KK - "Pardew Won't See A Penny Of It"

[Benwell Lad]

In our pantomine the FCB is playing the baddie and the messiah is Cinderella.

The audience is split down the middle.

[alpal78]

This argument is pointless as long as people refuse to accept that it's possible to blame both Ashley and Keegan for what happened without being a "Keegan fanboy"

 

can you show me one example of someone being labelled a "Keegan fanboy" after criticizing BOTH Ashley AND Keegan? As usual you just try to reverse things even if they are blatantly not true

[Benwell Lad]

What would constitute vindication for you Ian? Genuine question.

 

In respect of his business model, seeing that other clubs were having to cut wages and spending less on transfer fees in the same way as we are. Continuing to acquire really good players for reasonable fees.

 

Obviously the business side can't be separated from the football side, and that's where the crunch comes. As the Arsenal chief exec said in that great BBC interview recently, the objective of Arsenal FC is to spend every penny they make. Just not spend too much more.

 

In football terms, it'll be difficult to say when Ashley has been vindicated, if it's even possible. I suspect it will never happen unless he delivers a trophy or something else totally unprecedented... his bridges are well and truly burnt with some people.

 

Say we have another 3 or 4 seasons of steady progress, with us maybe qualifying for Europe once or twice, then I would say that we would be as good a position as when he arrived. Depending on how much importance you give to finances, you could argue a better position.

 

Then it also can't be separated from where the club was heading before Ashley. I know you don't agree that our existence was in danger, and you're probably right. Banks are going to be reluctant to force a Premier League club out of business.

 

But I think we can agree that our debt position was unsustainable and something needed to change. We couldn't go on buying Owens and Luques and Duffs - players who weren't up to it for superstar salaries.

 

The way I see it, the only better alternative to Ashley's way is the Man City model - and that's also wrong really.

 

Good respones. Financial stability and a rosier future would be vindication for some, but it's probably going to take a cup or at least European qualification for others. Some just have their mind made up and there will never be vindication.

 

I like your last comment - a bit like saying "I'm not going to bother working too hard or progressing my career, I'll just wait for a lottery win to come along"  

[UV]

I think some people have either forgotten, or have a poor comprehension of what was said in the tribunal findings and need to read it again.

 

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4662583.Keegan_tribunal___read_the_full_transcript

 

Here are some snippets that can hopefully clear some points up for the hard of understanding

 

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).

20. This was repeated by some of the Club's witnesses (i.e. that the position was that Mr Keegan had the final say save for financial or commercial deals) but some of those same witnesses then asserted later in their evidence that Mr Keegan never had the final say and Mr Wise was not prepared to accept that Mr Keegan ever had the final say, even apart from financial and commercials deals.

 

This lack of clarity, indeed confusion, in the understanding of the Club's own representatives as to this critical issue makes it, in our view, even less likely that it would and should have been clear to Mr Keegan from what he was told at the meeting on 16 January 2008 that he would not have the final say.

Two days later, on 31 January 2008, Mr Wise gave an interview in the Chairman's office at the Club which was intended to be and was published on the Club's website (and reported in the national Press) on the following day.

 

In the course of that interview he stated: "I'm not here to be involved in the first team. I am not here to manage. I am here to help Kevin as much as possible in bringing young players through and also recommending certain players to him and he'll say yes and no.

 

"He has the final word and then no one else. I'm not gonna do things like bring players in behind his back. I'm not into that and everything that happens will be run past him and he'll say yes, as I say, or he'll say no".

 

21. We turn, therefore, to consider what were the duties usually associated with the position of a Manager of a Premier League Football Team. On this issue, the evidence was effectively all one way. Mr Keegan's own evidence was that these duties included controlling the players that come into (and out of) the Club (subject, of course, to the financial restraints set by the Board) and significantly he was not cross examined on this evidence (in other words, it was not suggested to him that he was wrong about this). Evidence to the same effect was given by three of the Club's witnesses, Mr Mort, Mr Charnley and Mr Vetere. We heard no evidence to the contrary effect. This also accords with both the understanding and long experience of the non lawyer member of the Tribunal, Mr Merrett, and, for what it is worth, the understanding of the two lawyer members.

 

Accordingly, we have concluded that the duties usually associated with the position of a Premier League Manager included the right, indeed duty, to have the final say as to transfers into the Club and thus that was the position under this Contract.

 

For madras, to address his implication that Keegan wasn't given the full amount of his contract because they thought he was partly to blame:

 

Clause 14.8.1 provided as follows:- "In the event that the Club terminates this Agreement or requires Kevin Keegan to cease being the Manager of the Club at any time during the Term, other than where the Club has grounds to dismiss Kevin Keegan pursuant to Clause 14.1, the Club shall pay to Kevin Keegan pursuant to Clause 14.8.4 a sum of £2million …("Payment in Lieu")".

 

In view of our conclusion on the Sixth Issue, it follows, as was accepted on behalf of Mr Keegan, that he is entitled to no further damages. However, if we had had to address this issue, we would have decided that the publication of a finding by us that Mr Keegan had resigned because he had been constructively dismissed by the Club and not because he had decided to walk away, would restore his reputation and in evidence he agreed with that proposition.

 

Clearly on the last point they were sadly wrong.

 

 

Keegan had a choice. He could have put up with being manipulated and lied to, being forced to lie or stay silent on transfer dealings, and carried on collecting his lucrative wages. Or he could leave and risk the club suing him for £2m for walking out on his contract - the reason he needed to prove constructive dismissal. The fact that some think he should have continued to take the club's money, lie to mislead to supporters (rather than to help with a sale/purchase or for the benefit of a player, etc), and just be a front for the actions of others at the club who did not in his eyes have the best interests of the footballing side of the club at heart says quite a lot about the integrity of those people.

 

On the timing of his departure - if he had stayed and left say at the end of the next season it would have been claimed by the club (with justification) that he had accepted the situation, he would never have won a constructive dismissal case in those circumstances, and would have had to pay the club £2m. There would have been no less of an outcry from supporters then than there was when he did leave, however it would have also had the effect of disrupting that Summer's transfers. If he had left during the Summer, then he would have been accused (with some justification) of "not giving the system a chance". Once again, there would have been no less of an outcry from supporters then than there was when he did leave, and it would have also had the effect of disrupting that Summer's transfers - more than Milner would have most likely put transfer requests in, and we may have had to offer Xisco better wages to join!

 

[Guest michaelfoster]

Keegan... like a lot of other managers, Martin O'Neill included, he needs to spend highly to succeed.

 

Not that old guff again.

 

Keegan Transfers

 

Feb 92 - Dec 96

 

Expenditure : £59,955,000

Income: £21,510,000

 

Diff: -£16,935,000

 

Jan 2008 - Sept 08

 

Expenditure: £24,800,000

Income: £17,150,000

 

Diff: -£7,650,000

 

TOTAL Expenditure: £84,755,000

TOTAL Income: £38,660,000

 

TOTAl Difference: £46,095,000

 

[Guest neesy111]

Keegan... like a lot of other managers, Martin O'Neill included, he needs to spend highly to succeed.

 

Not that old guff again.

 

Keegan Transfers

 

Feb 92 - Dec 96

 

Expenditure : £59,955,000

Income: £21,510,000

 

Diff: -£16,935,000

 

Jan 2008 - Sept 08

 

Expenditure: £24,800,000

Income: £17,150,000

 

Diff: -£7,650,000

 

TOTAL Expenditure: £84,755,000

TOTAL Income: £38,660,000

 

TOTAl Difference: £46,095,000

 

 

Need to do maths again.

 

59,955,000 - 21,510,000 is not 16,935,000

[ToonTastic]

Keegan... like a lot of other managers, Martin O'Neill included, he needs to spend highly to succeed.

 

Not that old guff again.

 

Keegan Transfers

 

Feb 92 - Dec 96

 

Expenditure : £59,955,000

Income: £21,510,000

 

Diff: -£16,935,000

 

Jan 2008 - Sept 08

 

Expenditure: £24,800,000

Income: £17,150,000

 

Diff: -£7,650,000

 

TOTAL Expenditure: £84,755,000

TOTAL Income: £38,660,000

 

TOTAl Difference: £46,095,000

 

 

I looked at this just the other day, until I think his last two seasons of his first time here he was pretty much breaking even was he not ? It was only the dealings with the likes of Tino, Shearer and Ferdinand which pushed this up towards -16m. The club was always in Europe and bringing in more than enough money to cover these losses. As for the second period it is over such a short period it's pretty difficult to judge what his purchases and sales would be and how this would effect results. The club did need a full overhaul after Fat Sam remember.

[UV]

Massively skewed by the year we bought Shearer, Sir Les & Tino for £30m.

and including Jan 08-Sept 08  

 

What I hope we all realise now is what we should have done when we finished 6th in '95 was not to have bought those players, but to have tried to bring through some youngsters from the academy. This would surely have had better outcome than bringing in those mercenary trophy signings.

[madras]

I think some people have either forgotten, or have a poor comprehension of what was said in the tribunal findings and need to read it again.

 

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4662583.Keegan_tribunal___read_the_full_transcript

 

Here are some snippets that can hopefully clear some points up for the hard of understanding

 

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).

20. This was repeated by some of the Club's witnesses (i.e. that the position was that Mr Keegan had the final say save for financial or commercial deals) but some of those same witnesses then asserted later in their evidence that Mr Keegan never had the final say and Mr Wise was not prepared to accept that Mr Keegan ever had the final say, even apart from financial and commercials deals.

 

This lack of clarity, indeed confusion, in the understanding of the Club's own representatives as to this critical issue makes it, in our view, even less likely that it would and should have been clear to Mr Keegan from what he was told at the meeting on 16 January 2008 that he would not have the final say.

Two days later, on 31 January 2008, Mr Wise gave an interview in the Chairman's office at the Club which was intended to be and was published on the Club's website (and reported in the national Press) on the following day.

 

In the course of that interview he stated: "I'm not here to be involved in the first team. I am not here to manage. I am here to help Kevin as much as possible in bringing young players through and also recommending certain players to him and he'll say yes and no.

 

"He has the final word and then no one else. I'm not gonna do things like bring players in behind his back. I'm not into that and everything that happens will be run past him and he'll say yes, as I say, or he'll say no".

 

21. We turn, therefore, to consider what were the duties usually associated with the position of a Manager of a Premier League Football Team. On this issue, the evidence was effectively all one way. Mr Keegan's own evidence was that these duties included controlling the players that come into (and out of) the Club (subject, of course, to the financial restraints set by the Board) and significantly he was not cross examined on this evidence (in other words, it was not suggested to him that he was wrong about this). Evidence to the same effect was given by three of the Club's witnesses, Mr Mort, Mr Charnley and Mr Vetere. We heard no evidence to the contrary effect. This also accords with both the understanding and long experience of the non lawyer member of the Tribunal, Mr Merrett, and, for what it is worth, the understanding of the two lawyer members.

 

Accordingly, we have concluded that the duties usually associated with the position of a Premier League Manager included the right, indeed duty, to have the final say as to transfers into the Club and thus that was the position under this Contract.

 

For madras, to address his implication that Keegan wasn't given the full amount of his contract because they thought he was partly to blame:

 

Clause 14.8.1 provided as follows:- "In the event that the Club terminates this Agreement or requires Kevin Keegan to cease being the Manager of the Club at any time during the Term, other than where the Club has grounds to dismiss Kevin Keegan pursuant to Clause 14.1, the Club shall pay to Kevin Keegan pursuant to Clause 14.8.4 a sum of £2million …("Payment in Lieu")".

 

In view of our conclusion on the Sixth Issue, it follows, as was accepted on behalf of Mr Keegan, that he is entitled to no further damages. However, if we had had to address this issue, we would have decided that the publication of a finding by us that Mr Keegan had resigned because he had been constructively dismissed by the Club and not because he had decided to walk away, would restore his reputation and in evidence he agreed with that proposition.

 

Clearly on the last point they were sadly wrong.

 

 

Keegan had a choice. He could have put up with being manipulated and lied to, being forced to lie or stay silent on transfer dealings, and carried on collecting his lucrative wages. Or he could leave and risk the club suing him for £2m for walking out on his contract - the reason he needed to prove constructive dismissal. The fact that some think he should have continued to take the club's money, lie to mislead to supporters (rather than to help with a sale/purchase or for the benefit of a player, etc), and just be a front for the actions of others at the club who did not in his eyes have the best interests of the footballing side of the club at heart says quite a lot about the integrity of those people.

 

On the timing of his departure - if he had stayed and left say at the end of the next season it would have been claimed by the club (with justification) that he had accepted the situation, he would never have won a constructive dismissal case in those circumstances, and would have had to pay the club £2m. There would have been no less of an outcry from supporters then than there was when he did leave, however it would have also had the effect of disrupting that Summer's transfers. If he had left during the Summer, then he would have been accused (with some justification) of "not giving the system a chance". Once again, there would have been no less of an outcry from supporters then than there was when he did leave, and it would have also had the effect of disrupting that Summer's transfers - more than Milner would have most likely put transfer requests in, and we may have had to offer Xisco better wages to join!

 

points 18-20 are exactly what i've said all along re this mythical "final say", the cklub were naive in telling him that without making sure he knew his boundaries.....no manager has the final say, though there chairmen/CEO's will ALL tell you otherwise.

 

re the pay off, not only did the tribunal not give him the extra payment for the damage to his reputation (ie damages) they didn't make the club pay up his contract but held it to the payment in lieu. to my (all be it lay perspective) they are saying "you've won a technical, bitty award so you can stick by the technical arrangemnets, ie the payment in lieu" does it not strike you as strange that he never even got his contract paid up ?

 

i agree very much with quaysides reading of the "leaglese" of the case and i'd still love to no the truth. it seems to me that we wont find out as if the truth did out they'd both be seen in a worse light.

[Guest Shaun]

If this policy of buying good young players or relatively unknown and relatively cheap players whose value will increase is new, what was Dyer? Jenas? Woodgate? Krul? N'Zogbia? Bellamy? Krul? Given? Bernard? Solano? Milner? Acuna?

 

This idea that Ashley is doing something new and revolutionary is such an unbearable load of s***.

Two Krul's?

[madras]

500 jobs created in County Durham to build new trains.

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/02/500-train-building-jobs-to-be-created-in-durham-61634-28262326/

blame ashley that they aren't on tynesdie ?

[Benwell Lad]

500 jobs created in County Durham to build new trains.

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/02/500-train-building-jobs-to-be-created-in-durham-61634-28262326/

 

Piss off man ! 

How can that possibly be newsworthy just two days after the messiah has uttered a few words of innuendo on a sports radio show.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What would constitute vindication for you Ian? Genuine question.

 

In respect of his business model, seeing that other clubs were having to cut wages and spending less on transfer fees in the same way as we are. Continuing to acquire really good players for reasonable fees.

 

Obviously the business side can't be separated from the football side, and that's where the crunch comes. As the Arsenal chief exec said in that great BBC interview recently, the objective of Arsenal FC is to spend every penny they make. Just not spend too much more.

 

In football terms, it'll be difficult to say when Ashley has been vindicated, if it's even possible. I suspect it will never happen unless he delivers a trophy or something else totally unprecedented... his bridges are well and truly burnt with some people.

 

Say we have another 3 or 4 seasons of steady progress, with us maybe qualifying for Europe once or twice, then I would say that we would be as good a position as when he arrived. Depending on how much importance you give to finances, you could argue a better position.

 

Then it also can't be separated from where the club was heading before Ashley. I know you don't agree that our existence was in danger, and you're probably right. Banks are going to be reluctant to force a Premier League club out of business.

 

But I think we can agree that our debt position was unsustainable and something needed to change. We couldn't go on buying Owens and Luques and Duffs - players who weren't up to it for superstar salaries.

 

The way I see it, the only better alternative to Ashley's way is the Man City model - and that's also wrong really.

 

Good respones. Financial stability and a rosier future would be vindication for some, but it's probably going to take a cup or at least European qualification for others. Some just have their mind made up and there will never be vindication.

 

I like your last comment - a bit like saying "I'm not going to bother working too hard or progressing my career, I'll just wait for a lottery win to come along" 

 

Ha ha, not really!

 

I didn't mean it was impossible to achieve success under the Ashley regime. I believe it is, it is just much harder than spending millions on superstars. I don't want the Man City model, I hate it.

[Guest neesy111]

500 jobs created in County Durham to build new trains.

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/02/500-train-building-jobs-to-be-created-in-durham-61634-28262326/

 

Ouch, wrong thread.

[Cronky]

500 jobs created in County Durham to build new trains.

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/02/500-train-building-jobs-to-be-created-in-durham-61634-28262326/

 

Ouch, wrong thread.

 

I was wondering how far off the subject this thread was going to go.

 

Views on Libya, anyone?

[cp40]

oldtype + dave = yup, this argument is pointless.

 

 

 

id still rather finish 2nd than be relegated

[UV]

points 18-20 are exactly what i've said all along re this mythical "final say", the cklub were naive in telling him that without making sure he knew his boundaries.....no manager has the final say, though there chairmen/CEO's will ALL tell you otherwise.

 

It seems you're still having comprehension problems, and don't seem to understand that all the parties accepted that the meaning of the term "final say" in this context is to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of a player, and nothing to do with wanting players outside the financial restraints set by the board.

 

21. We turn, therefore, to consider what were the duties usually associated with the position of a Manager of a Premier League Football Team. On this issue, the evidence was effectively all one way. Mr Keegan's own evidence was that these duties included controlling the players that come into (and out of) the Club (subject, of course, to the financial restraints set by the Board) and significantly he was not cross examined on this evidence (in other words, it was not suggested to him that he was wrong about this). Evidence to the same effect was given by three of the Club's witnesses, Mr Mort, Mr Charnley and Mr Vetere. We heard no evidence to the contrary effect. This also accords with both the understanding and long experience of the non lawyer member of the Tribunal, Mr Merrett, and, for what it is worth, the understanding of the two lawyer members.

 

Accordingly, we have concluded that the duties usually associated with the position of a Premier League Manager included the right, indeed duty, to have the final say as to transfers into the Club and thus that was the position under this Contract.

 

Keegan accepted there were financial restraints, he very likely wasn't happy with what they were, but that was not the issue which caused him to be constructively dismissed, it was the fact that the club signed a player when he explicitly and forcefully told them he did not want them to. This proved beyond doubt that club had broken the contract, however it's pretty likely (it's strongly implied in the report) that even without this explicit example, they would have found in Keegan's favour anyway as Dennis Wise was happy to tell them that he was within his remit to ignore the views of the manager and it was in fact he who would decide who was bought or sold by the club. There are very few managers, and certainly no top ones who would accept that situation unless they themselves were happy to put the responsibility in that person's hands.

 

Are you seriously trying to suggest that it's an everyday occurrence at Man U or Arsenal say that Wenger & Ferguson get told that a player is going to be brought into the first team squad, and when they say they don't want him the club goes fuck you we're bringing him in anyway?

 

re the pay off, not only did the tribunal not give him the extra payment for the damage to his reputation (ie damages) they didn't make the club pay up his contract but held it to the payment in lieu. to my (all be it lay perspective) they are saying "you've won a technical, bitty award so you can stick by the technical arrangemnets, ie the payment in lieu" does it not strike you as strange that he never even got his contract paid up ?

 

Constructively dismissed = dismissed = £2m payoff explicitly stated in contract

 

What part of that don't you understand?

 

Keegan's lawyers tried to argue that as the contract was broken by the club it was all null and void so that part of the contract shouldn't hold, but they were ruled against, and rightly so IMO. They also tried to argue that he should get compensation because his reputation had been sullied. The ruling was that the report findings would be enough to restore his reputation. They were very naive and wrong on that count and his reputation has undoubtedly been damaged, so he probably should have received compensation for that.

 

i agree very much with quaysides reading of the "leaglese" of the case and i'd still love to no the truth. it seems to me that we wont find out as if the truth did out they'd both be seen in a worse light.

 

You're just a nosey parker. When stuff like that comes out, both parties are damaged as negatives will be focused upon, but I'd stake my life the club would come out by far the worse of the two to any independent party.

[Dr Venkman]

thats an extremely important point. final say doesnt mean give him the credit card and let him go wild. it means no-one comes or goes without his say-so, THATS what managers do. thats also Ashleys worst nightmare because he wants to able to accept/reject bids, hence alan pardew.

 

[colinmk]

thats an extremely important point. final say doesnt mean give him the credit card and let him go wild. it means no-one comes or goes without his say-so, THATS what managers do. thats also Ashleys worst nightmare because he wants to able to accept/reject bids, hence alan pardew.

 

 

Seems to be the long and short of it from where I am standing. Like Keegan said, he had agreed to the transfer and thought it was a good price, as long as he was able to get in a suitable replacement which every manager would want to do.

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

Keegan... like a lot of other managers, Martin O'Neill included, he needs to spend highly to succeed.

 

Not that old guff again.

 

Keegan Transfers

 

Feb 92 - Dec 96

 

Expenditure : £59,955,000

Income: £21,510,000

 

Diff: -£38,445,000

 

Jan 2008 - Sept 08

 

Expenditure: £24,800,000

Income: £17,150,000

 

Diff: -£7,650,000

 

TOTAL Expenditure: £84,755,000

TOTAL Income: £38,660,000

 

TOTAl Difference: £46,095,000

 

 

You've not quoted my argument though, which was that Keegan achieved considerable success on next to no money before he started spending the money that success brought and making us even more successful.

[Punk77]

thats an extremely important point. final say doesnt mean give him the credit card and let him go wild. it means no-one comes or goes without his say-so, THATS what managers do. thats also Ashleys worst nightmare because he wants to able to accept/reject bids, hence alan pardew.

 

MA didn't appoint Pardew so he could veto him.  If a manager decides to sell or buy a player, he needs a sanction from the board, since this is a major decision for a club. This goes for all managers. However, the manager's clout my be of significance. The board will probably listen more to a Wenger or a SAF than a Pardew. This may especially be of importance when there's no actor owns the majority of the stock. MA on the other hand, owns every stock in NUFC, so he doesn't need to take this into consideration. There may of course be disagreement within the board, but when big daddy says enough is enough, the rest listens.

 

Most managers do of course have a say when players are to be sold or bought. And they have probably a decisive voice too. BUT, they do not have a veto. That is the same as saying that a manager can override the board, taking on ECONOMICAL responsibilities that the club cannot handle. If a club needs to sell, due to the economical situation, he cannot veto this. But the board will probably inform the manager how much costs need to be reduced, and ask him to choose  players accordingly.  So in this case, the manager functions more as an advisor.

 

On the other hand, the situation may be different if the manager is granted a specific sum to purchase players for. In this situation, he will probably have a de facto veto over which players to buy. The sanction from the board will be only a formality. The real  battle was fought previously, when deciding how MUCH to buy for. When this amount was set,  the manager had only a  advisory role, where he informed the board how much he needs to continue. The ultimate decision on the other hand, lied with the board and not the manager.

 

In sum, there's no such thing as a veto, and MA role is special since he's sole owner of the club. He can accept and reject bids regardless of who's running the club. The question that needs to be asked is, did he choose Pardew because he knew that he would offer less resistance than a more prolific manager? That he probably did. And Pardew's acceptance of an irregular contract (very result oriented)  could also be a significant factor

[Scoreboard82]

Not really his place to be publicly commenting on it tbh. Should just wait and see, like the rest of us. Coming out with s*** like this is not helping the club.

He commented on the subject as a football pundit. Why shouldn't he? His job is to express an opinion on how he sees things in the game. As for not helping the club, his efforts to help the club as manager were cast aside. It's no longer his job to help any club. Having said that i hope Ashley proves him wrong and hands over the money.

[cp40]

Keegan... like a lot of other managers, Martin O'Neill included, he needs to spend highly to succeed.

 

Not that old guff again.

 

Keegan Transfers

 

Feb 92 - Dec 96

 

Expenditure : £59,955,000

Income: £21,510,000

 

Diff: -£16,935,000

 

Jan 2008 - Sept 08

 

Expenditure: £24,800,000

Income: £17,150,000

 

Diff: -£7,650,000

 

TOTAL Expenditure: £84,755,000

TOTAL Income: £38,660,000

 

TOTAl Difference: £46,095,000

 

 

 

nice numbers.

 

still not convinced getting relegated is better than finishing second.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why do you keep posting that cp40, what's your point? That finances don't matter as long as results improve?

[cp40]

Why do you keep posting that cp40, what's your point? That finances don't matter as long as results improve?

 

just to wind people like you up

 

 

tbh tho, its to make a valid point, people are discrediting Keegan, yet choosing to ignore his record at league finishes here. even considering those quoted figures , it equates to what? approximately 10 million a season to see entertaining attacking football, and finish high up the league- I wonder what Relegation cost us- more or less than 10 million a season?

 

People who want to attack keegan need to look at sheffields clubs , because I honestly believe without what he achieved here- thats the sort of club  we were and would still be.