ilkleyram

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.
There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.
What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.
I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  
If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

If I could applaud a post five times...

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.
There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.
What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.
I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  
If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.
There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.
What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.
I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  
If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.
There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.
What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.
I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  
If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

Looks like rain ??

Thanks for that feedback @ilkleyram! I really appreciate you taking the time to provide it. Absolutely understandable - I think we've all wanted to be as far away from this club for much of this season, so the release of the book definitely wasn't ideal. You're right on the labour of love side. It became a weekly question of 'why on earth am I doing this?' but I massively enjoyed it.
Thanks for the mention on the prose as well. Can understand that completely. I'll do my best to answer the questions:
1) So yeah, I always planned on doing it chronologically because it was going to run from 2000-2020, but the further on I went the more it developed really. I did actually toy with the idea of doing it as a season/chapter on a player sort of thing, but I instead to do the player focuses as blogs instead to raise a bit of awareness on the book in the end. Completely agree that there's loads more I didn't manage to fit in!
2) I made an initial list of about 80 or so people which changed massively over time. My original targets were more of the 'lesser' players without being disrespectful, but the further along it went on, the more strong connections I managed to make. Of the list above, Jewell and Clough both refused to take part. Tom Glick + Andy Appleby never responded to a few interview requests and Sam Rush legally wasn't allowed to speak, although he was really good to deal with and has read the book since it's release. Mel I pushed to get for a long time but it never happened unfortunately, though he did have to give final approval before the release of the book because it wasn't entirely complimentary. To be fair, I always tried to get the key people where possible. So even with the Amigos, I was really close to getting Jeremy Keith before he turned it down. Keogh too had agreed to take part but the longer his legal battle with the club went on, the more it became impossible. Billy Davies too had agreed before backing out. I tried to get a member of the coaching staff + management team as much as possible as well. I think the Lampard + Davies reigns were the only ones I didn't manage to grab anything from unfortunately.
The book has gone down crazily well, certainly way better than I expected, and has just had it's third reprint since publication, which is wild. So a big, big thank you to everyone who has read it! It's been in and around the top 20 on Amazon since release, which again is completely crazy. I'm giving away a copy over on a separate thread in case anyone is keen on a pre-Christmas 'treat' (not sure that's the right word)
Thanks again Ilkley, I massively appreciate that!

Hi @HuddersRam.  You said that you wanted some feedback in one of your earlier posts so, now I've read it......
The last 100 pages were a struggle, not because of the book but because of my general DCFC mood.  The last 5 results and improved performances and mood made me pick it up again and finish it after several weeks gap.
I enjoyed it a great deal and would recommend it to any Rams fan (or general football fan). Thank you for writing it. It must have been a real labour of love at times.
I don't know whether there are any factual errors - all the seasons tend to blur for me - but it served as a really good reminder of some of the things we have gone through over the last few years and put them in some order.  There were some proof reading errors (grammar and the like) but they were relatively minor; at times too I had to go back to work out which season we were in, perhaps a few more memory jogs in the prose might have helped, especially in some of the blander seasons. As @RamNut has suggested the Giles Barnes comments were perhaps amongst the most revelatory.  An interesting character is Nigel - he obviously generates huge loyalty and significant dislike, perhaps in equal measure.
If I had a couple of questions/comments they would be:
1) why did you construct the story chronologically (not suggesting that was a bad thing to do, just wondered)? Did you consider writing it in a different way, by owner or manager perhaps or by taking a player from each season? The off field stories have been as interesting as the on field events over many of our PP years - the rise and fall of Lionel, the amigos, Gadsby/GSE and Mel as well as all the various managers.  There may be a series of books!
2) There were some omissions I thought.  Mel for example, Nigel, Jewell, John Vicars or Stephen Pearce (even Sam Rush), or a fan or fans' eye view or a local/national reporter maybe. The players interviewed seemed somewhat random at times (although Bryson runs as a theme throughout many of the years and is heavily featured). That may well be because no one else wanted to talk to you (or were tied up in legal restrictions), or if they did were very circumspect (Burley for example), but, for me, the details that I couldn't know (or had forgotten) are often the most interesting ones - about transfers in or out, contracts or training regimes, relationships with managers and team mates or coming from abroad to a provincial East Midland city, never mind the board room/takeover shenanigans.
I wish you all the best with it and hope it is selling well over Christmas.  Thanks again for writing it.

?
And what's with cyclists that now often have LED lights that flash on and off, usually poorly adjusted and which are just as blinding, distracting and dangerous as car headlights

Mrs Shagwell-Ram has a certain descriptive elegance to it. 

Mrs Shagwell-Ram has a certain descriptive elegance to it. 

Both me and young Ilkley have our own copies and I'm up to page 100 after a couple of days. It's an excellent read in the main
The bit that I've just gone through is the Lionel/3 amigos changeover and the John Gregory/George Burley period.  I had put most of it happily to the back of my mind.  Hope to God that we're not embarking on a similar period in our history, though learning that Mel has been in negotiation since May you do wonder whether Cocu was promised money and players which haven't been delivered.
One question @HuddersRam - George Burley was apparently not willing to talk about the relationship with Murdo Mackay as Director of Football and also about the allegations that were made about him around the time he left yet he appears still to be angry/upset about them. It seems odd to me that 15 years later he wouldn't discuss those things unless there were legal restrictions preventing him doing so or whether he didn't just want to rake up the past. Without breaking any confidences can you tell us why that was?  

Thanks Ilkley! I'd like to think we could never go through a period like that again but who knows with Derby County to be honest. Looking back, if it wasn't for the fanbase, things would have got very dark.
Yeah George was a bit of a spiky character. In the end I only got around 20 minutes with him and he was pretty quick to shut down any chat on Murdo and the situation there unfortunately. I pursued again with a text but he made it pretty clear there was no chance I'd get anything from him on it. But to be quite honest, there were lots of people from over the years who didn't want to drag over old things. Burley, Gregory, Jeremy Keith. None of them wanted to go over much and of the three, it was only Burley who was happy to pick up the phone.
Don't think there were legal restrictions, just don't think he fancied going over unhappy memories. I think for the most part, the people who couldn't speak because of legal restrictions were quite open in saying it.

Both me and young Ilkley have our own copies and I'm up to page 100 after a couple of days. It's an excellent read in the main
The bit that I've just gone through is the Lionel/3 amigos changeover and the John Gregory/George Burley period.  I had put most of it happily to the back of my mind.  Hope to God that we're not embarking on a similar period in our history, though learning that Mel has been in negotiation since May you do wonder whether Cocu was promised money and players which haven't been delivered.
One question @HuddersRam - George Burley was apparently not willing to talk about the relationship with Murdo Mackay as Director of Football and also about the allegations that were made about him around the time he left yet he appears still to be angry/upset about them. It seems odd to me that 15 years later he wouldn't discuss those things unless there were legal restrictions preventing him doing so or whether he didn't just want to rake up the past. Without breaking any confidences can you tell us why that was?  

I’ve mentioned it before but it really annoys me when people say that fairly recent thing of saying “so” in response to a question. What brought it to mind was a contestant on The Chase. When asked what he did for a living he said  “ So, I’m a history student”. And what are your hobbies? “So, I like football and hang gliding”. And if you won the money what would you do with it? “So, I’d go round the world”.       Grrrrrrrr

You're thinking of "Victoria", you know the station the Browns find him at!
Put me right off electric toothbrushes that did!?

Blimey, it’s empty. I thought Brighton beach was meant to be heaving yesterday 

The Social Distance Inn?

Sort of, only this one's dyslexic.. 

Is that the one about the bear from Peru? 

Is that the one about the bear from Peru?