Craig 6700 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) The "we don't buy players so I don't care' crack is a bit shit, does the worrying trend of making profits in the windows make anyone else worry that more players will be sold to reimburse Ashley should he lose this case? Edited September 23, 2009 by Hova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 To be honest, we've no idea how much he's been offered, if anything. Where's the £4m come from? But he's in dispute with his former employer and that's who he is taking to court. Either way, I think it's worth waiting for the outcome of the tribunal first. £4m comes from The Times admittedly, but all the same, I like Keegan as much as the next fan but it's like he can do no wrong around here. He deserves something for the exit he was forced into but for him to sit and try and take as much as he can from the club is not something that sits particularly well with me. Who's saying he can do no wrong? All I was saying is if it turns out the tribunal deems he was wrongfully dismissed he'll be entitled to it. If he has been offered £4m Ashley can't exactly be confident he's going to win, can he? Also, if KK just took the money, those already against him would no doubt say that proved he was only interested in the cash (since it would certainly only be given under the strict condition that he kept quiet in public about what really happened). Aye, that's the bit I was referring to when I asked the question "it's like" suggests that nobody SAID he could do no wrong, alex... While it may not explicitly state that people said 'he can do no wrong' it certainly doesn't suggest that no one said that either. Not that it was the main thrust of my post in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Surely that suggests it isn't all about the money. He can't win though. Take the £4m and he's happy to bury the truth for the sake of the cash. Sit on his contract and he'd have been only in it for the money. Pursue the constructive dismissal and he's only in it for the money. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6783 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The "we don't buy players so I don't care' crack is a bit shit, does the worrying trend of making profits in the windows make anyone else worry that more players will be sold to reimburse Ashley should he lose this case? Not really. Ashley would sell anyone regardless - if he could get a decent price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Surely that suggests it isn't all about the money. He can't win though. Take the £4m and he's happy to bury the truth for the sake of the cash. Sit on his contract and he'd have been only in it for the money. Pursue the constructive dismissal and he's only in it for the money. Etc. I didn't say sit on his contract. He could have stayed and fought for more control surely. For example, he could have made it public knowledge what was going on. The pressure on the hierarchy that would have followed could have forced change. Instead he takes the easy option, walks away, and then still wants paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The "we don't buy players so I don't care' crack is a bit shit, does the worrying trend of making profits in the windows make anyone else worry that more players will be sold to reimburse Ashley should he lose this case? Not really. Ashley would sell anyone regardless - if he could get a decent price. Not all that important either tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Surely that suggests it isn't all about the money. He can't win though. Take the £4m and he's happy to bury the truth for the sake of the cash. Sit on his contract and he'd have been only in it for the money. Pursue the constructive dismissal and he's only in it for the money. Etc. I didn't say sit on his contract. He could have stayed and fought for more control surely. For example, he could have made it public knowledge what was going on. The pressure on the hierarchy that would have followed could have forced change. Instead he takes the easy option, walks away, and then still wants paying. I wasn't specifically on about you. I was pointing out that his critics will find a way to criticise anything he does in this matter. However, if he did just walk away, as you suggest, and took 'the easy option', he's surely got no chance of winning this case. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Surely that suggests it isn't all about the money. He can't win though. Take the £4m and he's happy to bury the truth for the sake of the cash. Sit on his contract and he'd have been only in it for the money. Pursue the constructive dismissal and he's only in it for the money. Etc. I didn't say sit on his contract. He could have stayed and fought for more control surely. For example, he could have made it public knowledge what was going on. The pressure on the hierarchy that would have followed could have forced change. Instead he takes the easy option, walks away, and then still wants paying. I wasn't specifically on about you. I was pointing out that his critics will find a way to criticise anything he does in this matter. However, if he did just walk away, as you suggest, and took 'the easy option', he's surely got no chance of winning this case. Wouldn't you agree? I think his case is about as strong as a quote from Ashley the season before. Do you believe that they were genuinely trying to get rid of him? To constructively dismiss him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The answer to your original question is 'No' Hova. The reasons for which have been quite succinctly outlined by others in this thread already. However it appears that rather than looking for opinion, you're looking for us to agree with you that Keegan is in the wrong. That my friend is the view of the minority and it's you yourself who is going to end up short-changed He walked out, he didn't have to, not having control of transfers isn't exactly being FORCED out as such. Sure, he can disagree with that structure and leave, which I wouldn't blame him for doing at all. But the whole 'constructive dismissal' thing seems an engineered way of getting 3 years pay for 8 months work to me. If 3 years pay was that important to him (and it clearly is as he's suing for it), why didn't he just sit it out and fight for control within the club until they actually dismissed him? Surely that suggests it isn't all about the money. He can't win though. Take the £4m and he's happy to bury the truth for the sake of the cash. Sit on his contract and he'd have been only in it for the money. Pursue the constructive dismissal and he's only in it for the money. Etc. I didn't say sit on his contract. He could have stayed and fought for more control surely. For example, he could have made it public knowledge what was going on. The pressure on the hierarchy that would have followed could have forced change. Instead he takes the easy option, walks away, and then still wants paying. I wasn't specifically on about you. I was pointing out that his critics will find a way to criticise anything he does in this matter. However, if he did just walk away, as you suggest, and took 'the easy option', he's surely got no chance of winning this case. Wouldn't you agree? I think his case is about as strong as a quote from Ashley the season before. Do you believe that they were genuinely trying to get rid of him? To constructively dismiss him? I don't know enough about employment law in all honesty but if I had to take a guess I'd say he has a very good case. I think Wise was though fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 None of us will be able to say for sure until the case is heard but I think they were expecting Keegan to accept terms that contradicted what was written in his contract and when he challenged them on it they replied "tough shit - live with it!" I think the 'reported' offer to Keegan only helps to strengthen that suggestion. After all, if he was working within the terms of his contract, why the need to offer him an out of court settlement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 It's telling if Ashley has offered KK £4m seeing as, if Keegan had just walked out, he would actually owe Ashley a significant amount (can't remember the exact figure) as that was a widely reported contract clause too, i.e. Keegan having to pay up £2m or whatever if he quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 None of us will be able to say for sure until the case is heard but I think they were expecting Keegan to accept terms that contradicted what was written in his contract and when he challenged them on it they replied "tough shit - live with it!" I think the 'reported' offer to Keegan only helps to strengthen that suggestion. After all, if he was working within the terms of his contract, why the need to offer him an out of court settlement? Maybe the settlement offer was made to encourage a quick sale of the club or something? Who knows. He's seen the opportunity to quit and get his contract paid up before he actually did it, and then taken that opportunity. If he cared about the club as much as is claimed, I think he could have made more of an attempt to address the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Probably wants a bit more, in order to sign the non-disclosure agreement they will have probably attached to the deal. Fuck the money, Kevin, tell us what went on!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 None of us will be able to say for sure until the case is heard but I think they were expecting Keegan to accept terms that contradicted what was written in his contract and when he challenged them on it they replied "tough shit - live with it!" I think the 'reported' offer to Keegan only helps to strengthen that suggestion. After all, if he was working within the terms of his contract, why the need to offer him an out of court settlement? Maybe the settlement offer was made to encourage a quick sale of the club or something? Who knows. He's seen the opportunity to quit and get his contract paid up before he actually did it, and then taken that opportunity. If he cared about the club as much as is claimed, I think he could have made more of an attempt to address the situation. Maybe not though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Fuck the money, Kevin, tell us what went on!!!! In all honesty, that's probably what Ashley & Co are shitting themselves about most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9901 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 It's telling if Ashley has offered KK £4m seeing as, if Keegan had just walked out, he would actually owe Ashley a significant amount (can't remember the exact figure) as that was a widely reported contract clause too, i.e. Keegan having to pay up £2m or whatever if he quit. For a settlement it looks rather dodgy and I can see why Keegan and his legal team were encouraged to hold out for a verdict. As you say, it is not just that Ashley doesn't want to pay the compensation, not paying would entitle him to money. So offering to pay 4m instead of getting 2m seems a tad bit too generous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 None of us will be able to say for sure until the case is heard but I think they were expecting Keegan to accept terms that contradicted what was written in his contract and when he challenged them on it they replied "tough shit - live with it!" I think the 'reported' offer to Keegan only helps to strengthen that suggestion. After all, if he was working within the terms of his contract, why the need to offer him an out of court settlement? Maybe the settlement offer was made to encourage a quick sale of the club or something? Who knows. He's seen the opportunity to quit and get his contract paid up before he actually did it, and then taken that opportunity. If he cared about the club as much as is claimed, I think he could have made more of an attempt to address the situation. Are you actually looking for debate with this thread or are you simply wanting us to agree with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 None of us will be able to say for sure until the case is heard but I think they were expecting Keegan to accept terms that contradicted what was written in his contract and when he challenged them on it they replied "tough shit - live with it!" I think the 'reported' offer to Keegan only helps to strengthen that suggestion. After all, if he was working within the terms of his contract, why the need to offer him an out of court settlement? Maybe the settlement offer was made to encourage a quick sale of the club or something? Who knows. He's seen the opportunity to quit and get his contract paid up before he actually did it, and then taken that opportunity. If he cared about the club as much as is claimed, I think he could have made more of an attempt to address the situation. Are you actually looking for debate with this thread or are you simply wanting us to agree with you? Prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Thompers-tastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Prick-tastic more like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giraffidae 0 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 KK’s reputation has been soiled by many* in the last 12 months and I’m glad that he hasn’t taken the money to keep quiet. If he does win his tribunal (and the money) then he is vindicated, which would be enough in my eyes, but I hope he gets his chance to rip into Ashley & Co. If at least to reply to the slurs that the club were leaking after KK left. Perhaps the one time I would get any pleasure in having my club dragged through the mud. *not by me, from the facts we know of already and the status he has built in Newcastle any turncoats are knobheads at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 You people do realise he's taking the club to court and not Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 You people do realise he's taking the club to court and not Ashley. Yes, judging by his post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now