José Enrique

[Dafydd 0]

With Johnson on the right and Enrique on the left we would have the best full backs in the prem. We already got the best strike force with Carroll and Suarez, the two best centre mids with Gerrard and Meireles. All we need now is a winger.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

With Johnson on the right and Enrique on the left we would have the best full backs in the prem. We already got the best strike force with Carroll and Suarez, the two best centre mids with Gerrard and Meireles. All we need now is a winger.

 

hold your horses, not sure you can say that lot are the best in the land just yet.

 

fair play to your owners though, at least they're showing some ambition.

[Phil 6]

"Rulings have to be backed up with provable evidence; or technicalities as you call them"

 

So why not use a better example? Surely the tribunal would only focus on the Gonzalez deal if there was evidence which didnt exist for other transfers. I have to admit, i wasn't aware of the perspective on events that Phil is putting forward

Presumably because neither party had been recording the previous discussions/debates/ arguments?

 

"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”

 

What do you think these conclusions were and how did they arrive at them?

 

There conclusions were that everything prior to Gonzalez was irrelevant. i.e. there was no valid reason for Keegan to leave.

 

They do actually go back to mention Keegan was aware that Wise would be appointed as DoF before he took on the job, but say this has no bearing on who has final say.

 

You appear to have read the document, but have no understanding of the fact the whole thing is centred around Gonzalez. Did you read the unedited PDF or a summary on a blog - such as nufc.com?

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c...6~147392,00.pdf

I read the pdf, and I'm not unfamiliar with legal speak.

 

The Gonzalez transfer was the knockout blow to the head, but to assume this means there weren’t a number of body shots is simplistic and unrealistic.

 

 

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

[Giraffidae 0]

With Johnson on the right and Enrique on the left we would have the best full backs in the prem. We already got the best strike force with Carroll and Suarez, the two best centre mids with Gerrard and Meireles. All we need now is a winger.

WTF, since when was Johnson anywhere near being the best full back in the premiership?

[Toonpack 9452]

"Rulings have to be backed up with provable evidence; or technicalities as you call them"

 

So why not use a better example? Surely the tribunal would only focus on the Gonzalez deal if there was evidence which didnt exist for other transfers. I have to admit, i wasn't aware of the perspective on events that Phil is putting forward

Presumably because neither party had been recording the previous discussions/debates/ arguments?

 

"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”

 

What do you think these conclusions were and how did they arrive at them?

 

There conclusions were that everything prior to Gonzalez was irrelevant. i.e. there was no valid reason for Keegan to leave.

 

They do actually go back to mention Keegan was aware that Wise would be appointed as DoF before he took on the job, but say this has no bearing on who has final say.

 

You appear to have read the document, but have no understanding of the fact the whole thing is centred around Gonzalez. Did you read the unedited PDF or a summary on a blog - such as nufc.com?

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c...6~147392,00.pdf

I read the pdf, and I'm not unfamiliar with legal speak.

 

The Gonzalez transfer was the knockout blow to the head, but to assume this means there weren’t a number of body shots is simplistic and unrealistic.

 

 

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

There'll be some intense comeback on that one !! That said, if you think about it, you would put your strongest "gripe" into the case and if indeed as it appears that's Gonzales it's pretty much like winning on a technicality. Gonna read that PDF methinks.

 

and Gloom, I'll come back to your "hate" list when I have time.

[acrossthepond 877]

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

You keep bleating on "it's solely about Gonzalez." No. Gonzalez was the symptom; the cause was that KK was lied to - as the tribunal proves - about whether or not "he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club." He was told he would. He didn't. That's why he walked.

 

You're the one on the smear campaign when you go "to sue 'us' for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic." Firstly, 'us?' I don't think there's anyone on this board - other than possibly you and other N-O Ashley fanboys of your ilk - who think that Keegan sued 'us.' He sued his employers, Newcastle United Football Club, for breaching the contract they made with him. He was perfectly within his rights to do so, as the tribunal decision ultimately ruled, and he deserved the ruling in his favour.

 

Next up is "25 million." We've heard plenty of nonsense from Llambias and the club's PR machine that 25 million would have bankrupted us, etc etc. I thought it was pretty plain that he picked a large number in order to make a smaller payment seem more realistic - lawyers tell you you'll never win anything if you sue a corporation for small change, better to scare them with a big number - but I accept that this is open to interpretation of "greedy KK" and the like. Of course, anyone who remembers what the man did for our club knows that he wasn't out to bankrupt NUFC or do anything of the kind. If he were greedy, he would've waited to be sacked at England instead of walking when it was obvious that the fans were against him.

 

Now, "loop hole." Is it a "loop hole" to sue your employer after your contract is breached? I'd think, knowing KK - and you do know him, right? - you would realise that he was very involved with the buying and selling of players, and I find it incredibly unlikely that he would've seen having the final say on transfers into the club as a minor part of his job, worthy of the appellation of "loop hole." There were no legal tricks or other prestidigitation that should see this lawsuit labelled as a loop hole.

 

And finally, "shameful and pathetic." Well, I find it shameful and pathetic that Ashley and his cronies would lie to a club legend about his role, basically bringing him to the club under false premises. I find it shameful and pathetic that a club legend should be imposed upon to buy (utterly useless) players that Dennis Wise, a poisonous dwarf whose memorable qualities include taking Leeds down to the third division and kicking the living shit out of a cabbie in the East End, scouted on Youtube. I find it shameful and pathetic that people could still be arguing, nearly four years down the line, that Ashley and Llambias are anything but liars and that Kevin Keegan is the villain of this story.

[ChezGiven 0]

thought it was pretty plain that he picked a large number in order to make a smaller payment seem more realistic - lawyers tell you you'll never win anything if you sue a corporation for small change, better to scare them with a big number

 

Thats wrong. On all counts. You are more likely to lose through such behaviour as the judge may consider your claim as frivolous and damage your overall claim. It should be an appropriate amount, not unrealistic to support a playground-level strategy which assumes the judge is stupid enough to be influenced by the size of the claim. This is law, not swapping marbles.

 

The 25m was an appropriate number too, since KK was brave enough to sue a football club for constructive dismissal. There may have been another club willing to take on an employee with a record of suing a club but as the act of suing marks you out, the law allows for a lifetime earnings loss claim.

 

This part of KK's claim was not upheld, for whatever reason, meaning that this was not an equivocal ruling in favour of KK. People dont like to hear that but thats the up and down of it. Its been denied on this idea that the 25m was a tactic but as i say, thats bollocks and was made up by people to account for a detail that didnt fit their argument.

[timnufc 0]

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

Your suggesting it was 'only' the Gonzalez deal, but what did that deal consist of? It consisted of Wise undermining the whole working relationship with Keegan, it consisted of breaking any trust between the two. How? Because Wise came to Keegan and said he's 'found a great player called Gonzalez'... when Keegan looked at his credentials and said he could find much about him, Wise told him to watch on youtube. After watching the video, Keegan told Wise he didnt want the player, he hadnt seen enough to say he'd be good enough. Once Keegan had said no, Wise then turned around and told him actually this deal is a favour for some agents and nothing to do with football, so he'll be going ahead with it anyway.

 

Think about that for a second... any professional respect has been totally broken by that bloody conversation, 'I've got a great player for you' - 2 seconds later - 'dont care if you dont want him, I've actually never seen him play either, its really a favour for agents so shut up and get on with your job'... how is that a workable set up? How can that set up carry on with any trust and respect? Its not just a simple disagreement, its the manager being totally undermined. The way this deal transpired is all in the tribunal report, just not picked up. Obviously Keegan told Ashley & Llambias he is not happy with the situation and does not want this player, and Ashley let his mate go ahead with it knowing the situation. What does that tell Keegan about Ashley, the man at the top?

[Phil 6]

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

You keep bleating on "it's solely about Gonzalez." No. Gonzalez was the symptom; the cause was that KK was lied to - as the tribunal proves - about whether or not "he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club." He was told he would. He didn't. That's why he walked. You can't take the Gonzalez part out of the statement without changing the entire context of the case. Dont forget the club wrote to Keegan on the 4th of September to confirm he still had final say on all transfer except commercial deals such as Gonzalez and they said over and over again they didn't want him to leave.

 

You're the one on the smear campaign when you go "to sue 'us' for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic." Firstly, 'us?' I don't think there's anyone on this board - other than possibly you and other N-O Ashley fanboys of your ilk - who think that Keegan sued 'us.' He sued his employers, Newcastle United Football Club, for breaching the contract they made with him. He was perfectly within his rights to do so, as the tribunal decision ultimately ruled, and he deserved the ruling in his favour.-That money would have came out of the club. So either way you try and spin it, we'd have foot the bill.

 

Next up is "25 million." We've heard plenty of nonsense from Llambias and the club's PR machine that 25 million would have bankrupted us, etc etc. I thought it was pretty plain that he picked a large number in order to make a smaller payment seem more realistic - lawyers tell you you'll never win anything if you sue a corporation for small change, better to scare them with a big number - but I accept that this is open to interpretation of "greedy KK" and the like. Of course, anyone who remembers what the man did for our club knows that he wasn't out to bankrupt NUFC or do anything of the kind. If he were greedy, he would've waited to be sacked at England instead of walking when it was obvious that the fans were against him.-suing the club is not like haggling for a second hand car. He put in his reasons and had it not been for his contract exit clause he would have got a hefty payout.

 

Now, "loop hole." Is it a "loop hole" to sue your employer after your contract is breached? I'd think, knowing KK - and you do know him, right? - you would realise that he was very involved with the buying and selling of players, and I find it incredibly unlikely that he would've seen having the final say on transfers into the club as a minor part of his job, worthy of the appellation of "loop hole." There were no legal tricks or other prestidigitation that should see this lawsuit labelled as a loop hole. -the point still stands. Gonzalez was his case. Not Milner. So claiming a bigger win is factually incorrect.

 

And finally, "shameful and pathetic." Well, I find it shameful and pathetic that Ashley and his cronies would lie to a club legend about his role, basically bringing him to the club under false premises. I find it shameful and pathetic that a club legend should be imposed upon to buy (utterly useless) players that Dennis Wise, a poisonous dwarf whose memorable qualities include taking Leeds down to the third division and kicking the living shit out of a cabbie in the East End, scouted on Youtube. I find it shameful and pathetic that people could still be arguing, nearly four years down the line, that Ashley and Llambias are anything but liars and that Kevin Keegan is the villain of this story.-Claiming damages of more than his wages (10m) was not right and puts him in the same category as people that fake whiplash.

[ewerk 30642]

Phil managing to out-Phil himself here.

[Phil 6]

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

Your suggesting it was 'only' the Gonzalez deal, but what did that deal consist of? It consisted of Wise undermining the whole working relationship with Keegan, it consisted of breaking any trust between the two. How? Because Wise came to Keegan and said he's 'found a great player called Gonzalez'... when Keegan looked at his credentials and said he could find much about him, Wise told him to watch on youtube. After watching the video, Keegan told Wise he didnt want the player, he hadnt seen enough to say he'd be good enough. Once Keegan had said no, Wise then turned around and told him actually this deal is a favour for some agents and nothing to do with football, so he'll be going ahead with it anyway.

 

Think about that for a second... any professional respect has been totally broken by that bloody conversation, 'I've got a great player for you' - 2 seconds later - 'dont care if you dont want him, I've actually never seen him play either, its really a favour for agents so shut up and get on with your job'... how is that a workable set up? How can that set up carry on with any trust and respect? Its not just a simple disagreement, its the manager being totally undermined. The way this deal transpired is all in the tribunal report, just not picked up. Obviously Keegan told Ashley & Llambias he is not happy with the situation and does not want this player, and Ashley let his mate go ahead with it knowing the situation. What does that tell Keegan about Ashley, the man at the top?

 

I don't see the issue with doing an influential south american agent a favour, which it has been confirmed cost us nothing. Just stick him in the reserves.

 

I think its a scape goat anyway. Milner replacement was the bigger issue. I think we had someone lined up (similar to Routledges replacement) and it fell through. Probably over Dekka's offering peanuts for wages.

 

Keegan said at the time on Milner;

'He's a player, in an ideal world, you would not want to lose, but I just want to make it absolutely clear that at the end of the day, it was my decision to sell him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...ision-sell.html

 

 

I doubt he made that decision without something in the pipeline, maybe there was truth in the rumour of Bastian Schweinsteiger;

http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/new...er-cheap-971181

Edited April 14, 2011 by Phil

[Toonpack 9452]

I thought it was pretty plain that he picked a large number in order to make a smaller payment seem more realistic - lawyers tell you you'll never win anything if you sue a corporation for small change, better to scare them with a big number -

 

That may be true in US law, but in the UK, you sue for what you believe you should be awarded and you have to be able to justify that amount.

 

I had to do it once (breach of contract) with QC's etc involved, not for a Keeganesque sum but it was for 6 figures. I had to justify the claim to my brief and my QC had to defend/represent it in court. I won an all, twats liquidated about 6 months thereafter and I ended up with about 20% of what I should have got in the end though

[timnufc 0]

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

 

Your suggesting it was 'only' the Gonzalez deal, but what did that deal consist of? It consisted of Wise undermining the whole working relationship with Keegan, it consisted of breaking any trust between the two. How? Because Wise came to Keegan and said he's 'found a great player called Gonzalez'... when Keegan looked at his credentials and said he could find much about him, Wise told him to watch on youtube. After watching the video, Keegan told Wise he didnt want the player, he hadnt seen enough to say he'd be good enough. Once Keegan had said no, Wise then turned around and told him actually this deal is a favour for some agents and nothing to do with football, so he'll be going ahead with it anyway.

 

Think about that for a second... any professional respect has been totally broken by that bloody conversation, 'I've got a great player for you' - 2 seconds later - 'dont care if you dont want him, I've actually never seen him play either, its really a favour for agents so shut up and get on with your job'... how is that a workable set up? How can that set up carry on with any trust and respect? Its not just a simple disagreement, its the manager being totally undermined. The way this deal transpired is all in the tribunal report, just not picked up. Obviously Keegan told Ashley & Llambias he is not happy with the situation and does not want this player, and Ashley let his mate go ahead with it knowing the situation. What does that tell Keegan about Ashley, the man at the top?

 

I don't see the issue with doing an influential south american agent a favour, which it has been confirmed cost us nothing. Just stick him in the reserves.

 

I think its a scape goat anyway. Milner replacement was the bigger issue. I think we had someone lined up (similar to Routledges replacement) and it fell through. Probably over Dekka's offering peanuts for wages.

 

Keegan said at the time on Milner;

'He's a player, in an ideal world, you would not want to lose, but I just want to make it absolutely clear that at the end of the day, it was my decision to sell him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...ision-sell.html

 

 

I doubt he made that decision without something in the pipeline, maybe there was truth in the rumour of Bastian Schweinsteiger;

http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/new...er-cheap-971181

 

re the bit in bold... I see a massive problem, and Im staggered you arnt asking this question yourself: Where on earth are these top south american youngsters then? That deal was done 3 years ago, so where are they? What a deal that was. Secondly, your missing the break of trust that conversation brought about. Like I said, its not just about the deal going ahead, its about Wise lying about the nature of the deal in such a blatent way, showing no respect and undermining the whole DOF set-up.

 

Like someone said, when they clarified his position, they stated commercial deals are soley at the boards discrection... and what do you class as a commercial deal..? Thats dangerous territory, and it was not written into his orignal contract, so they were trying to change his contract basically. If he'd accepted those terms and carried on, he could have been shafted by Ashley & his mates much more and not had a leg to stand on when complaining about it.

[Guest Your Name Here]

"Rulings have to be backed up with provable evidence; or technicalities as you call them"

 

So why not use a better example? Surely the tribunal would only focus on the Gonzalez deal if there was evidence which didnt exist for other transfers. I have to admit, i wasn't aware of the perspective on events that Phil is putting forward

Presumably because neither party had been recording the previous discussions/debates/ arguments?

 

"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”

 

What do you think these conclusions were and how did they arrive at them?

 

There conclusions were that everything prior to Gonzalez was irrelevant. i.e. there was no valid reason for Keegan to leave.

 

They do actually go back to mention Keegan was aware that Wise would be appointed as DoF before he took on the job, but say this has no bearing on who has final say.

 

You appear to have read the document, but have no understanding of the fact the whole thing is centred around Gonzalez. Did you read the unedited PDF or a summary on a blog - such as nufc.com?

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c...6~147392,00.pdf

I read the pdf, and I'm not unfamiliar with legal speak.

 

The Gonzalez transfer was the knockout blow to the head, but to assume this means there weren’t a number of body shots is simplistic and unrealistic.

 

 

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

When KK left SJP there were a significant number of people who sided with Ashley, claiming KK was a serial quitter and generally bad mouthing the man largely responsible for turning NUFC from a fucked up club in terminal decline into a genuine force in the PL. Everyone else looked at what kind of men the protagonists were and backed KK. The outcome of tribunal not only vindicated KK assertion he was forced out but also exposed the current regime as unashamed liars.

 

That should have been an end to the matter. As it is those who called it wrong seem unable to accept the error of their judgement. Now that’s shameful and pathetic.

 

As a player and manager KK spent the best part of ten years on Tyneside before Ashley arrived on the scene, and I never heard anyone have a bad word to say about him. Perfect he is not, but he’s fundamentally a decent bloke with a good heart. It’s open to debate whether the same can be said of Mr Ashley.

[Phil 6]

When KK left SJP there were a significant number of people who sided with Ashley, claiming KK was a serial quitter and generally bad mouthing the man largely responsible for turning NUFC from a fucked up club in terminal decline into a genuine force in the PL. Everyone else looked at what kind of men the protagonists were and backed KK.

-So what you're saying is people picked sides without looking at the facts. At the time I just felt let down by the lack of information.

 

The outcome of tribunal not only vindicated KK assertion he was forced out but also exposed the current regime as unashamed liars.

-no it didn't. it showed Wise imposed Gonzalez on Keegan.

 

 

That should have been an end to the matter. As it is those who called it wrong seem unable to accept the error of their judgement. Now that’s shameful and pathetic.

I will always pull people up on quoting the Keegan camp as the tribunal. Especially the outlandish misuse of this Keegan quote;

 

5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United.

 

As a player and manager KK spent the best part of ten years on Tyneside before Ashley arrived on the scene, and I never heard anyone have a bad word to say about him. Perfect he is not, but he’s fundamentally a decent bloke with a good heart. It’s open to debate whether the same can be said of Mr Ashley.

-Makes the 25m part harder to swallow, tbf.

[LeazesMag 0]

Presumably because neither party had been recording the previous discussions/debates/ arguments?

 

"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”

 

What do you think these conclusions were and how did they arrive at them?

 

There conclusions were that everything prior to Gonzalez was irrelevant. i.e. there was no valid reason for Keegan to leave.

 

They do actually go back to mention Keegan was aware that Wise would be appointed as DoF before he took on the job, but say this has no bearing on who has final say.

 

You appear to have read the document, but have no understanding of the fact the whole thing is centred around Gonzalez. Did you read the unedited PDF or a summary on a blog - such as nufc.com?

 

 

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/c...6~147392,00.pdf

I read the pdf, and I'm not unfamiliar with legal speak.

 

The Gonzalez transfer was the knockout blow to the head, but to assume this means there weren’t a number of body shots is simplistic and unrealistic.

 

 

Actually to say anything other than it was all about Gonzalez is a lie. Which is why I pointed out someone quoting the Keegan camps fabrication as the tribunal as wholey incorrect.

 

Please reread the introduction, its in plain English - no legal speak.

 

"In these proceedings, Kevin Keegan claims damages for what he says was his constructive dismissal by Newcastle United Football Club Ltd (the Club) in early September 2008. He contends that when he was appointed as the Manager of the Club on 16 January 2008 (until 30 June 2011) it was a term of his Contract or otherwise agreed that he would have the final say as to transfers of players into the Club (“the final say”). He says that on 31 August 2008, the Club breached that term by signing a Uruguayan player, Ignacio Gonzalez, expressly against his wishes, that this breach amounted to a repudiation of his Contract and that he was therefore entitled to resign which he did on 4 September 2008."

 

 

The club wasn't on a vendetta or smear campaign as the Keegan camp alluded to.

 

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Keegan didn't like working with Wise and wanted out, almost every person on this board have decisions at work they don't like. Which is fine, Keegan can walk if he doesn't like how things are being run, but to sue us for 25 million using a loop hole is shameful and pathetic. And the stupid people who misquote the Keegan camp need it pointing out it was all about Gonzalez.

When KK left SJP there were a significant number of people who sided with Ashley, claiming KK was a serial quitter and generally bad mouthing the man largely responsible for turning NUFC from a fucked up club in terminal decline into a genuine force in the PL. Everyone else looked at what kind of men the protagonists were and backed KK. The outcome of tribunal not only vindicated KK assertion he was forced out but also exposed the current regime as unashamed liars.

 

That should have been an end to the matter. As it is those who called it wrong seem unable to accept the error of their judgement. Now that’s shameful and pathetic.

 

As a player and manager KK spent the best part of ten years on Tyneside before Ashley arrived on the scene, and I never heard anyone have a bad word to say about him. Perfect he is not, but he’s fundamentally a decent bloke with a good heart. It’s open to debate whether the same can be said of Mr Ashley.

 

Newcastle United supporters owe Kevin Keegan everything, in terms of what he has done for the club. Without him, we would have spiralled into the 3rd division if not even further down into the 4th. This club was facing the abyss when he took that managers job, and supposedly bigger managers - like Bobby Robson with all due respect to a great manager and a wonderful man, and Jack Charlton who didn't want the job either when he had it - he was the ONLY person who had the bottle to take it when it needed someone to stand up and save it.

 

Lack of bottle ? No balls ? A quitter ? These people are joking, he is a true NUFC hero and legend, and deserves all the praise we give him.

[AgentAxeman 181]

Lack of bottle ? No balls ? A quitter ? These people are joking, he is a true NUFC hero and legend, and deserves all the praise we give him.

 

 

In a nutshell.

[sniffer 0]

Keegan is a hero. He is a legend.

 

I still wish he'd had a bit more backbone and put up a fight as opposed to taking off.

[Craig 6682]

Johnson's not even the best LB at the Liverpool man, that's an insult to Martin Kelly.

 

And Meireles? Absolute garbage!

[peasepud 59]

Anyone else think Enrique deal is part of Carroll one? "35m and first dibs on Enrique"

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Lack of bottle ? No balls ? A quitter ? These people are joking, he is a true NUFC hero and legend, and deserves all the praise we give him.

Amen to that, brother.

 

Did Phil used to be PhilK on the old board?

[Craig 6682]

Anyone else think Enrique deal is part of Carroll one? "35m and first dibs on Enrique"

 

It'd probably account for why the price hiked by £10m all of a sudden.

[timnufc 0]

When KK left SJP there were a significant number of people who sided with Ashley, claiming KK was a serial quitter and generally bad mouthing the man largely responsible for turning NUFC from a fucked up club in terminal decline into a genuine force in the PL. Everyone else looked at what kind of men the protagonists were and backed KK.

-So what you're saying is people picked sides without looking at the facts. At the time I just felt let down by the lack of information.

 

The outcome of tribunal not only vindicated KK assertion he was forced out but also exposed the current regime as unashamed liars.

-no it didn't. it showed Wise imposed Gonzalez on Keegan.

 

 

That should have been an end to the matter. As it is those who called it wrong seem unable to accept the error of their judgement. Now that’s shameful and pathetic.

I will always pull people up on quoting the Keegan camp as the tribunal. Especially the outlandish misuse of this Keegan quote;

 

5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United.

 

As a player and manager KK spent the best part of ten years on Tyneside before Ashley arrived on the scene, and I never heard anyone have a bad word to say about him. Perfect he is not, but he’s fundamentally a decent bloke with a good heart. It’s open to debate whether the same can be said of Mr Ashley.

-Makes the 25m part harder to swallow, tbf.

 

I say again, Im staggered you arnt asking this question yourself: Where on earth are these top south american youngsters then? That deal was done 3 years ago, so where are they? What a deal that was. Secondly, your missing the break of trust that conversation brought about. Like I said, its not just about the deal going ahead, its about Wise lying about the nature of the deal in such a blatent way, showing no respect and undermining the whole DOF set-up. He was well and truly shafted, and a simple mention like 'over the Gonzalez deal' dosent cover what is in the tribunal, and how this deal came about.

 

Have you read the report? How can you say it only shows Gonzalez was imposed? It showed they lied to the fans and Keegan about transfers, lied about Gonzalez being a "great player" they'd "seen him play", showed they tried to change his contract - not try resolve issues as they claimed, one witness at the club claimed Wise would not have taken the job if he didnt have final say on transfers, and the report basically shows them to be a) as clueless as you can imagine about the management structure or B. caught up in their own lies at the tribunal hearing. This isnt my opinion, its just whats in the report, so why are you saying otherwise??

 

Like someone said, when they clarified his position, they stated commercial deals are soley at the boards discrection... and what do you class as a commercial deal..? Thats dangerous territory, and it was not written into his orignal contract, so they were trying to change his contract basically. If he'd accepted those terms and carried on, he could have been shafted by Ashley & his mates much more and not had a leg to stand on when complaining about it.

 

I can understand wanting clarification on the 25m claim, I would myself, I dont know if he's been advised badly or his lawyers were simply making the point about stigma damages (which are very true damages) but I was suprised by the figure myself.

Edited April 14, 2011 by timnufc

[Phil 6]

When KK left SJP there were a significant number of people who sided with Ashley, claiming KK was a serial quitter and generally bad mouthing the man largely responsible for turning NUFC from a fucked up club in terminal decline into a genuine force in the PL. Everyone else looked at what kind of men the protagonists were and backed KK.

-So what you're saying is people picked sides without looking at the facts. At the time I just felt let down by the lack of information.

 

The outcome of tribunal not only vindicated KK assertion he was forced out but also exposed the current regime as unashamed liars.

-no it didn't. it showed Wise imposed Gonzalez on Keegan.

 

 

That should have been an end to the matter. As it is those who called it wrong seem unable to accept the error of their judgement. Now that’s shameful and pathetic.

I will always pull people up on quoting the Keegan camp as the tribunal. Especially the outlandish misuse of this Keegan quote;

 

5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United.

 

As a player and manager KK spent the best part of ten years on Tyneside before Ashley arrived on the scene, and I never heard anyone have a bad word to say about him. Perfect he is not, but he’s fundamentally a decent bloke with a good heart. It’s open to debate whether the same can be said of Mr Ashley.

-Makes the 25m part harder to swallow, tbf.

 

I say again, Im staggered you arnt asking this question yourself: Where on earth are these top south american youngsters then? That deal was done 3 years ago, so where are they? What a deal that was.

Wise left the club, so any plans he had in south america went with him.

 

Secondly, your missing the break of trust that conversation brought about. Like I said, its not just about the deal going ahead, its about Wise lying about the nature of the deal in such a blatent way, showing no respect and undermining the whole DOF set-up.

Wise never lied about the deal, hence its inclusion in the case. So we can discount that as a myth.

 

He was well and truly shafted, and a simple mention like 'over the Gonzalez deal' dosent cover what is in the tribunal, and how this deal came about.

I dont buy into the fact Gonzalez was the reason he left and think he'd have left even if Gonzalez wasn't signed.

 

Have you read the report? How can you say it only shows Gonzalez was imposed? It showed they lied to the fans and Keegan about transfers,

What exactly do you think the club lied about? ...... Gonzalez was only player imposed on him. Milner, Colo, Xisco, Guthrie, Bassong all omitted from the tribunal - speaks volumes.

 

lied about Gonzalez being a "great player" they'd "seen him play"

I've got this player, he's sh*t - isn't the best sales pitch.

 

showed they tried to change his contract - not try resolve issues as they claimed

“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."

 

one witness at the club claimed Wise would not have taken the job if he didnt have final say on transfers, and the report basically shows them to be a) as clueless as you can imagine about the management structure or B. caught up in their own lies at the tribunal hearing. This isnt my opinion, its just whats in the report, so why are you saying otherwise??

I've not mentioned the witness as they didn't add anything to the case.

 

 

Like someone said, when they clarified his position, they stated commercial deals are soley at the boards discrection... and what do you class as a commercial deal..? Thats dangerous territory, and it was not written into his orignal contract, so they were trying to change his contract basically.

Keegan didn't have the final say written into his contract. It was agreed that Wise and the Clubs statements made it implied. Ashley said he thought it was "“blindingly obvious" that a DoF would have input on the commercial aspect of the football club. So they were looking to make it formal.

 

If he'd accepted those terms and carried on, he could have been shafted by Ashley & his mates much more and not had a leg to stand on when complaining about it.

Shafted with another loan player being imposed on him.

 

 

I can understand wanting clarification on the 25m claim, I would myself, I dont know if he's been advised badly or his lawyers were simply making the point about stigma damages (which are very true damages) but I was suprised by the figure myself.

 

 

 

Why do you think Keegan left - Gonzalez, Wise, Final Say?

[Kitman 2207]

Newcastle United supporters owe Kevin Keegan everything, in terms of what he has done for the club. Without him, we would have spiralled into the 3rd division if not even further down into the 4th. This club was facing the abyss when he took that managers job, and supposedly bigger managers - like Bobby Robson with all due respect to a great manager and a wonderful man, and Jack Charlton who didn't want the job either when he had it - he was the ONLY person who had the bottle to take it when it needed someone to stand up and save it.

 

Lack of bottle ? No balls ? A quitter ? These people are joking, he is a true NUFC hero and legend, and deserves all the praise we give him.

 

I couldn't agree more LM. To paint KK as a money grabbing cunt is absurd. Shit patter like Phil's is why I stopped going on N-O.