The full, extraordinary details were documented in black and white. Welcome to Mike Ashley’s Newcastle United: a club where senseless transfers can be conducted as a “favour” to South American agents; where directors tell a baffled manager to look up his new signing on YouTube; where officials consistently mislead supporters “as an exercise in public relations”. The chaos that has blossomed since Ashley bought Newcastle in 2007 — a billionaire benefactor promising “a bit of fun” — was exposed in brutal fashion yesterday. Even the legalese of a Premier League arbitration panel’s report into Kevin Keegan’s departure could not cloak some devastating findings. Its assessment produced a verdict of constructive dismissal and a vindication of the former manager’s point of principle. To see it in print felt like a return to the maelstrom of transfer deadline day last year. After confusion regarding the delineation of duties between Keegan and Dennis Wise, the club’s executive director (football), the catalyst was the mooted loan signing of Ignacio González, a Uruguayan midfield player, from Valencia. The three-man independent arbitration panel, chaired by Philip Havers QC, took up a scarcely credible story. “Mr Keegan was unimpressed and told Mr Wise that he did not think the player was good enough,” the panel reported. “Mr Wise then told him that the player was on YouTube and that Mr Keegan could look him up there, but he [Keegan] found that the clips were of poor quality and provided no basis for signing a player to a Premier League club. Moreover, no one at the club had seen him [González] play.” Related Links * Clubs must wise up to avoid executive stress * All that fuss over Ignacio Gonzalez, a player who lasted just 38 minutes on Tyneside In spite of Keegan, the deal was completed. “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 . . . that the signing of a player on loan would be a ‘favour’ 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.” Keegan was left with no alternative. “I do not believe that there is any manager in football who could have remained at the club in the light of their conduct,” he said. “This is something that I was not prepared to be associated with in any way. The club knew that I objected strongly to this transfer and were aware that by continuing with it I was likely to feel that I had no option but to resign.” The last 12 months have not been kind to Keegan, whose reputation has been targeted by some toxic leaking while he waited for his case to be heard. Amid the club’s painful descent towards relegation, the arrivals and departures of Joe Kinnear and Alan Shearer, the ugly headlines and poor results, his motives for walking away have been questioned. He has been painted as embittered, compromised and a serial quitter. Finally, he has been able to address the issue. “The decision to resign was one of the most difficult that I have ever had to take in my life,” he said. “I believe that anybody who knows me and my attachment to Newcastle United and the North East in general will understand how difficult this must have been . . . I felt that I had no option but to resign from the position as manager of the club that I love.” That decision initiated a lengthy legal battle between Keegan and Newcastle, with the former arguing he was effectively dismissed and the latter responding that he had breached his contract. The key issue was whether Keegan knew when he returned to Tyneside for his second stint in the dugout that he would or would not be responsible for acquiring new players. Wise and Chris Mort, who was Newcastle’s chairman when Keegan was hired in January 2008, had both said publicly — Wise through the club’s official website — that Keegan would be the final arbiter on transfers, but in front of the tribunal the club argued the opposite. “The club’s explanation for these statements, which, on their case, were simply untrue, was that they were nothing more than an exercise in public relations carried out so as not to undermine Mr Keegan’s position and made necessary, in the first place, by statements made by Mr Keegan himself to the press,” the panel reported. “We found this explanation to be profoundly unsatisfactory . . . we do not understand why the club could not set out publicly and truthfully what they maintain was the true position.” Or as Keegan put it: “The tribunal’s decision makes it clear that I did have the final say on transfers and the club’s allegation that I did not, which was publicised widely at the time of my resignation and subsequently, was simply untrue. The club admitted to the tribunal that it repeatedly and intentionally misled the press, public and the fans of Newcastle.” Other inconsistencies were highlighted, from Kinnear being appointed under the same “continental” structure as Keegan, yet being wholly responsible for transfers, to the “lack of clarity” and “confusion” in the club’s evidence. A letter to Keegan from Derek Llambias, the managing director, dated September 4, 2008, promised that “no player will be bought for the first team without your approval, save of course for commercial deals”. Wise denied that Keegan ever had the final say. Newcastle are top of the Coca-Cola Championship and face Bristol City at home today. In difficult circumstances, a pared-down squad has unearthed unity and spirit, but that heartening response to demotion is balanced by the continuing presence of Ashley and Llambias at the club. A takeover cannot come soon enough. Yesterday, the hierarchy issued a short statement. “The club will be making no comment on this matter,” it said. Nothing else would have been believable.
Comments