Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Doesn't seem like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Doesn't seem like it. well i did and it's all on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why are you still having to ask what they lied about then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 well i did and it's all on here. I've posted all of the finding on page 195 with an edit to another post, you might want to jog your memory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why are you still having to ask what they lied about then? i thought more might have came out than that very vague point again and i wanted to press on an exact point rather than vagueries. jeez....do people actually think managers have the final say ? it's a naive old fucking world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 well i did and it's all on here. I've posted all of the finding on page 195 with an edit to another post, you might want to jog your memory. Alternatively: http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c0/3f/0,,12306~147392,00.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 does anything else need to be said barring the fact that we sold our best striker and didnt bring in anyone other ones and we still cant score? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds 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. It was said purely for effect in trying to fend off the paltry bids that may have been in the process of being put together by some clubs (Spurs). Have got a real problem with anyone of our lot thinking he wasn't for sale. That's just lunacy and using it as a stick to beat the arseholes who own/run the gaff is unfair. No owner/chairman in the league would have turned it down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why are you still having to ask what they lied about then? i thought more might have came out than that very vague point again and i wanted to press on an exact point rather than vagueries. jeez....do people actually think managers have the final say ? it's a naive old fucking world. You have to wonder why the club told Keegan in private and the fans in public that he did then. They lost an independant tribunal and couldn't even offer an excuse for the lies. Pitiful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 well i did and it's all on here. I've posted all of the finding on page 195 with an edit to another post, you might want to jog your memory. well if i'm not wrong it basically comes down to this...We are satisfied that Mr Keegan left the Club (i.e. resigned) because the Club sought to impose upon him a player, namely Gonzalez, whom he did not want, in breach of the term in his Contract which we have found entitled and required him to have the final say. This was his evidence, which we accept, and it is supported by the timing of his resignation. as i said at the time i thought the club was probably naive in its contract if it guaranteed the final say to any manager and again it goes back to whom keegan wanted. if he held his ground for his own players it's possible others at the club thought stuff it we need to get bodies in or even do a favour for an agent in the hope of getting a favour back later as at no point was it stated that keegan would have to play or use the player (gonzalez) in any way. i'd still like to see that deal examioned by fifa by the way "doing a favour for an agent" doesn't sound good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Anyway; Pardew. S'alright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why are you still having to ask what they lied about then? i thought more might have came out than that very vague point again and i wanted to press on an exact point rather than vagueries. jeez....do people actually think managers have the final say ? it's a naive old f***ing world. You have to wonder why the club told Keegan in private and the fans in public that he did then. They lost an independant tribunal and couldn't even offer an excuse for the lies. Pitiful. because all boards will say to their fans that the manager will be in control but they expect the manager to know he has constraints. thats where my wariness of keegan comes in...i'm not sure he did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 does anything else need to be said barring the fact that we sold our best striker and didnt bring in anyone other ones and we still cant score? still cant score....you mean we didn't today or at fulham but have scored on every other occasion he hasn't played (i'm guessing) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog 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. Can either of you direct me to where the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal findings? /You may find it to be a touch difficult as that line actually came in a post tribunal statement from Keegan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's a fair cop. The tribunal itself comes to the same conclusion however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why are you still having to ask what they lied about then? i thought more might have came out than that very vague point again and i wanted to press on an exact point rather than vagueries. jeez....do people actually think managers have the final say ? it's a naive old fucking world. You have to wonder why the club told Keegan in private and the fans in public that he did then. They lost an independant tribunal and couldn't even offer an excuse for the lies. Pitiful. In terms of the public statements, they did offer one. A 'profoundly unsatisfactory one', but one nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a fair cop. The tribunal itself comes to the same conclusion however. Well, true to a degree, but 80's arguement was that because of the tecnical term used, telling the press that Keegan had the final say was even more damning somehow. That arguement is invalid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 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. Can either of you direct me to where the phrase 'intentionally misled' was used in the tribunal findings? /You may find it to be a touch difficult as that line actually came in a post tribunal statement from Keegan. Fair play. Still, the thrust of my post wasn't about that, but the difference in the actions. Deliberately not speaking truths doesn't necessarily equal misleading, in football as in life people operate on certain understandings. I don't believe Bobby Robson was genuinely trying to make fans conclude that he and the team weren't thinking about winning the league in 02/03 and were just bumbling along aimlessly. Did he lie? Yes. Did he intend to mislead? No, he was operating with a communications context we understood, and he understood we understood. Misleading different people over different things can be a better or worse action depending on what's actually happening. It's literally a managers job to mislead another manager over a football game, for example, as much as it's a winger's job to feint while dribbling and send a defender the wrong way. But lies between allies, which is what a Board and supporters should be, over serious issues for selfish gain is wrong, and flagrantly doing it repeatedly to the extent your credibility is in shreds is stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a fair cop. The tribunal itself comes to the same conclusion however. Well, true to a degree, but 80's arguement was that because of the tecnical term used, telling the press that Keegan had the final say was even more damning somehow. That arguement is invalid. No, it was just serving as a relevant example from memory. There's every likelihood such a tribunal would say 'intentionally misled' instead of lie, in fairness, just because the second one is a strangely underused term in English public life. Just like how MPs can't be accused of lying in parliament by other MPs, only of 'misleading', 'conveniently forgetting' etc. - disciplinary action takes place against the accuser otherwise. The argument I was alluding to was the one I just posted above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I like Pardew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Fact is, £35M was an offer which is increasingly looking it was too good to turn down. Based on what? Missing enough chances to win ten games in three of our recent matches? How many players will bring in £35m in one go though? Enrique is probably every bit as important to us but if we sell him we'll be lucky to get £10m. Just putting the reason for the sale in context. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a fair cop. The tribunal itself comes to the same conclusion however. Well, true to a degree, but 80's arguement was that because of the tecnical term used, telling the press that Keegan had the final say was even more damning somehow. That arguement is invalid. No, it was just serving as a relevant example from memory. There's every likelihood such a tribunal would say 'intentionally misled' instead of lie, just because the second one is a strangely underused term in English public life. Just like how MPs can't be accused of lying in parliament by other MPs, only of 'misleading', 'conveniently forgetting' etc. The argument I was alluding to was the one I just posted above. Fair enough, but they didn't. Your post was perfectly clear, simply stating that in your eyes, using the term misled was 'potentially far more damning'. All I was doing was pointing out your mistake without wanting to get drawn into yet another debate on the tribunal particularly. For the record, the findings from my point of view show the club owner and representatives to be particularly disrespectful, somewhat underhand, and poor judges of character. They rightly got caught out, but I still don't think that not being explicitly clear to Keegan or the public on their policy regarding transfers, even if it proved to be willful deceit ultimately, is any way near as bad as the vitriol it attracted (and still attracts) would suggest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a fair cop. The tribunal itself comes to the same conclusion however. Well, true to a degree, but 80's arguement was that because of the tecnical term used, telling the press that Keegan had the final say was even more damning somehow. That arguement is invalid. No, it was just serving as a relevant example from memory. There's every likelihood such a tribunal would say 'intentionally misled' instead of lie, just because the second one is a strangely underused term in English public life. Just like how MPs can't be accused of lying in parliament by other MPs, only of 'misleading', 'conveniently forgetting' etc. The argument I was alluding to was the one I just posted above. Fair enough, but they didn't. Your post was perfectly clear, simply stating that in your eyes, using the term misled was 'potentially far more damning'. All I was doing was pointing out your mistake. I'm not really interested in getting drawn into yet another debate on the tribunal. For me the findings show the club owner and representatives to be particularly disrespectful, somewhat underhand, and poor judges of character. They rightly got caught out, but I still don't think the offense of not being explicitly clear to Keegan or the public on their policy on transfers, or even willful deceit, is any way near as bad as the vitriol it attracted (and still attracts) would suggest. It obviously wasn't You're spot on that I thought it was in the tribunal findings, but I'm well aware that I'm more of a linguistic pedant than even most judges - I didn't think they'd eschewed 'lie' for my reasons. It's been the wrong thread for talking about the Keegan tribunal in, but just to say it's clear they rightly attracted vitriol over the Keegan affair for more than just their public and private statements regarding transfer policy, never mind all the non-Keegan things that had taken place in between his constructive dismissal and the tribunal's conclusions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Jesus Christ, Goering wouldn't have had to swallow the capsule if he had one or two of you representing him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts