Kevin Keegan resigned as manager of Newcastle United on Thursday, less than eight months after taking charge of the Premier League club for the second time.

Keegan said in a statement that he had been left with “no choice” because of the way the club was being run.

Is he right?

Should managers (or coaches) be the people who decide who the club should buy and sell? That’s not always how it works at big clubs in Europe (Real Madrid and Barcelona, for example) where you’ll find a sporting director installed above the coach. Of course, you would hope that they would work together but it doesn’t always happen that way and it’s clear enough who holds the power.

On the other hand, as Mike Collett wrote here yesterday, all these clubs who fancy joining Manchester United at the top of the tree may be better advised to go for the Old Trafford model, where the manager is very much the man in charge.

A look at The Newcastle United Blog suggests there is a lot of sympathy for Keegan and a lot anger with the club.

Keegan’s second spell in charge of Newcastle was less spectacular than the first but it was successful enough in its way.

There was no title challenge this time and nor was there expected to be — and doesn’t that tell you something about how football has changed over the past decade – but after his arrival in January this year he did steer the club clear of any relegation worries. After an opening-day draw with Manchester United there was reason for cautious optimism among fans.

Keegan evidently did not share that after losing, in his view, “the right to manage”.

Was he right to quit this time? And what happens next?