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...
merlin Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 IF we are talking about Pardew and not KK(!), then I agree with most of the findings that he is doing between Good and OK ; had a difficult job when he arrived and has faced a difficult situation over Carroll whilst keeping the team focused on the pitch ; results have been as good as can be expected with such a lousy attack. On the Carroll situation, yes, undoubtedly, every player has his price ; the problem with this transfer in most people's eyes is either that he wasn't replaced(risking relegation) or that it was stated beyond doubt, that he was NOT for sale this season. People would have been far less concerned if a half-decent striker had been signed in the window. As for KK, my biggest problem(and, I suspect, Keegan's also) was the interference coming from Wise plus the decision to sell Milner without replacing him with a decent player ; I believe a man like KK would not be able to work with his decisions being subject to Wise's approval and both Fergie and Wenger backed his stance as did the tribunal. Its history now - he's gone, never to return and we have Pardew....for better or worse and at the moment he's doing OK ; this is NUFC, so that can change in an instant.!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Sir Alex Ferguson told Pardew to join NUFC Feb 13 2011 by Luke Edwards, Sunday Sun ALAN PARDEW has revealed how some advice from Sir Alex Ferguson helped persuade him to take on the challenge of managing Newcastle United. Pardew admits he has found the intensity of managing United difficult to get used to as it was only once he moved to the city that he realised how important the football club is in every day life. But the 49-year-old is relishing the chance after a chat with Manchester United boss Ferguson, pictured below, convinced him he had to leave his friends and family and get out of London for the good of his career. Pardew said: “I’ve spent my entire career in the south, in and around London. Sir Alex Ferguson said to me I had to get out of London to enhance my career because people saw me as a London manager. “That was in my mind when I took the Southampton job and obviously when I came up here as well. It’s a completely different environment and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself, even if it has been tough some times. “The thing that has come across straight away is the genuine passion of the fans, obviously on a matchday, but also Monday to Friday. It is kind of unique in terms of the clubs I’ve been at before. You can never switch off here.” Pardew has done a decent job in terms of results, with three wins, three draws and four defeats in his 10 games to maintain United’s mid-table position. The results are painted in a more favourable light by the fact they have come in difficult circumstances, firstly when he replaced the popular Chris Hughton in December and, more recently, in the aftermath of Andy Carroll’s unpopular departure. But the former Crystal Palace midfielder admits he still has a long way to go before he was earned the trust of supporters who had no desire to see Hughton sacked and who are still seething at the sale of Carroll. He explained: “I’m under no illusions about the size of this job. Ever since I’ve been here, I’ve tried to be honest about what I do with the fans. “I don’t think the average Newcastle fan feels they know me. I’ve not been here that long and I think they are probably still undecided about what I’m about. Am I honest? Am I hardworking? “It’s very difficult. When things went as badly as they did in the first half against Arsenal, the fans are going to voice that unease. “I think there was a lot of that in the abuse I received last week in the first half and I accept that, it happens and there was a lot of frustration. “Only time can buy me the respect of the real Newcastle fan, that’s all I’m working towards. “I can’t determine how long it takes, but what I am confident about is the vision I have got for the club will be backed by the chairman. “The situation we are in now, only the summer will back that up. “From now until the summer, we’ve got to show we’ve got enough character, enough ability and enough nous as a coaching staff to keep the team in this division.” http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/02/13/sir-alex-ferguson-told-pardew-to-join-nufc-79310-28161984/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Sir Alex Ferguson told him, before he moved to Southampton, that he had to get out of London. = Sir Alex Ferguson told Pardew to join Newcastle. Can't believe i'm aiming to go into this industry at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevo Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Doing well and I have faith in him to help us stay in the PL. Made a few mistakes since his arrival, but who doesn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 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) you're right, we clearly didnt need to get any firepower. how could i have been so stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Was at Louis' restaurant in Jesmond today having lunch with a man. ITK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts