Phil

He openly admitted that in his very first comunication to the fans he lied when he said Carroll wouldn't be sold. When he starts off on such a footing how can anyone be expected to believe him? I really don't get how that gets classed as a lie to be honest, if he'd been flogged for £10 million fair enough, but £35 Million I'd have changed my mind (and did) about wanting to keep him at that price (or even £10 mill less truth be told). Probably not a lie, but a naive thing to say really, given his recent appointment, the scrutiny of the fans, the lercale lad etc. Putting himself up there as 'the man' only to be undermined by 'the actual man' (and left a player short at that) And, fwiw, only time will tell if £35m for Carroll was a good deal for us or a good deal for Liverpool. You mean only time will tell if we see the 35m. HBA

Image Burn; http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download

Thick as mince and overseas to boot, nice combo.

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. Can you explain the 25m law suit? No, cos that doesn't fit your bromance. Feel free to leave

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?

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

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.

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.

dress her in a burka next time You ever think of moving to france? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...Gerinhijab.html

Bit surprised to see Brighton able to build a fancy new stadium.

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

Whatever you say pal, it doesn't alter the findings of the tribunal, however much you try and stretch or twist the points What did Ashley do with the Milner money?...there were players lined up by all accounts, but you'll likely argue that one as well. Twist and stretch. I think you'll find Keegan based his entire case on the Gonzalez signing. ...and he was after £25 million in damages. On the other point I'm not sure where you think the Milner money went, but we've posted a loss since 2007 so it wasn't into Ashleys pocket.

Sure the carefully worded Keegan statement is correct and factual, but that doesn't change the fact its only about the loan signing of Nacho Gonzalez. It's regularly taken well out of context and passed off as if Ashley and co lied about other things, which they didn't. Do you actually think Nacho Gonzalez is why Keegan left?

http://www.nufc.com/2010-11html/2009-10-02...-nufc-ours.html If you read the full tribunal transcripts you will see that Keegan made that statement because Wise et al said on several occasions Keegan had final say, which they confirmed was to keep the fans happy. This promise was only broken with the loan signing of Gonzalez. Note the absence of the Milner sale, so it must have been agreed upon. From the judgment: In other words, Ashley and co were bullshitting KK from the start and failed to make their true intentions publicly clear. In other words, they intentionally misled the press, public, and fans of Newcastle United. (And KK.) 2 + 2 = 5 Utter bollocks. All of them points are referring to the Gonzalez loan deal. Keegan won on a technicality - i.e. he didn't have final say on a nobody loan deal. Keegan didn't walk over the loan deal and everyone knows it. The absence of Milner from the entire tribunal speaks volumes.

And whys that? Here's a clue: 5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United. That's a quote from Keegan's camp, retard. I think you might find its a quote from the actual findings of the unfair dismissal tribunal, not the LMA who I think you may be referring to Nope they are definitely from the Keegan camp. I know this because its been mis-quoted from day one; http://www.nufc.com/2010-11html/2009-10-02...-nufc-ours.html If you read the full tribunal transcripts you will see that Keegan made that statement because Wise et al said on several occasions Keegan had final say, which they confirmed was to keep the fans happy. This promise was only broken with the loan signing of Gonzalez. Note the absence of the Milner sale, so it must have been agreed upon.

And whys that? Here's a clue: 5.2 The Club admitted to the Tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle United. That's a quote from Keegan's camp, retard.

No. Ashley knew about the debt (and lack of future income) and it was taken into account in the purchase price.

Link/evidence please, he's putting in (or has been) not taking out. That "will" change in the summer (one way or the other). ashley's shafting us by receiving big money for players and not reinvesting it in the squad. isn't that obvious? do you honestly expect to see the 50m net profit he's made from player sales reinvested? i don't. i don't even expect him to invest the kind of cash most us us would be happy with - the going amount needed to assemble a half decent squad in other words. he hasn't done it so far, why would he change all of a sudden? Given we've had massive losses since 2007 you cant ask why he's not spent anything. The answer is obvious. We haven't had the money. We have done some very good business in the last three windows. All while we were posting losses. We are entering the first season Ashley doesn't have to put into the club, why do you assume he wants to rip us off?

This sounds a lot like the Barton haters a few years back. I pointed out he'd been tea total for over a year, but it felt on stupid deaf ear. He spent 5m in January last year and we brought in Tiote and HBA in the summer. How on Earth is he on last chance?

Not sure if this is a serious thread or not. But we were very close to signing Modric. He had a medical as was shown around the training ground. So i dont see how selling one of our best players will change us trying to sign players like Modric. Enrique leaving will signal one thing and if you need to be told what that is your sky aint blue.

This sounds a lot like the Carroll chatter when we went down. Ranger is going to be a great player. He's already our best impact sub. I would certainly send him on loan to Blackpool as Holloway has a great ability of getting the best out of his players and will easily keep Rangers ego in check.

Sounds like they are trying to justify their budget.

Source code (8/10)- one of the best films i've seen in a while.

Totally agree none of them are good enough* We ruthlessly let Routledge go so I expect the donkey's that are still here next season will be because we recieved no/shit offers. I'd also keep Shola largely for my own amusement, he's always good for a joke or two, especially when he's a sub warming up -"were alreet lads" *still yet to see Xisco.