Jump to content

Cam the Ram

Member
  • Content Count

    6,148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cam the Ram

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,328 profile views
  1. Feel like we've been saying that for the past 2-3 months now and he's still not got as near to the first team as Knight or Bird. I understand not wanting to rush him, but it's infuriating that he doesn't even get the chance to at least impress off the bench in a team that lacks a real creative midfielder.
  2. We've won just one away game all season and that came on the opening day against a Huddersfield team in a mess ... you'll be fine
  3. "As we have said from the outset, the club will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute." Unless we can make some money from them, in which case they'll get a slap on the wrist.
  4. Keogh is costing the club money through the insurance they won't receive and so they're trying to get him to reduce his wages for the duration of his contract. Haven't Bennett and Lawrence cost the club money through other ways as well though? Their market value will surely have dropped as I'm sure if there ever comes a time we're trying to sell them, this incident will probably be used as a means to lower their cost. And we don't know, but this incident may have put off potential investors and sponsors. It's obviously just me speculating, but I'd imagine those types of losses would outweigh the loss on Keogh's wages. All 3 are likely to be costing the club money, but 2 of them can still (just about) kick a ball about so probably won't receive the same sort of offer Keogh has now.
  5. What more do I need to explain? In an ideal world, the club's finances wouldn't be a key factor in the decision making and I think they should all suffer the same punishment from the club (or Bennett and Lawrence more). I've explained why it is morally wrong multiple times. 4 people were involved, 2 of them the main culprits, but the level of punishment differs on 3 levels (6 week wages fine + community service for 2, a pay cut for 1 and seemingly no punishment for the 4th member). Now, unless I've misunderstood what morally means, I think that's more than enough explanation needed from me. I'll say once more, I understand why the club has made the decision it has and know that their situations are different, but for me, morally, it's just wrong to altar the level of punishment for people who were all involved in the same mistake because of the outcome of it. I think we should leave our conversation there for now @GenBR. I've posted 6 or 7 times in here and you've said I've not explained anything, what I'm saying is absolutely baffling or just used the laughing emoji on my posts. If that's as far as we've got then it's probably best if we leave it there and agree to disagree. Hope you enjoy the rest of your evening mate 👍
  6. But he also can't play because of Tom Lawrence's actions. As I've said, I completely understand the club's decisions and I know they're the best form of action for the club. It just doesn't sit well with me that the others are getting off (in comparison to Keogh's punishment) lightly. 1 week we're seeing articles from Curtis Davies about the club doing all they can to integrate Lawrence and Bennett back into the team so they don't feel ostracised and the next we're seeing that Keogh must take a pay cut or be sacked. The funny part about it is that the Keogh offer is obviously because as @SaintRamsaid, he'll be unavailable for a huge part of his remaining contract (66% I think you said?) ..... Bennett has probably been unavailable for around that amount of time in all of his previous contracts through injuries (although most/all occurred via football activities) 😂
  7. I don't understand why you're having so much trouble understanding my point? I don't care about how 1 can't contribute and isn't worth anything and the others are .... I completely understand why the club are doing what they're doing. I'm looking at the situation purely out of my own morals and I don't think it is fair that 1 person is suffering more severe consequences than the other 3 involved. That's it, there's nothing more to it. You, SaintRam and others can keep repeating stuff about the financial consequences and why the club is making the right choice which is fine and I agree with, but I just don't believe it to be morally correct, that's all. As for the press stuff, the stadium sale and Rooney signing come to mind. Sure they're both legal and haven't gone against any rules (unless the EFL change their mind), but even the most biased Derby fans can surely see selling a stadium to yourself to avoid FFP punishment and having a betting company heavily involved in a player's arrival isn't a great look.
  8. Oh there absolutely is a moral issue here. 4 people were involved in the incident. 2 people were driving their cars whilst drunk and 2 people were passengers. The 1 individual who has already suffered the most from the incident via his injuries, is now also suffering the most severe punishment of the 4. How on earth is that not a moral issue?
  9. If the others involved were offered the same as Keogh and refused, do you believe they'd be sacked too? I don't. Everyone can keep banging on about the club doing what's best for itself because Bennett and Lawrence can still contribute and have resale value etc. but to me it's just another morally wrong decision by a football club who've been in the press for all sorts of morally wrong reasons over the past few years.
  10. You not read the article? It says if he declines their offer him being sacked cannot be ruled out.
  11. I might be in the minority, but it doesn't sit right with me that 3 people were involved in the incident and 1 of them (the 1 who didn't actually commit a crime) is facing the sack whilst the others aren't. Sure the other 2 can play and still contribute, but that shouldn't exempt them from the same punishment as Keogh.
  12. So the 2 main culprits have been given a fine and are already back in the team and playing like nothing happened, but the passenger who's already suffered the most is now being threatened with being sacked? Sure he's the captain and should know better, but if you're exploring the possibility of sacking him then you should have probably done that with the other 2 as well.
  13. And just like Lampard did with Mount, Tomori and Wilson after he arrived, I think a lot of us had hoped Cocu would delve into his contacts to bring in some top loans. Instead, we got Paterson, Dowell and Hamer.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.