Geordiejihad 0 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. This , plus i 100 per cent hope he takes Ashley to the cleaners , both financially and in terms of the press when Kev is free to speak his mind and tell us the truth , im behind him all the way . S'long as the club is OWNED by Ashley , the club can take a fuckin hike . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6432 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If he'd been sacked he'd have gotten it in full, just like every other manager does, including Allardyce. If he wins his case he's entitled to it. Only managers whose agents specifically included a clause about termination and hence only the big managers with a strong bargaining position can demand this. Termination clauses are common but 'the whole amount of the contract to be paid on early termination' must be quite rare. If he can prove constructive dismissal, then i think that invokes the law as well as the specifics of the contract. If he can prove this, then he is entitled to a hell of a lot of money. Whether its good for the club or not is irrelevant at this point since proving constructive dismissal is basically saying that they were such cunts towards him they were breaking their side of the employment contract and the payment becomes a form of punishment (in the eyes of the law). Notoriously difficult to prove though. Kashley evidently hoping for O.U.T, but no hard feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. This , plus i 100 per cent hope he takes Ashley to the cleaners , both financially and in terms of the press when Kev is free to speak his mind and tell us the truth , im behind him all the way . S'long as the club is OWNED by Ashley , the club can take a fuckin hike . I'm not happy about the way the club is being run so I want a man to take £8m out of it to teach the owners a lesson. Get a grip man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. This , plus i 100 per cent hope he takes Ashley to the cleaners , both financially and in terms of the press when Kev is free to speak his mind and tell us the truth , im behind him all the way . S'long as the club is OWNED by Ashley , the club can take a fuckin hike . I'm not happy about the way the club is being run so I want a man to take £8m out of it to teach the owners a lesson. Get a grip man. Presumably you're gutted that the club continues to pay employees and suppliers, because they're "taking money out of the club"? If Keegan's due the money, then he should have it. If he isn't, then the tribunal will rule against him. We've no idea how much, if anything, Keegan will get by the way. We've also no idea what the truth is. If we have to jump the gun I'd be more inclined to back Keegan than Ashley. I wonder why that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. This , plus i 100 per cent hope he takes Ashley to the cleaners , both financially and in terms of the press when Kev is free to speak his mind and tell us the truth , im behind him all the way . S'long as the club is OWNED by Ashley , the club can take a fuckin hike . I'm not happy about the way the club is being run so I want a man to take £8m out of it to teach the owners a lesson. Get a grip man. Presumably you're gutted that the club continues to pay employees and suppliers, because they're "taking money out of the club"? If Keegan's due the money, then he should have it. If he isn't, then the tribunal will rule against him. We've no idea how much, if anything, Keegan will get by the way. We've also no idea what the truth is. If we have to jump the gun I'd be more inclined to back Keegan than Ashley. I wonder why that is? What has the club that you support possibly got to gain by Keegan suing them? Nothing. So why would you back him? Outside of the rights and wrongs of what happened, Keegan winning is not good for the club. Ashley probably couldn't give a fuck. The club will foot the bill. Why is this man so important that you'd happily see the club fleeced to 'teach the owner a lesson'. Regardless of whats legally right and what the verdict is, I don't want a manager that we had for 8 months taking a pay-off for the remainder of his contract, just like I didn't want to see his predecessors with big pay-offs (however they were arguably more entitled to it because they actually were FORCED to leave) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. This , plus i 100 per cent hope he takes Ashley to the cleaners , both financially and in terms of the press when Kev is free to speak his mind and tell us the truth , im behind him all the way . S'long as the club is OWNED by Ashley , the club can take a fuckin hike . I'm not happy about the way the club is being run so I want a man to take £8m out of it to teach the owners a lesson. Get a grip man. Presumably you're gutted that the club continues to pay employees and suppliers, because they're "taking money out of the club"? If Keegan's due the money, then he should have it. If he isn't, then the tribunal will rule against him. We've no idea how much, if anything, Keegan will get by the way. We've also no idea what the truth is. If we have to jump the gun I'd be more inclined to back Keegan than Ashley. I wonder why that is? What has the club that you support possibly got to gain by Keegan suing them? Nothing. So why would you back him? Outside of the rights and wrongs of what happened, Keegan winning is not good for the club. Ashley probably couldn't give a fuck. The club will foot the bill. Why is this man so important that you'd happily see the club fleeced to 'teach the owner a lesson'. Regardless of whats legally right and what the verdict is, I don't want a manager that we had for 8 months taking a pay-off for the remainder of his contract, just like I didn't want to see his predecessors with big pay-offs (however they were arguably more entitled to it because they actually were FORCED to leave) I've already answered your question, mate. If he's due the money, then he should be paid. As it happens, I've never claimed to be in the 'let's teach Ashley a lesson' camp, although I really hate the man for what he's done to our club. I see it much more simply, if Keegan's entitled to the money he should have it, exactly the same as Allardyce, Souness and all the other managers who've left early and are entitled to a pay off. Exactly the same as any employee who's been shafted and forced out of their job. Exactly the same as anybody else who has a contract with the club. As it happens I believe Keegan is entitled to it. I also believe Ashley is a liar and an arsehole and so is Llambias. Ask me who I trust more to tell the truth and I'd back Keegan every time. However I'm reserving judgement until the tribunal's delivered its verdict. If Keegan did do a flounce (as I think you've claimed before), the tribunal will find against him. If you don't like the way the club structures its contracts, that's your business. However your basic premise seems to be that if the club's on its uppers then it shouldn't pay Keegan. I'd suggest the lack of cash is more to do with how the club's been run than Keegan's claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia 0 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Hova, you're clearly not going to get the answer you want so why flog a dead horse? The majority of fans, me included, do not see this as KK versus club but KK versus Ashley & co. and regardless of where the money will eventually come from that is what it actually is. If Ashley loses that then it will vindicate the fans in their reaction to Keegan walking out...not that we should need vindication after what has happened to us since then. It'll be another major body blow to the "Ashley was hard done by"/"Keegan is spineless" brigade, whether it be Joe Kinnear or some of the wheelchair bound wankers over on N-O. The money is immaterial. Is it going to leave the fans worse off? I can't see how. Is it going to leave the club worse off? It's a possibility but then the cash wouldn't have been spent on anything tangible anyway. There'd have been no players bought with it and the ongoing firesale would continue without it. Anyway, if for once Steve Howey and the newspapers are correct and the conclusion of this will see the takeover finally going ahead then who is going to care about £8 million? A lot of people understand your point of view but simply don't agree with it. I don't understand why you're going over the same old ground with the same old posters and getting irritated when people don't suddenly admit you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it's a bit daft being on the side of one man in legal action against the football club you support. Takes the 'Messiah' status to a ridiculous level. I love him for what he did for the club, but if he wants to drag it through the courts for financial gain, I'm on the club's side. Every time. Whereas Ashley has dragged us through 2 years of utter shite for 2 years and sold off the decent players we had for financial gain. Still on his side? 'The club' is rotten to the core and I don't support 'the club' at the present time, I support the 11 players who turn out on the pitch and the management / coaching team. This 'club' is very different to the one that Keegan managed over a decade ago. Keegan however, hasn't. I support him all the way. I am not on Ashley's side. I am on the club's side. Because I support Newcastle United, not Kevin Keegan. What an utterly blinkered approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I'll tell you, honestly, I would love it if KK takes £8mil off Ashley, LOVE IT! No mate, he'd take it off NUFC, NOT Ashley! NUFC IS Ashley you tit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6432 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I have too much desire for change and too much resentment for Ashley to have any antipathy toward KK. You're pissing in the wind here Hova, move along fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 That's right folks, the dummy-spitter. Yes I remember the first stint as manager, and i remember him leaving. I remember his second stint and I remember him leaving. I appreciate what he's done for us but why does he always seem to leave in shock circumstances? I thought when he left the first time it was because the club was about to be floated as a plc and they insisted he sign a new contract for x number of years, which he didnt want to do (fair enough). I also recall reading somewhere that it was the 7-1 thrashing of tottenham when he realised his heart wasnt quite in it anymore. Surely the reason for his second departure is well documented. He 'didn't like the direction the club was going in' was a quote I remember the first time. Well, it went into a decade of champions league and european football Kevin, but I'm sure your reason for leaving was perfectly valid. You're completely wrong and CT is completely spot on. In order for the club to get a decent flotation, they needed a manager to commit long term to the club. KK felt he was being rail-roaded into signing a contract he wasn't comfortable with and therefore refused. It was then on the say-so of a financial guy who, float apart, had fuck all to do with the club to demand that KK resigned with immediate effect. When it became apparent that the Halls and Shepherd were favouring the potential income from a floatation rather than continuing to support the man who single-handedly had made the floatation possible, Keegan felt he had no option but to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Canny sad when some clueless tabloid hack trots out all the old cliches about KK but much worse when it's a Newcastle fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 That's right folks, the dummy-spitter. Yes I remember the first stint as manager, and i remember him leaving. I remember his second stint and I remember him leaving. I appreciate what he's done for us but why does he always seem to leave in shock circumstances? I thought when he left the first time it was because the club was about to be floated as a plc and they insisted he sign a new contract for x number of years, which he didnt want to do (fair enough). I also recall reading somewhere that it was the 7-1 thrashing of tottenham when he realised his heart wasnt quite in it anymore. Surely the reason for his second departure is well documented. He 'didn't like the direction the club was going in' was a quote I remember the first time. Well, it went into a decade of champions league and european football Kevin, but I'm sure your reason for leaving was perfectly valid. I think his reason was proven the minute we sold Ferdinand to satisfy the shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 26740 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If KK hadn't have 'spat his dummy out' the first time after our game with Swindon, and called Hall's bluff, we might have been relegated to the 3rd division. What a dummy spitter he is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giraffidae 0 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I wonder how much money KK brought into the club (and evidently into Ashley’s pocket) from him being the manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 That's right folks, the dummy-spitter. Yes I remember the first stint as manager, and i remember him leaving. I remember his second stint and I remember him leaving. I appreciate what he's done for us but why does he always seem to leave in shock circumstances? I thought when he left the first time it was because the club was about to be floated as a plc and they insisted he sign a new contract for x number of years, which he didnt want to do (fair enough). I also recall reading somewhere that it was the 7-1 thrashing of tottenham when he realised his heart wasnt quite in it anymore. Surely the reason for his second departure is well documented. He 'didn't like the direction the club was going in' was a quote I remember the first time. Well, it went into a decade of champions league and european football Kevin, but I'm sure your reason for leaving was perfectly valid. I think his reason was proven the minute we sold Ferdinand to satisfy the shareholders. Not true, when Keegan left it started a decline which didn't end until Robson came in and built things up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6300 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 That's right folks, the dummy-spitter. Yes I remember the first stint as manager, and i remember him leaving. I remember his second stint and I remember him leaving. I appreciate what he's done for us but why does he always seem to leave in shock circumstances? I thought when he left the first time it was because the club was about to be floated as a plc and they insisted he sign a new contract for x number of years, which he didnt want to do (fair enough). I also recall reading somewhere that it was the 7-1 thrashing of tottenham when he realised his heart wasnt quite in it anymore. Surely the reason for his second departure is well documented. He 'didn't like the direction the club was going in' was a quote I remember the first time. Well, it went into a decade of champions league and european football Kevin, but I'm sure your reason for leaving was perfectly valid. I think his reason was proven the minute we sold Ferdinand to satisfy the shareholders. Not true, when Keegan left it started a decline which didn't end until Robson came in and built things up again. What Pud said is 100% completely true. The sale of Ferdinand was totally indicative of his reasons for going? "6m for a 30 year is too good to turn down" was their opinion. Fuck the fact that Shearer got injured while the sale was going through (although they did pathetically try to persuade Les to stay following that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I'm pissed at Keegan and Ashley et al. Dragging it out for a year while keeping a wall of silence is disrespectful to the fans. As we don't know the full facts we can only asume based on the brief statements and gossip that Keegan walked because two players were signed without his knowledge or consent. If true, I'm not sure how signing two trivial players made his job untenable, he doesn't have to play them. Martin Jol had Bent (£15m) signed without his input, he just didn't play him. If Levy knew what he was doing he'd have sacked Comolli when things went wrong instead of Jol. As for Wise, signing Xisco and Nacho was not reason enough for him to get the boot, especially not in September. I ask my manager for things all the time and he does the complete opposite. Signing me up for all sorts of crap, but i can't up and walk out. Things don't always go your way Kev and you signed up knowning you'd have a DoF. The club is bigger than anyone one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I'll tell you, honestly, I would love it if KK takes £8mil off Ashley, LOVE IT! No mate, he'd take it off NUFC, NOT Ashley! NUFC IS Ashley you tit! No he really isn't. You massive tit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I'm pissed at Keegan and Ashley et al. Dragging it out for a year while keeping a wall of silence is disrespectful to the fans. As we don't know the full facts we can only asume based on the brief statements and gossip that Keegan walked because two players were signed without his knowledge or consent. If true, I'm not sure how signing two trivial players made his job untenable, he doesn't have to play them. Martin Jol had Bent (£15m) signed without his input, he just didn't play him. If Levy knew what he was doing he'd have sacked Comolli when things went wrong instead of Jol. As for Wise, signing Xisco and Nacho was not reason enough for him to get the boot, especially not in September. I ask my manager for things all the time and he does the complete opposite. Signing me up for all sorts of crap, but i can't up and walk out. Things don't always go your way Kev and you signed up knowning you'd have a DoF. The club is bigger than anyone one person. We don't really know what happened though, do we? Regardless of what your manager does to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) So do you lot reckon Sir Bobby Robson should have walked away when we signed Kluivert and Butt and then sued the club for the rest of his contract? Why didn't he? Because he actually does love the club? Edited September 24, 2009 by Hova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So do you lot reckon Bobby Robson should have walked away when we signed Kluivert and Butt and then sued the club for the rest of his contract? Why didn't he? Because he actually does love the club? It's Sir Bobby Robson to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So do you lot reckon Bobby Robson should have walked away when we signed Kluivert and Butt and then sued the club for the rest of his contract? Why didn't he? Because he actually does love the club? It's Sir Bobby Robson to you That's what it says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So do you lot reckon Bobby Robson should have walked away when we signed Kluivert and Butt and then sued the club for the rest of his contract? Why didn't he? Because he actually does love the club? It's Sir Bobby Robson to you That's what it says Would've been more impressive if you'd edited it in your quote as well. Hey ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hova Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So do you lot reckon Bobby Robson should have walked away when we signed Kluivert and Butt and then sued the club for the rest of his contract? Why didn't he? Because he actually does love the club? It's Sir Bobby Robson to you That's what it says Would've been more impressive if you'd edited it in your quote as well. Hey ho. Any answer to the question, btw? 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