D-Day for KEANO

pjaya · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:

Would hardly be the first grudge in football though would it? I don't think they can do anything to him just cos he admitted it in a book, freedom of speech will win that one, especially in a european court. I think they need a good reason to punish him twice for the same tackle, he got a red card, and a ban, because it was dangerous (and looked very deliberate). Nothing new to warrant further punishment imo.<hr></blockquote>

agreed with you here!

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by spinoza:


I think the serialisation left a lot to be desired. The focus was quite heavily on the 'premeditated' aspect of it and not how premeditated it was. I think Keane's defence will be this - he held the grudge, but he only decided to hurt Haaland (i.e. the "I've waited long enough" quote) during or just before the match. Is that premeditated? That's for the FA to decide isn't it?<hr></blockquote>

that defence is a load of rubbish mate. i don't personally think there is a defence - he should start proceedings against dunphy if there is anything in the book that is ambiguous about the challenge. its called 'misrepresentation'

Murt · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by michael owen's mum:
someone should teach him how to do a double-windsor properly.
<hr></blockquote>

A true irish man thinks that double windsor is slang for a royal orgie, fair play to ya Keane, one of the great Irish rebels.

Lynott · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


that defence is a load of rubbish mate. i don't personally think there is a defence - he should start proceedings against dunphy if there is anything in the book that is ambiguous about the challenge. its called 'misrepresentation'<hr></blockquote>

It's got nothing to do with Dunphy. Keane was delighted with the book and has said so. Keane has also said that he wouldn't change a word. They worked together closely on this and Keane was responsible for every word printed in that book.
I am not knocking anything that he has done. I thought it was a fantastic book and believe the FA charge is bullshit. Firstly because he has been punished for the tackle. Secondly in terms of finacial gain due to his description of the Haaland incident, well as I have said earlier, it was a flat fee so the money would have been the same whether it was in or out. Plus the small matter of freedom of speech. This is a media driven charge and the FA is trying to save face and I believe they are acting outside the law because if it was a court of law it would be thrown out.

spinoza · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


Question 1)Have you read the book and ,if so,tell me what the book says that is different

Question 2)If the papers incorrectly quoted from the book,why didn't Keane complain (or maybe he felt 'his honesty' had actually been properly reported)

Question 3)Why blame the press? Didn't Keane get handsomely rewarded by them and also,didn't the press articles help stimulate greater sales of the book?

Keane has done pretty well financially out of the book fueled by the excerpts in the press...he has to stand by everything that was written ,therefore.<hr></blockquote>

1) Yes. See post to Neil. Its a matter of context which is why the FA have a case in the first place.

2) No incorrect quotes except maybe by the tabloids. See post to Neil. But then since when did anyone have any control over what the press writes? He got a sum of money but didn't get to approve the final drafts to be printed in the news I'm sure.

3) Not blaming the press for the charges. That's clearly Keane's fault. Just saying that you should read the book, as the papers are more interested in selling more copies than reporting it properly.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


It's got nothing to do with Dunphy. Keane was delighted with the book and has said so. Keane has also said that he wouldn't change a word. They worked together closely on this and Keane was responsible for every word printed in that book.
I am not knocking anything that he has done. I thought it was a fantastic book and believe the FA charge is bullshit. Firstly because he has been punished for the tackle. Secondly in terms of finacial gain due to his description of the Haaland incident, well as I have said earlier, it was a flat fee so the money would have been the same whether it was in or out. Plus the small matter of freedom of speech. This is a media driven charge and the FA is trying to save face and I believe they are acting outside the law because if it was a court of law it would be thrown out.<hr></blockquote>

is it not fair to say that deliberately attacking a colleague is in breach of his contract of employment with MUFC and/or his player registration with the FA?

this second point leads us to "bringing the game into disrepute". to this charge there can be no defence other to say "i never said that, i'm very sorry for the city lad, hope he is ok". which is not the case. the defence seems to be "so waht? i can say what i like it was years ago"

is that what we pay our lawyers for?

Gazza · Oct 15, 2002

Good luck Roy.

RUnited · Oct 15, 2002

does anyone know what happened yet?

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by RUnited:
does anyone know what happened yet?<hr></blockquote>

why is it taking so long? no news is bad news i reckon...

Amir · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


why is it taking so long? no news is bad news i reckon...<hr></blockquote>

No news is no news.

And I'm still waiting for you to reveal who do you really support.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


Keane got a flat fee from the book, therefore he gets the same amount regardless of the amount sold.<hr></blockquote>

So who got the serialisation rights?
Listen,if there was a flat fee that was surely calculated based upon those rights as well.
In other words he got well paid and more than he would if there had been no press serialisation.

Gazza · Oct 15, 2002

I think Roy will get a five-match ban for "bringing the game into disrepute" plus a fine of some sort. Anyone know the likelihood of Roy missing the Pool, City, Arse games?

Amir · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gazza:
I think Roy will get a five-match ban for "bringing the game into disrepute" plus a fine of some sort. Anyone know the likelihood of Roy missing the Pool, City, Arse games?<hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't expect him to, as he'll surely appeal if he gets something like that.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Amir:


I wouldn't expect him to, as he'll surely appeal if he gets something like that.<hr></blockquote>

he CANNOT appeal amir because he has sought a personal hearing. what they say goes as far as today is concerned. if they ban him for life there is NO legal framework to appeal as I understand it. another piece of magic from the lawyers. surely there must have been another option?

Amir · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


he CANNOT appeal amir because he has sought a personal hearing. what they say goes as far as today is concerned. if they ban him for life there is NO legal framework to appeal as I understand it. another piece of magic from the lawyers. surely there must have been another option?<hr></blockquote>

He can always go to higher places such as court. And I suspect he will if the FA does anything outragous such as banning him for more than a match or two.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


They have been guilty of head butts, swinging elbows, attacks on referees and vengeful tackles have they not? Is this not what you mean by thuggery, or is it just because Keane has done it in the past and openly admitted it?<hr></blockquote>

Nonsense,any infringements they did have been punished.To suggest Henry is a thuggish player is ridiculous.Vieira is more fouled against than any other player in the EPL .

At least neither of them have ever attempted to end another professional player's career.

Lynott · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


Keane has done pretty well financially out of the book fueled by the excerpts in the press...he has to stand by everything that was written ,therefore.<hr></blockquote>

I was replying in relation to your above comment, when explaining about the flat fee of 1 million.

In relation to serialisation of the book, he had to. If he didn't award the serialisation to a paper every paper would have tore that book to shreds and the publicity would have been 10 fold. It was the biggest hate campaign I've seen towards a footballer since Beckham, because of the serialisation, imagine the scale of it without. I am not naive in thinking that Keane was not well paid for the serialisation, but if they are going to screw you you may as well cash in. It is a way of regulating what the press gets.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


I was replying in relation to your above comment, when explaining about the flat fee of 1 million.

In relation to serialisation of the book, he had to. If he didn't award the serialisation to a paper every paper would have tore that book to shreds and the publicity would have been 10 fold. It was the biggest hate campaign I've seen towards a footballer since Beckham, because of the serialisation, imagine the scale of it without. I am not naive in thinking that Keane was not well paid for the serialisation, but if they are going to screw you you may as well cash in. It is a way of regulating what the press gets.<hr></blockquote>

Biggest hate campaign? I didn't see it as that.Listen,he didn't have to write the blxxdy book.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Amir:


He can always go to higher places such as court. And I suspect he will if the FA does anything outragous such as banning him for more than a match or two.<hr></blockquote>

no i know i was going to extremes with the life ban - but how long would an 'appeal to a higher court' take? weeks? months? years? are you thinking it could go to the european court of human rights or something? my point is that this seems to be the most dangerous way of defending the case. would it not have been better to let the FA make a decision and then appeal if it was out of order? the only excuse for placing keane in this precarious position is that the lawyers told him to throw himself at their mercy with a defence of 'i dont know about all this bookwriting business, mister. i'm only a simple fella meself. i never hurt nobody me, mister, honest"

the whole scene is just one big let down all round from keane to dunphy to the lawyers and everything.

Lynott · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


Nonsense,any infringements they did have been punished.To suggest Henry is a thuggish player is ridiculous.Vieira is more fouled against than any other player in the EPL .

At least neither of them have ever attempted to end another professional player's career.<hr></blockquote>

The fact that they have been punished is not the point. Keane has been punished for everything he has ever done wrong in the game, possibly could be banned twice. The point I made is not nonsense it's fact. You have to be resonable here! I understand opposition fans attitude toward Keane, that's fair enough. Alot of it has to do with envy. However for you to come out and state that Keane be suspended for 6 months and defend Henry and Viera for similar actions in the past, well that's nonsense.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


The fact that they have been punished is not the point. Keane has been punished for everything he has ever done wrong in the game, possibly could be banned twice. The point I made is not nonsense it's fact. You have to be resonable here! I understand opposition fans attitude toward Keane, that's fair enough. Alot of it has to do with envy. However for you to come out and state that Keane be suspended for 6 months and defend Henry and Viera for similar actions in the past, well that's nonsense.<hr></blockquote>

My point is that Keane should be suspended for his premeditated act of violence calculated to end a fellow professional's career.

Neither Henry or Vieira have ever been guilty of that......so any comparison you make is invalid.

michael owen's mum · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


In relation to serialisation of the book, he had to. If he didn't award the serialisation to a paper every paper would have tore that book to shreds and the publicity would have been 10 fold. It was the biggest hate campaign I've seen towards a footballer since Beckham, because of the serialisation, imagine the scale of it without. I am not naive in thinking that Keane was not well paid for the serialisation, but if they are going to screw you you may as well cash in. It is a way of regulating what the press gets.<hr></blockquote>

tough shit. if the "press tore the book to shreds" as you put it, it would arguably have sold more bloody copies. don't be so naive.

and there has been no "hate campaign" here apart from keane's on haaland. . .nor has keane been "screwed" by anybody but himself i'm afraid.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:


The fact that they have been punished is not the point. Keane has been punished for everything he has ever done wrong in the game, possibly could be banned twice. The point I made is not nonsense it's fact. You have to be resonable here! I understand opposition fans attitude toward Keane, that's fair enough. Alot of it has to do with envy. However for you to come out and state that Keane be suspended for 6 months and defend Henry and Viera for similar actions in the past, well that's nonsense.<hr></blockquote>

and what about the book?

Amir · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


My point is that Keane should be suspended for his premeditated act of violence calculated to end a fellow professional's career.
<hr></blockquote>

Violence yes, calculated to end a professional's career - no. It cannot be proven anyway.

RedorDead6899 · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


My point is that Keane should be suspended for his premeditated act of violence calculated to end a fellow professional's career.

Neither Henry or Vieira have ever been guilty of that.......<hr></blockquote>

How do you know that? No one knew Keane's act was pre-meditated until he said so himself in a book. So, in theory Henry or Viera could later admit similar.

michael owen's mum · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by RedorDead6899:


How do you know that? No one knew Keane's act was pre-meditated until he said so himself in a book. So, in theory Henry or Viera could later admit similar.<hr></blockquote>

i think the point being that they haven't.

An Extremely Boring Man · Oct 15, 2002

I'm sorry if I have missed something, but did Keano say he wanted to end Alfie's career?

Lynott · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


My point is that Keane should be suspended for his premeditated act of violence calculated to end a fellow professional's career.

Neither Henry or Vieira have ever been guilty of that......so any comparison you make is invalid.<hr></blockquote>
He never said anywhere that he intended to end a players career. Granted you haven't read the book, but the quote has be published as often as the bible now at this stage. Wanting to 'do' someone does not mean ending their career.

it's hard to discuss this back and forth like this. I feel your 6 month ban of Keane suggestion is a complete case of one rule for us and another rule for youse. But I will say that the book was fantastic and a joy to read, but that passage did not belong there. It was(forgive the metaphor) like a piece of coal on a blanket of snow. It wasn't with the flow of the book, it shouldn't have been in there, and stood out like so.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by michael owen's mum:


i think the point being that they haven't.<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely spot on MO's Mum .........they haven't nor are they likely to.Any transgression by Henry/Vieira result from provocation and the heat of the moment.

Lynott · Oct 15, 2002

Being outnumbered here at the moment! Someone want to help me out?

RedorDead6899 · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


they haven't nor are they likely to.<hr></blockquote>

Know them that well, do you?

I don't condone Keane - but in a way, I admire his honesty.

Gillespie · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:

He never said anywhere that he intended to end a players career. Granted you haven't read the book, but the quote has be published as often as the bible now at this stage. Wanting to 'do' someone does not mean ending their career.

it's hard to discuss this back and forth like this. I feel your 6 month ban of Keane suggestion is a complete case of one rule for us and another rule for youse. But I will say that the book was fantastic and a joy to read, but that passage did not belong there. It was(forgive the metaphor) like a piece of coal on a blanket of snow. It wasn't with the flow of the book, it shouldn't have been in there, and stood out like so.<hr></blockquote>

Listen,he won't get 6 months,maybe a 3 match ban at most.As for one rule for you and another for us,don't make me laugh.I don't remember any action being taken against Keane et al after they chased that (admittedly tosspot) D'Urso around the pitch but Henry gets a three match ban for remonstrating with that other wxnker Poll last year.

One rule for us and another for you?......so that's why the FA allow you to skip off to Brazil missing the FA cup for some inconsequential tournament?

Neil Thomson · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Gillespie:


Listen,he won't get 6 months,maybe a 3 match ban at most.As for one rule for you and another for us,don't make me laugh.I don't remember any action being taken against Keane et al after they chased that (admittedly tosspot) D'Urso around the pitch but Henry gets a three match ban for remonstrating with that other wxnker Poll last year.

One rule for us and another for you?......so that's why the FA allow you to skip off to Brazil missing the FA cup for some inconsequential tournament?<hr></blockquote>
The FA were the one's pressurising us to go on that trip! <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" />

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Lynott:

He never said anywhere that he intended to end a players career. Granted you haven't read the book, but the quote has be published as often as the bible now at this stage. Wanting to 'do' someone does not mean ending their career.

it's hard to discuss this back and forth like this. I feel your 6 month ban of Keane suggestion is a complete case of one rule for us and another rule for youse. But I will say that the book was fantastic and a joy to read, but that passage did not belong there. It was(forgive the metaphor) like a piece of coal on a blanket of snow. It wasn't with the flow of the book, it shouldn't have been in there, and stood out like so.<hr></blockquote>

you can't defend him on the basis of literary criticism mate even if it was a nice metaphor. let's face it, there is no defence for what he did and he will have to take the punishment on the chin. we can go on all day about ghost writers and deconstructng the quotes but we know what happened. he went for haaland, he accepted the red card, he bragged about it to dunphy and then he let him publish it as if he was a hero.

now he faces a ban. that's football.

Neil Thomson · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


you can't defend him on the basis of literary criticism mate even if it was a nice metaphor. let's face it, there is no defence for what he did and he will have to take the punishment on the chin. we can go on all day about ghost writers and deconstructng the quotes but we know what happened. he went for haaland, he accepted the red card, he bragged about it to dunphy and then he let him publish it as if he was a hero.

now he faces a ban. that's football.<hr></blockquote>
The defence is that he has already been punished for it. Writing a book isn't an offence, and is outside of the FA's jurisdiction.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:

The defence is that he has already been punished for it. Writing a book isn't an offence, and is outside of the FA's jurisdiction.<hr></blockquote>

bringing the game into disrepute? writing a book that describes one professionals intention to injure another and making commercial gain from it?

do you remember the vinny jones video?

Neil Thomson · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


bringing the game into disrepute? writing a book that describes one professionals intention to injure another and making commercial gain from it?

do you remember the vinny jones video?<hr></blockquote>
Personally I think the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' thing is bollox, if that was the case then every ref would have been up in front of the FA by now! The FA rule of bringing the game into disrepute is secondary to European Law, and the Right to Free Speech.

smash · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by Neil Thomson:

Personally I think the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' thing is bollox, if that was the case then every ref would have been up in front of the FA by now! The FA rule of bringing the game into disrepute is secondary to European Law, and the Right to Free Speech.<hr></blockquote>

oh give over, right to free speech?

Neil Thomson · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


oh give over, right to free speech?<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, one's actually enshrined in law...

I presume you'd have no problem if he'd retired from the game before writing it?

Rory 7 · Oct 15, 2002

Originally posted by smash:


oh give over, right to free speech?<hr></blockquote>

You don't know what you're talking about smash. The free speech bit will be crucial to Keane's case.

D-Day for KEANO

Full Member

smash

Guest

New Member

New Member

Paz's ion

smash

Guest

Full Member

Gold Member

smash

Guest

Full Member

New Member

Full Member

Full Member

smash

Guest

Full Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

smash

Guest

New Member

New Member

New Member

smash

Guest

Full Member

Acid tongued, and often called evil, but kind to s

New Member

Retired 39,9999 not out

New Member

New Member

New Member

Acid tongued, and often called evil, but kind to s

New Member

New Member

smash

Guest

New Member

smash

Guest

New Member

smash

Guest

New Member

Full Member