Keegan Claimed Over £26M From Newcastle


As news come through on the Keegan win of £2M from Newcastle some startling news has been uncovered today.

kevin-keegan-3282

Kevin Keegan – claimed over £26M – nice money if you can get it


And the main one is that the reports last week of a £25M claim from Kevin, were indeed accurate as news announced today that Kevin claimed £8,607,534 in what he said was due under his contract at St James’s Park.

However, he also sought what he called “stigma damages” amounting to a further £16.5m which was explained as follows:

“Represents the income which he would otherwise reasonably have expected to receive up to his 65th birthday”

So this begs the question as to why his lawyers last week denied outright they had claimed  that amount from the club.

No wonder the potential sale of the club was held in abeyance until the award today because £25M would have completely crippled the club financially.

The document from the panel reveal Keegan was paid £3M a year after joining Newcastle for the second time in January, of last year.

Kevin  believed he had full power over transfer deals but the club claimed he was told that director of football Dennis Wise and Tony Jimenez would be in charge of recruiting players.

Then on August 30 last year, the documents reveal how the relationship between Keegan and Wise finally broke down.

The statement said:

“Mr Wise telephoned Mr Keegan and told him that he had a great player for the Club to sign, namely Ignacio Gonzalez, and that he should look him up. “

“Mr Keegan tried to locate him on the internet but could find no reference to him. ”  “Mr Wise told him that he had been on loan at Monaco but having checked out the details, Mr Keegan was unimpressed and told Mr Wise that he did not think the player was good enough.”

“Mr Wise then told him that the player was on “You Tube” and that Mr Keegan could look him up there but he found that the clips were of poor quality and provided no proper basis for signing a player to a Premier League Club. Moreover, no one at the Club had ever seen him play.”

“However, notwithstanding that he made it clear not only to Mr Wise but also to Mr Jimenez and to Mr Ashley that he very strongly objected to the signing of Mr Gonzalez (he was to be signed on loan with an option to purchase), the Club proceeded with the deal and the transfer was concluded the following day, on 31 August 2008.”

“The Club did so, according to its witnesses who gave evidence before us, because it was in the Club’s commercial interests to do so.”  “It was what the Club described as a ‘commercial deal’ by which the Club meant a deal which was in the commercial interests of the Club.”

“The ‘commercial interests’, according to the Club, were that the signing of the player on loan would be a “favor” to two influential South American agents who would look favourably on the Club in the future. “

“The loan deal cost the Club nearly £1m in wages for a player who was not expected to play for the first team but no payment was made by the Club to the agents in respect of the deal.”

Kevin was proved right on that one as Ignacio played but twice in short substitute appearances, and that cost Newcastle £1M?

We’re glad this thing is over, but there are definitely a few surprises today – the main being that Kevin’s claim was for over £26M against the club.

We think this will increase the film rights for the Newcastle soap opera of  the last year, and breaking news today that Steven Spielberg has said he’s interested the deal – don’t you believe it! 😀

£26M is good money if you can get it – and for 8 months of real work?

Again. we’re pleased this is now all behind the club, and we can all move forward.

Comments welcome.



You can share this articleShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestDigg thisShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

34 comments so far

  • Solaidback

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    Comment #1

    Well it seems that he forgot about the clause in his contract that said all he would get was £2m then, bloody good job or we’d be screwed left, right & up the backside if he’d have won that much of us 🙁

    0
  • Solaidback

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM

    Comment #2

    So does this mean that we should have a new over this time next week then now theyve no more excuses for delaying the outcome or will they make summit else up just so we have to wait another 2 weeks or more!!!

    0
  • thud and blunder

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM

    Comment #3

    After 3 everybody…1….2…..3

    “GET OUT OF OUR CLUUUB, GET OUT OF OUR CLUUUUUUB,
    YOU FAT COCKNEY B@STARD…GET OUT OF OUR CLUB!!”

    0
  • sirjasontoon

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:14 PM

    Comment #4

    Mike will probably sell Caroll or Ranger to pay for the Keegan payout.

    Club is not for sale,never was for sale and it’s all a big front to avoid transfers..every window is the same zzzzzzzzzzzz

    Scouting on youtube is just so stupid…Tom Toon was the master of that and Football manager Simulations as well.

    0
  • Hobs

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    Comment #5

    I think this shows booth a total incompetance and sporting ignorance from the directors and owning side of the club, aswell as an extremely greedy claim from Keegan. Suppose he would do anything to prove that the Ashley way was wrong and he was right. Even destroy the club just so Ashley would suffer the loss.
    So much for a hero, Keegan was there to do what he got payed for, nothing more, nothing less.

    0
  • sirjasontoon

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    Comment #6

    Ashley Oot and the Owl Heed Coot…total amateurs strangling our club.

    0
  • Nick D

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM

    Comment #7

    2m has to be a great result doesn’t it. could have been a hell of a lot worse.

    0
  • premier

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM

    Comment #8

    Ironic that Ignacio probably is good enough to walk into whats left of first team now!!

    0
  • sirjasontoon

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    Comment #9

    Keegan was not allowed to do his Job,was promised funds to build a team of his choice…he was not allowed to do what he was supposed to do…so we ended up with crap like Xisco and Gonzalez.

    0
  • sirjasontoon

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    Comment #10

    Premier-
    Bullied at School by any chance?

    0
  • Solaidback

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    Comment #11

    Well at least its over & done now, we can now move on to the next disaster in the long runnig saga called the TOON!!!
    Any bets on what it’ll be??? I’ll put a tenner on Mike Ashley selling the club to Thaksin Shinawatra or Colonal Gaddafy Duck.. lol

    0
  • giimps

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:21 PM

    Comment #12

    I reckon we`l be sold very soon,I have no information to back this up, other than what hjas calready been said,but…..we are a lot mor of a saleable club now, with no outstanding court cases, and, were a lot more financially stable, the 2 mil will come from tv revenue extra gate receipts etc.
    Just shows you though, how low Keegans stock is now, for him to have only been given 2 mil, basically ,the court agreed with some of us , he would probably have walked at some point anyway, if not this time ,then some other time.
    Things are looking good people, Just need 3 points on saturday to celebrate.
    I wonder what will come out of the club though, ?

    0
  • ende

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM

    Comment #13

    I’m not sure Keegan can be accused of greed here. It’s possible, but it’s also possible that Keegan knew that the clause in his contract would limit him to a £2mil payout, and that his much higher claim was really just intended to bring a higher profile to his case and subsequently bring the spotlight onto Mike Ashley’s shady, corrupt regime.

    The evidence pretty much vindicates this point. Don’t blame Keegan for collecting his £2mil, blame Ashley for creating the situation.

    0
  • summerof69

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM

    Comment #14

    Ironic that Ignacio probably is good enough to walk into whats left of first team now!!

    well never he was injured most of the time he probz played about 50 mins if ??

    0
  • Sturla

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM

    Comment #15
  • Stardust

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM

    Comment #16

    ANYONE CRITICISING THE CLUB – READ THE STATEMENT ON THE LMA WEBSITE!

    Well I have now read in depth – Keegan is a disgrace.

    He has left on a technicality of 1 player, Gonzalez – the club state he was signed for commercial reasons (to gain favour with influential agents) – and Keegan walks out and sues for 25m.

    ONE PLAYER I say again – a minor difference of opinion on why he should be signed.

    The club stipulate Keegan used this transfer as an excuse to walk out as he was unhappy with the size of the squad etc, the panel do not comment – but therein lies the truth.

    He destroyed our club over 1 player and tried for 25million quid from our future .

    Keegan – a technical winner – but a weak willed opportunist from this day forth. Whatever happened to the real Kevin Keegan.

    0
  • danuneek

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM

    Comment #17

    So what have all you KK lovers got to say now? Imagine if he had won that much and we went into administration, the media would have gone crazy over our joke of a club. I’m sorry but KK is almost as bad as Cashley. One thing this does highlight though more than anything, how bad Wise must have been at his job. I mean, Youtube, is he having a laugh. That is amazing. And how much was he getting paid? I bet he just sat at home in London and laughing his head off and occasionally watching youtube for players. In fact, I might do a little video of me doing some skills, see if I get signed up. Oh wait, its too late he’s gone thank god. Bloody amazing.

    0
  • NICK C

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM

    Comment #18

    Spot on, Stardust…

    0
  • ende

    Oct 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM

    Comment #19

    (Ed, there is suomething seriously fishy going on with the ads here. I have an ad for TravelZoo blocking might sight of what I’m typing. )

    0
  • Robby Bobson

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    Comment #20

    I dont think Keegan left becuase of he didnt want to work with Gonzalez, it seems like it was the manner of how they did it…for example telling him to look him up on youtube. I think he felt like it was him vs them so had to quit.

    0
  • Robby Bobson

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM

    Comment #21

    But like this article states…what he clear to see is that keegan was after 25million. What a disgrace!

    Good job the panel had some senses as they said…

    “In our judgment, it would have been impossible to provide anything remotely approaching a precise pre estimate of loss in this case. For example, Mr Keegan might have begun employment with another club immediately after the expiry of the six month period but he might not have done so for, say, a further year or two in which event his loss would be very different.”

    0
  • Toon Chicken

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    Comment #22

    Keegan: “I do not believe that there is any manager in football who could have remained at the club in the light of their conduct. ”

    Erm… Rafa Benitez, Liverpool, Robbie Keane???

    I cannot believe he thought the club he loved so much owed him £25m for bringing one crappy little player in on loan. I mean, it’s not as if they were forcing him to pick him every week. He was bloomin injured anyway.

    I’m sorry but the memory of KK will be forever tarnished in my mind now. What a complete and utter pr!ck!

    0
  • Toon Chicken

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    Comment #23

    And can someone explain how he won his case for wrongful dismissal in the first place if the yellow tw@t walked?

    Breach of contract, yes. But I don’t get the dismissal bit.

    0
  • Toon Chicken

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM

    Comment #24

    Keegan: “I also want to confirm that a central purpose of my claim has always been to clear my name and restore my reputation.”

    Yeah – some reputation you’ve got now. Forever to be known as the man who not only walked out on the club he loved but then tried to bring it to its knees by claiming more than three times the value of his contract!

    0
  • Robby Bobson

    Oct 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    Comment #25

    Toon Chicken // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM

    Keegan: “I also want to confirm that a central purpose of my claim has always been to clear my name and restore my reputation.”

    I think that is proven wrong by him claiming 25 million.

    0
  • ksmit

    Oct 2, 2009 at 5:14 PM

    Comment #26

    I think a lot of the comments on here are from people who haven’t read the entire article on how they came to their decision and some of the decisions that KK made during the court hearings. The largest portion of the claim by far was for the stigma that would be attached to his name. After the court had ruled in his favor that it was creative dismissal the stigma on him was therefore removed and he seemed to be fine with dropping that portion of his claim. Another thing that people are ignoring is something that was never included in the actual court case but I’m sure was another reason for his leaving. The sale of Milner. All you would have to do would be look at the archives on the site to find an article with a title along the lines of “Milners a gem” which came out two days before Milner’s sale. KK had no intention on selling him and wanted to keep him but was obviously forced to sell him and still tried to make things work with the club. After that, the club brings in Gonzales. Obviously he had no control over anything. It didn’t have to do with only one player and anyone looking at it like that is just trying to point the blame at KK since he’s gone. The problem has always been MA and co. and will continue to be that way until they are gone. I still think that KK was great and MA/Wise forcing him out is the reason that we are in the championship

    0
  • Edd Case

    Oct 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM

    Comment #27

    Toon Chicken // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    And can someone explain how he won his case for wrongful dismissal in the first place if the yellow tw@t walked?

    Breach of contract, yes. But I don’t get the dismissal bit.

    It’s called “Constructive Dismissal”.

    Means he walked because he had no option other than to do so.
    Effectively the club dismissed him by indirectly making his job so bad for him that he had to quit.

    0
  • ksmit

    Oct 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM

    Comment #28

    I highly recommend that everyone goes to NUFC.com to read their opinion on this. As anyone who reads their articles can tell you they have not had a very high opinion of Keegan since before he was brought back. The article on their website shows a lot more and has some essential quotes that truly show how bad the administration has been. For example, lying to the press in order to make KK look bad…

    0
  • Spuggy

    Oct 2, 2009 at 5:31 PM

    Comment #29

    Am I missing something – what is the OFFICIAL source of the 25 million claim? I can only find anything official on 2m??

    Is this not the technical issue KK refers to still being considered by the tribunal?

    0
  • Toon Chicken

    Oct 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM

    Comment #30

    To be fair NUFC.com think that racial abuse of opposition players is just “freedom of speech”. I would advise anyone take their opinions with an extra large pinch of salt.

    0
  • Spuggy

    Oct 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM

    Comment #31

    I dont think it was unfair to be honest. As he has seriously damaged his reputation! But I think we will find more out soon I dont think he ever expected that much its a legal ploy.

    It is shocking to think where we could have been if KK had stayed and Ashley had just gave him 20 million to spend on whoever.

    We have lost a lot more now!

    0
  • Why-Eye-Mun

    Oct 2, 2009 at 10:31 PM

    Comment #32

    Quote from Stardust : “He has left on a technicality of 1 player, Gonzalez – the club state he was signed for commercial reasons (to gain favour with influential agents) – and Keegan walks out and sues for 25m.

    ONE PLAYER I say again – a minor difference of opinion on why he should be signed”

    ———————————————-

    Oh Lord, what an abysmal and irrational attempt to portray black as white!
    A “minor difference of opinion”?!
    A manager is promised autonomy only to find players are to be bought – over his head – not on the basis that they will enhance the team, but to do a couple of pals a “Favour”?!

    I think you have got yourself so wrapped up in this that you really cannot see the absurdity of your position! “A technicality” my R’s!
    Player selection must be the province of the manager.

    I might also point out a fact that seems to have escaped you; in awarding Keegan ANY sum, the judgement therefore accepts that he was in fact sacked (constructive dismissal).

    As long as you can churn out stuff like this in all seriousness, you will continue to provide grounds for keeping NUFC as the national laughing stock of English football.

    p.s. If you seriously think that Keegan imagined for one moment he would get anything like £25m, then you don’t understand legal strategy in such cases.

    0
  • dave 1961

    Oct 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM

    Comment #33

    its funny reading some of these comments on hear as if the writer had a clue what went on, what happens when you engage a legal team they tell you how to fight the claim, so if Keegan went for 26 million it was what his legal team felt he was due, if he had gone against their advice he would have had to engage a new team, that’s how the system works. and by the judgment he was correct. it is some of my money that he gets but i put it down to one man, thanks you very much Mr Ashley.

    0
  • Sav

    Oct 3, 2009 at 3:41 AM

    Comment #34

    I agree with Dave 1961. Its how the lawyers play it.
    Ed, you can be rightly ashamed if the only comment you can make over today’s full and frank conclusions is about the size of KK’s claim. The club and its owner, including former staff Wise and Vetere are shown to be a pack of liars who treated and continue to regard supporters as fools. They did the same to KK and I for one am absolutely delighted he has been vindicated completely and struck a material blow for himself and a symbolic one for the rest of us.
    Stirshite is siding with you, Ed. That shows how far wrong you are on this one.

    0

You must log in to post a comment.