Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 This led onto a discussion about the role of Dennis Wise which, itself, led to one of the most interesting answers to a question we expected to be “off topic”: Who signed Xisco and Gonzales? “Xisco was Kevin, don’t believe everything you read in the press, Gonzales was a...well, I won’t go into that because we’ve still got legal issues there” stumbled Derek. Suffice to say jaws dropped on that one, not just for the remarkably candid nature of the revelation, but for the insinuation that we are supposed to now believe that Kevin Keegan walked out on Newcastle, not because he was unhappy with £6M being blown on an unwanted striker, (all his own work apparently) but that he was so fundamentally opposed to the club bringing in a player on a short term loan to help an injury hit squad that he walked out on a multi-million pound contract! Apologies that we didn’t probe that one further, we were too busy dusting away the fairy’s from our eyes. Now it's been revealed to be the truth, do the NUSC reps that wrote the mail think Keegan was wrong to walk out on Ashley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Canny funny how he was actually injured virtually all season anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I wasn't involved in the meeting so can't comment for those that wrote the piece however personally if it had been as clear cut as it appeared then I would have said yes he was wrong. However as we know it wasn't the appontment as such but the manner in which it was conducted and the reasons behind it that caused the problems. So for that reason I'd still say he was right to walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I wasn't involved in the meeting so can't comment for those that wrote the piece however personally if it had been as clear cut as it appeared then I would have said yes he was wrong. However as we know it wasn't the appontment as such but the manner in which it was conducted and the reasons behind it that caused the problems. So for that reason I'd still say he was right to walk. And it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Plus, it was a favour to get the best South American kids. How come we never got any since we actually took the player on loan anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Taken in isolation that's a fair enough take - it sounds OTT to walk out. I think now people accept that that was either the final straw or a convenient excuse depending on your pov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I wasn't involved in the meeting so can't comment for those that wrote the piece however personally if it had been as clear cut as it appeared then I would have said yes he was wrong. However as we know it wasn't the appontment as such but the manner in which it was conducted and the reasons behind it that caused the problems. So for that reason I'd still say he was right to walk. I agree, he was right. Reading it back now, at the point Llambias hesitates, you can see he was going to say that "gonzales was a... commercial deal" which would have been hugely illuminating at the time. I think the naivety of us fans believing that (whoever made the deal) it was one made to help the injury ridden squad, rather than as a favour to some shady agents is just as illuminating with hindsight like. Even after all the shite, we STILL thought better of them than that. Edited October 7, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4446 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I would also add that Keegan's take was that even knowing the size of the squad, he considered Gonzalez not good enough and a waste of time - we also know the idiots didn't even expect him to play in the first team by their evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7094 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I would like to know if there has been a single positive benefit from the Special Nacho Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 I wasn't involved in the meeting so can't comment for those that wrote the piece however personally if it had been as clear cut as it appeared then I would have said yes he was wrong. However as we know it wasn't the appontment as such but the manner in which it was conducted and the reasons behind it that caused the problems. So for that reason I'd still say he was right to walk. And it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Plus, it was a favour to get the best South American kids. How come we never got any since we actually took the player on loan anyway? Dionatan Nascimento. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Even his trial was via a Slovakian club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Canny funny how he was actually injured virtually all season anyway. Don't you think the 'real' point of the favour to get someone else to pay the wages of an injured player that they'd just moved on?? I do. And if that is the case, doesn't it break FIFA rules (agents not being able to be involved in consecutive transfers?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Canny funny how he was actually injured virtually all season anyway. Don't you think the 'real' point of the favour to get someone else to pay the wages of an injured player that they'd just moved on?? I do. And if that is the case, doesn't it break FIFA rules (agents not being able to be involved in consecutive transfers?). One thing's for sure, the whole thing stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Canny funny how he was actually injured virtually all season anyway. Don't you think the 'real' point of the favour to get someone else to pay the wages of an injured player that they'd just moved on?? I do. Quite possibly, aye. I think he only came on as a sub once (the home loss to Hull in the league?) and then it turned out he'd aggravated the injury he had when he arrived or something. As Kitman says, the whole thing stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Canny funny how he was actually injured virtually all season anyway. Don't you think the 'real' point of the favour to get someone else to pay the wages of an injured player that they'd just moved on?? I do. Quite possibly, aye. I think he only came on as a sub once (the home loss to Hull in the league?) and then it turned out he'd aggravated the injury he had when he arrived or something. As Kitman says, the whole thing stinks. Aye. The truth in my mind is that Wise (and probably Ashley) were bunged a significant amount of cash to do this agent a favour. It was never about "having first dibs on the cream of South America", it was a case that the agent had flogged a player to a club who realised they'd been had and had a player they needed to pay for 12 months without getting anything out of him and the agent needed to find a mug to 'cover' the wages. Stinks to high heaven tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And yet he's the player that will probably go down in history as having the biggest single impact on this football club! 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