactly were the lies he told that set him aside from everyone else ? I'm sure you know what the lies were, it was about Keegan having final say on transfers. no manager ever has the final say, if so pardew could ask for messi and when ashley laughs at him he can claim he didn't have the final say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I've not got a problem with the owner/chairman either telling lies or keeping schtum about things if it benefits the club. Having people who own/run the club being 100% honest in every interview/press release just doesn't happen imo. It's a game. Where would you draw the line? I don't think anybody is expecting them to be 100% honest but the club shouldn't lie to build peoples hopes up, only to go against what they've said and piss people off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Also forgotten about the Milner deal was he put in a transfer request after he didn't get the new deal he asked for (from the players mouth). Yep, it's true, I've pointed that out a couple of times. The PFA (who also acted as the notably docile young man's contract negotiators, he didn't have an agent) were arguing - making a good argument - that he was being screwed by the club, which led to the transfer request. Long story short, administrative issues and good will saw him sign a contract on terms that had been agreed a long time prior when he was younger and much less valuable, on the understanding it was a kind of retrospective signing of a contract that had commenced earlier. By any reasonable and decent person's standards, he was almost immediately due a new one, and of course the club suddenly began to insist he would not be offered one. Which is one reason why I've had particular suspicions about the predicament they put Carroll in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 no manager ever has the final say, if so pardew could ask for messi and when ashley laughs at him he can claim he didn't have the final say. Give over, you're going to extremes now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. what was it then and let us haggle and debate over that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I've not got a problem with the owner/chairman either telling lies or keeping schtum about things if it benefits the club. Having people who own/run the club being 100% honest in every interview/press release just doesn't happen imo. It's a game. Where would you draw the line? I don't think anybody is expecting them to be 100% honest but the club shouldn't lie to build peoples hopes up, only to go against what they've said and piss people off. Are we talking specifically about the Carroll transfer and the ''he's not for sale'' stuff they came out with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Are we talking specifically about the Carroll transfer and the ''he's not for sale'' stuff they came out with? We were at first but it seems to have moved on since then, even that was not necessary as they could have said nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Are we talking specifically about the Carroll transfer and the ''he's not for sale'' stuff they came out with? We were at first but it seems to have moved on since then, even that was not necessary as they could have said nothing. everytime they've said it in the past the cries of "oooh there must be something in it if they aren't denying it" go up. who knows the signs that he was being tapped up already may have been there so in knocking back any bids they whip things up to get a higher price ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 it's not an ideal world, no-one tells the 100% truth man and it would be an awful world if we did. I'm not expecting everybody to tell the truth 100% of the time, I just don't expect those running our club are going to consistently lie to us, that's not too much to expect. i would doubt he's lied more than any other club owner and we'll be at a disadvantage if he goes clean now. with everything in life it depends what the lies are. i would expect anyone in charge of the club to say things are fine even when there is tension. what exactly were the lies he told that set him aside from everyone else ? That a club legend who's done immense amounts for the entire region was treacherous, parasitic and barking at the moon mental, just in order to cover up these facts are probably true about himself? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 everytime they've said it in the past the cries of "oooh there must be something in it if they aren't denying it" go up. who knows the signs that he was being tapped up already may have been there so in knocking back any bids they whip things up to get a higher price ? There was something in it this time and they denied it, the denials were pointless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. what was it then and let us haggle and debate over that. Is this a joke? The entire case revolved around the right of Keegan to the final say on transfers. In public the club said he was. In the tribunal they claimed he never was. They couldn't even explain why they lied about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. what was it then and let us haggle and debate over that. Is this a joke? The entire case revolved around the right of Keegan to the final say on transfers. In public the club said he was. i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Are we talking specifically about the Carroll transfer and the ''he's not for sale'' stuff they came out with? We were at first but it seems to have moved on since then, even that was not necessary as they could have said nothing. Everyone involved knows that every player at every club is available for the right price. Us saying he 'wasn't for sale' was all part of the larger end-game and anyone who believed otherwise was deluded beyond belief. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Fwiw, technically the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal. Now, for most people that's lying, but strictly speaking, 'lying' and 'misleading' are two different words with different meanings. The second one is actually potentially far more damning. It might be worth those saying 'all people in football lie' considering that. what was it then and let us haggle and debate over that. Is this a joke? The entire case revolved around the right of Keegan to the final say on transfers. In public the club said he was. i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Man Utd didn't bring in Dennis Wise above Fergie. Not that it's relevant. Why are you bringing others into this again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Everyone involved knows that every player at every club is available for the right price. Us saying he 'wasn't for sale' was all part of the larger end-game and anyone who believed otherwise was deluded beyond belief. I agree that every player at every club has a price, our club said that Carroll wasn't for sale when they could have said what you've just said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) And Frank Lampard and David Beckham and Thierry Henry... and that he was 'curiously interested' in his contract-termination compensation deal and seemed to be looking for ways to make them sack him... I think we can take it they were trying to mislead us to subdue the storm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) From the tribunal: 16. First, we do not consider that it was implicit in the proposed structure of the Club, or the model being used (the Continental model) as it was explained to Mr Keegan and as it was explained to us, that Mr Keegan would not have the final say. On the contrary, we note that Mr Keegan’s successor, Joe Kinnear, asked for and was given the final say yet the structure and the model remained the same and Mr Wise continued in his position as Director of Football without any change to the terms of his contract. Moreover, the evidence which we heard shows that the Director of Football and his responsibilities can come in many guises and those responsibilities may differ from one club to another. 17. Secondly, none of the Club’s witnesses were able to identify any of the scenarios relied upon, let alone identify a scenario from which it would have been implicit that Mr Keegan would not have the final say. 18. Thirdly, we do not believe that Mr Keegan would have accepted the job as Manager if it had been implicit in what he was told that he would not have the final say and we unhesitatingly accept his evidence on this point. Indeed, it seems to us to be inconceivable that he would have done so having been told, according to the Club’s witnesses, that it was likely that Dennis Wise would be appointed as Director of Football given his inexperience as top flight manager. (Mr Keegan had picked him as a player in the England team when he was its Manager). 19. Finally, the Club’s own witnesses themselves seemed to be unclear as to what was the position as to who would have the final say and we had, and continue to have, real difficulty in understanding the Club’s position on this point. The Club repeatedly stated that Mr Keegan did not have the final say but in the letter dated 4 September 2008 from Mr Llambias to Mr Keegan setting out the Club’s proposals for trying to dissuade Mr Keegan from resigning, Mr Llambias stated:- “It will continue to be the position that no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals (which we refer to as financials) which will remain within the sole discretion of the Board”. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) Have you even read the tribunal outcome? It's ridiculously old ground this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) And Frank Lampard and David Beckham and Thierry Henry... and that he was 'curiously interested' in his contract-termination compensation deal and seemed to be looking for ways to make them sack him... I think we can take it they were trying to mislead us to subdue the storm... that could well have been bullshit (the hit list) but the players he was after is the crux of the issue to me and we just don't know. it never was denied by the keegan camp mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 i've no doubt fergie says he has...we know he hasn't...no manager has. Managers do have final say to a certain degree and that is no longer the point. "to a certain degree" ie they are aware of their limits. i wonder if keegan was aware of his, i don't suppose we'll ever know till we find out who he was after. (and remember one of the reasons given when he first left was that he wanted to spend more-on beppe signori i think, than the club could afford) Have you even read the tribunal outcome? It's ridiculously old ground this. gasp, shock horror...yes dave i have and i've discussed it at length on this very board.......surely you'd know that ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts