Will you feel short changed?

[Craig 6302]

Craig, Hova is right about that point from a legal point of view because of limited liability.

 

Yeah I know from a legal POV he's correct. But he himself in another thread has stated that we should ignore the legal side of it and look at it morally.

 

But in order to get at Ashley, he has to take on the club.

[Guest Hova]

so Ashley can get away with everything he desires at NUFC without any come back in case it destabilises the club!

 

 

Fucking hell man get a grip.

 

He's getting sued for appointing a director of football. Not for being a fat wanker in general, but for appointing a director of football. His intentions at the time were probably good.

[Isegrim 8870]

his tribunal hearing is for constructive dismissal = sacked.

 

 

Legally right isn't always morally right. He could purposefully lose every game so that he gets sacked and his contract paid up and he'd be legally entitled to it, but he wouldn't deserve it. Just like he doesn't deserve 3 years wages after throwing his toys out of the pram 8 months in.

Constructive dismissal means that the employer has behaved like a total w*nker. I can't see anything morally wrong in an employee then being entitled to his money - and that is why he gets it legally.

 

On the other hand an employee who totally neglects his working duties would be entitled to f*ck all in case he gets sacked because of it - morally and legally.

 

Actually.

 

I can't understand this until you recongise the difference between and employer and an employee.

FMP

[Guest Hova]

Craig, Hova is right about that point from a legal point of view because of limited liability.

 

Yeah I know from a legal POV he's correct. But he himself in another thread has stated that we should ignore the legal side of it and look at it morally.

 

But in order to get at Ashley, he has to take on the club.

 

And by doing that he's getting at us, as fans, as we're the ones who ultimately foot the bill.

 

Which is my point.

[ChezGiven 0]

I dont see what anyone would gain from these stories about administration? If the club loses the case and goes into administration then the stories are just true. If they lose and dont go into administration (the story is a lie) how does that benefit the club once they've lost?

 

Mischievous bollocks imo.

They've been trying to rubbish KK's rep since he left with bollocks stories. Is this one any different?

 

I just dont get the scenarios at play. If KK wins and the club does go into administration, then this is not a bollocks story. If KK wins, doesnt go into administration, then its a lie. Neither of these outcomes are in way influenced by a story about administration, so it serves no upfront purpose for the club.

 

If KK loses, then who gives a shit. I just dont get the angle. Yes, it is more negative press for KK but to what end?

It's not like they've behaved in a logical manner in the past is it? Check HF's blog for the barefaced lies. I assume they hope a promotion charge or whatever will take people's minds off it until the next thing.

Maybe they think they are going to win the case and that this will be seen negatively by the fans as kicking KK once again, so they can say 'if he had won it could have put is into admin' thus softening people's perceptions.

 

It could just be paranoia over what happens with the fans in the case that they beat KK.

 

Fucking odd if it is.

[Craig 6302]

so Ashley can get away with everything he desires at NUFC without any come back in case it destabilises the club!

 

 

Fucking hell man get a grip.

 

He's getting sued for appointing a director of football. Not for being a fat wanker in general, but for appointing a director of football. His intentions at the time were probably good.

 

No, he's being sued for breaching the terms of an employee's contract. I'm pretty certain, given that he said pretty much so in an 'Inside Sport' interview not 3 months before his appointment, that Keegan would not have signed his contract if he knew he was to work under a DOF.

 

They appointed him, changed the rules, continued to suggest to the press and fans that KK's fears with without substance and that he had full control and then choose a completely different tact when he tendered his resignation.

[Guest alex]

Maybe Keegan wants the truth to come out for the good of the club. Less ridiculous than some things I've seen put forward.

 

 

The truth would benefit us how? More protests in the middle of a promotion bid?

By making Ashley's position untenable perhaps and forcing him to sell?

In any case, do you think it's actually better for the club if Ashley and co have behaved in an unacceptable way and that's kept away from the supporters? How does that work? The owner does what the fuck he likes and no one finds out beyond a select few? That's going to be beneficial for the club in the long run is it? I don't think so.

 

 

Do we really need the owners position to be untenable right now? Do we need a big fucking circus mid-season again?

Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The club is up for sale anyway, he wants out, so what need is there for us to know until after he has gone? So you think it's beneficial that every detail of wrongdoing is aired in public, so that the off-field problems come to the forefront again and distract the club from it's main aim, to gain promotion? Do you work for The Sun?

Nicely ignoring the rest of what I wrote which is essential my view that it's very important for the club that the truth comes out one way or the other. Even if (not that I believe it for one second) Ashley & Co. are in the right and KK is in the wrong that needs to come out because it'll hang over the club like a bad smell and there'll never be any trust until it does.

I don't believe Ashley is currently determined to sell either fwiw. Just more lies imo.

 

 

The truth isn't worth the consequences of the truth until Ashley has gone. If Keegan wants people to know the truth, he should write a book. It's all about the money.

I was just putting it forward as one motivation. He obviously wants what he sees as justice and wants money as well because he feels he's entitled to it. It's a big risk unless he has a case though because it'll cost him solicitors' fees plus the clause about him paying Ashley if he walked. So if it was just about the money he must be one hell of a gambler. But I don't think it is.

 

Or... he'd already taken legal advice before he walked and saw the opportunity to get his contract paid up, and took it?

If that was the case it would therefore mean that he'd been stitched up by Ashley and co., therefore being completely in the right.

 

So you'd have approved if SBR had done the same to us and Shepherd?

Completely different circumstances though. He was sacked and iirc, paid compensation. So how is that relevant?

[Giraffidae 0]

so Ashley can get away with everything he desires at NUFC without any come back in case it destabilises the club!

Fucking hell man get a grip.

 

He's getting sued for appointing a director of football. Not for being a fat wanker in general, but for appointing a director of football. His intentions at the time were probably good.

 

that overview is far to simplistic, if it was reality then KK wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

[Craig 6302]

Craig, Hova is right about that point from a legal point of view because of limited liability.

 

Yeah I know from a legal POV he's correct. But he himself in another thread has stated that we should ignore the legal side of it and look at it morally.

 

But in order to get at Ashley, he has to take on the club.

 

And by doing that he's getting at us, as fans, as we're the ones who ultimately foot the bill.

 

Which is my point.

 

Only getting at you if you're in support of Ashley. Like I said earlier, I've chosen for over a year now to support the team, but not the club - I can't whilst that cock-end is running it.

[Guest Hova]

so Ashley can get away with everything he desires at NUFC without any come back in case it destabilises the club!

 

 

Fucking hell man get a grip.

 

He's getting sued for appointing a director of football. Not for being a fat wanker in general, but for appointing a director of football. His intentions at the time were probably good.

 

No, he's being sued for breaching the terms of an employee's contract. I'm pretty certain, given that he said pretty much so in an 'Inside Sport' interview not 3 months before his appointment, that Keegan would not have signed his contract if he knew he was to work under a DOF.

 

They appointed him, changed the rules, continued to suggest to the press and fans that KK's fears with without substance and that he had full control and then choose a completely different tact when he tendered his resignation.

 

 

I'm sure SBR wouldn't have signed his contract if he knew freddy was going to be signing players for him. But he didn't spit his dummy out and sue the pants off us did he?

[Isegrim 8870]

I dont see what anyone would gain from these stories about administration? If the club loses the case and goes into administration then the stories are just true. If they lose and dont go into administration (the story is a lie) how does that benefit the club once they've lost?

 

Mischievous bollocks imo.

They've been trying to rubbish KK's rep since he left with bollocks stories. Is this one any different?

 

I just dont get the scenarios at play. If KK wins and the club does go into administration, then this is not a bollocks story. If KK wins, doesnt go into administration, then its a lie. Neither of these outcomes are in way influenced by a story about administration, so it serves no upfront purpose for the club.

 

If KK loses, then who gives a shit. I just dont get the angle. Yes, it is more negative press for KK but to what end?

It's not like they've behaved in a logical manner in the past is it? Check HF's blog for the barefaced lies. I assume they hope a promotion charge or whatever will take people's minds off it until the next thing.

Maybe they think they are going to win the case and that this will be seen negatively by the fans as kicking KK once again, so they can say 'if he had won it could have put is into admin' thus softening people's perceptions.

 

It could just be paranoia over what happens with the fans in the case that they beat KK.

 

Fucking odd if it is.

I think that thinking that they think is giving them far too much credit considering what has been happening for a year now...

[Guest Hova]

Maybe Keegan wants the truth to come out for the good of the club. Less ridiculous than some things I've seen put forward.

 

 

The truth would benefit us how? More protests in the middle of a promotion bid?

By making Ashley's position untenable perhaps and forcing him to sell?

In any case, do you think it's actually better for the club if Ashley and co have behaved in an unacceptable way and that's kept away from the supporters? How does that work? The owner does what the fuck he likes and no one finds out beyond a select few? That's going to be beneficial for the club in the long run is it? I don't think so.

 

 

Do we really need the owners position to be untenable right now? Do we need a big fucking circus mid-season again?

Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The club is up for sale anyway, he wants out, so what need is there for us to know until after he has gone? So you think it's beneficial that every detail of wrongdoing is aired in public, so that the off-field problems come to the forefront again and distract the club from it's main aim, to gain promotion? Do you work for The Sun?

Nicely ignoring the rest of what I wrote which is essential my view that it's very important for the club that the truth comes out one way or the other. Even if (not that I believe it for one second) Ashley & Co. are in the right and KK is in the wrong that needs to come out because it'll hang over the club like a bad smell and there'll never be any trust until it does.

I don't believe Ashley is currently determined to sell either fwiw. Just more lies imo.

 

 

The truth isn't worth the consequences of the truth until Ashley has gone. If Keegan wants people to know the truth, he should write a book. It's all about the money.

I was just putting it forward as one motivation. He obviously wants what he sees as justice and wants money as well because he feels he's entitled to it. It's a big risk unless he has a case though because it'll cost him solicitors' fees plus the clause about him paying Ashley if he walked. So if it was just about the money he must be one hell of a gambler. But I don't think it is.

 

Or... he'd already taken legal advice before he walked and saw the opportunity to get his contract paid up, and took it?

If that was the case it would therefore mean that he'd been stitched up by Ashley and co., therefore being completely in the right.

 

So you'd have approved if SBR had done the same to us and Shepherd?

Completely different circumstances though. He was sacked and iirc, paid compensation. So how is that relevant?

 

 

Because he could have easily 'done a Keegan' when Shepherd started signing players, but didn't. Would you have approved if he had? and why do you think he didn't?

[Guest Hova]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

[Guest alex]

Maybe Keegan wants the truth to come out for the good of the club. Less ridiculous than some things I've seen put forward.

 

 

The truth would benefit us how? More protests in the middle of a promotion bid?

By making Ashley's position untenable perhaps and forcing him to sell?

In any case, do you think it's actually better for the club if Ashley and co have behaved in an unacceptable way and that's kept away from the supporters? How does that work? The owner does what the fuck he likes and no one finds out beyond a select few? That's going to be beneficial for the club in the long run is it? I don't think so.

 

 

Do we really need the owners position to be untenable right now? Do we need a big fucking circus mid-season again?

Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The club is up for sale anyway, he wants out, so what need is there for us to know until after he has gone? So you think it's beneficial that every detail of wrongdoing is aired in public, so that the off-field problems come to the forefront again and distract the club from it's main aim, to gain promotion? Do you work for The Sun?

Nicely ignoring the rest of what I wrote which is essential my view that it's very important for the club that the truth comes out one way or the other. Even if (not that I believe it for one second) Ashley & Co. are in the right and KK is in the wrong that needs to come out because it'll hang over the club like a bad smell and there'll never be any trust until it does.

I don't believe Ashley is currently determined to sell either fwiw. Just more lies imo.

 

 

The truth isn't worth the consequences of the truth until Ashley has gone. If Keegan wants people to know the truth, he should write a book. It's all about the money.

I was just putting it forward as one motivation. He obviously wants what he sees as justice and wants money as well because he feels he's entitled to it. It's a big risk unless he has a case though because it'll cost him solicitors' fees plus the clause about him paying Ashley if he walked. So if it was just about the money he must be one hell of a gambler. But I don't think it is.

 

Or... he'd already taken legal advice before he walked and saw the opportunity to get his contract paid up, and took it?

If that was the case it would therefore mean that he'd been stitched up by Ashley and co., therefore being completely in the right.

 

So you'd have approved if SBR had done the same to us and Shepherd?

Completely different circumstances though. He was sacked and iirc, paid compensation. So how is that relevant?

 

 

Because he could have easily 'done a Keegan' when Shepherd started signing players, but didn't. Would you have approved if he had? and why do you think he didn't?

Actually I think he'd have been justified in walking over that, yes. You'd have to ask him why he didn't though, but the circumstances aren't the same imo, no matter how you try and paint them. It's not relevant imo.

'Done a Keegan' btw. And you asked if I wrote for The Sun?

Edited September 24, 2009 by alex

[TheMoog 0]

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).

 

I meant the bold bit bud, not what Pud said, I agree with Pud.

 

I can't see where Hova's coming from at all - "ARE YOU ASHLEY IN DISGUISE?!"

[Guest alex]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

Professional online poker player?

[trophyshy 6434]

Craig, Hova is right about that point from a legal point of view because of limited liability.

 

Yeah I know from a legal POV he's correct. But he himself in another thread has stated that we should ignore the legal side of it and look at it morally.

 

But in order to get at Ashley, he has to take on the club.

 

And by doing that he's getting at us, as fans, as we're the ones who ultimately foot the bill.

 

Which is my point.

 

Just as we are the ones who will ultimately foot the bill of Ashley's disastrous reign.

 

 

There's cash, there's ethics and there's total fuckwads. Sometimes in life you have to accept you are screwed and endorse the least worse option. Is the least worse option Keegan to not feel justice is done, to not air the ample laundry of the fat one? Maybe. However I remain convinced Ashley will exploit this employment dispute, and that is what it is, for his own PR needs. Further exposing him as a complete bastard. If he can get people thinking Keegan is dragging the club down then he will. Sad to see he will convince people of this.

 

Suggesting Ashley gives a fuck about the club is as ridiculous as suggesting Keegan doesn't.

 

It's not black and white this, but Keegan is. Ashley never was.

Edited September 24, 2009 by trophyshy

[Giraffidae 0]

totally different circumstances with SBR. SBR didn’t do ‘a Keegan’ probably because it didn’t happen to SBR.

 

drawing comparisons to SBR is pointless kak.

[Monkeys Fist 38752]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

careful you don't have a dispute with your boss....

[TheMoog 0]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

Professional online poker player?

 

He comes across as more likely to be one of those 'special' patients that make garden furniture to honest

[Guest alex]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

Professional online poker player?

 

He comes across as more likely to be one of those 'special' patients that make garden furniture to honest

It's what Thompers reckoned he was moving into and I'm guessing this is the same kid.

[Monkeys Fist 38752]

Can we not change the Thread name while he's at graft , just to confuse the buggery out of him?

[trophyshy 6434]

was Thompers banned?

[TheMoog 0]

I've gotta go to work girls, I'll address all of your shit replies later tonight

Professional online poker player?

 

He comes across as more likely to be one of those 'special' patients that make garden furniture to honest

It's what Thompers reckoned he was moving into and I'm guessing this is the same kid.

 

That'd be right. What a dozy shite this lad is really, is he honestly being serious or just deliberately obtuse?

[Monkeys Fist 38752]

was Thompers banned?

what for?