Finch

You had it in for him before he even joined, another on your rogue hitlist of targets in the game ?

Happy days.

No .
 
 

My understanding was that as he lay there, The club offered to pick him up, and try to make him a little more comfortable, by placing a cushion under his head.
He not only refused this offer of help, but apparently stuck his middle finger up in the air, and told Mel to shove it.
Absolutely, definitely, certainly, there was no kicking involved!

So he should have accepted the outcome of an internal disciplinary process which, according to posters on your side of the argument, was found by the tribunal not to have been conducted according to due process?
That only makes any sense if the only two choices available to the panel were to offer reduced wages for the remainder of Keogh's contract or to dismiss him. But by definition they weren't were they becuase that's not what happened to the other playes involved. The panel could have applied similar sanctions to those applied to Lawrence and Bennett (maximum possible fine and suspension from duty).
From what I remember the revised contract offered was a massive reduction in wages - little more than a retainer in relation to what he was on. Given that at that point he had no way of knowing whether he would ever play again he simply wasn't in a position to accept it.

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.

The whole reaction to this debacle from certain Derby fans is absolutely laughable. The club screwed Keogh over there's no way two ways about it. Admitting it doesn't make you any less of a fan, it doesn't mean you now love Keogh or even think he's a half decent footballer, but the facts are as plain as day. Keogh was treated differently than the other players involved in the incident because Derby desperately wanted him off the wage bill whilst he was injured. It's a sensible move by the club, but stop pretending that Keogh is somehow out of line for fighting this. 
"But we only sacked him because he couldn't play", then why did the club release that statement about gross misconduct? Getting in a car with a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt is gross misconduct, but actually being the drunk driver isn't? Then there's the nonsense about him being captain. I don't know how you lot treat captains of any teams you've been in, but if any of mine ever tried to pull rank on me away from a football field I'd have laughed in their faces. Lawrence and Bennett were 25 and 23 respectively at the time. Both plenty old enough to understand how the law works without the intervention of their captain.

I've never at any point argued that Lawrence should have been sacked - only that it cannot be right that he was treated more leniently for a much more serious offence than Keogh's. The sanction applied to Lawrence was probably about right. A similar but propotionately lower sanction should have been applied to Keogh to relfect the fact that his transgressions were less far serious.
Bennett on the other hand should have been fired on the spot. Nothing to do with the incident - just on the grounds of capability
?
 
 
 

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?

Happy days.

You're just being ridiculous now. The whataboutery doesn't wash.
Most 'professional' jobs are completely different to that of a sportsperson who has a contractual obligation to avoid situations where they're putting their physical health in danger. Keogh didn't act responsibly in any way, shape or form so reneged on that obligation.
He was offered above and beyond what the club were obliged to offer him. The boo hoo poor Keogh routine is a joke. The club didn't want to sack Keogh, he forced their hand.
You'd also be a massive hypocrite talking about "kicking people when they're down" if you'd happily have seen Lawrence sacked despite being at his lowest point following the death of his mum and receiving a conviction for drink driving (to be fair I can't remember if you have said you'd sack Lawrence or not).
The more I think about it the more this looks like profiteering by his agent.
He wants his cut, but if Keogh's wages are reduced so is the the amount of money he'll get.  Essentially they're taking the club's naivety in trying to offer everyone a suitable individual solution knowing that they can claim inconsistencies in the club's handling of the matter, snubbing the offer made to Keogh, never having Keogh apologise for any part he played in the events that unfolded and manipulating the situation to give themselves a big ol' pay day down the line.

Except it's quite simply not what happens. At least not in most 'professional' jobs. People get injured/incapicated doing all sorts of things outside work. Skiiing, rock climbing, playing sport, non work-related mental health issues and yes, sometimes as a result of drunken misdemeanours. Unless there are crimimal charges you don't get sacked for it and nor should you.
Where do you draw the line once you try and introduce the principle of stupidity/blame? You eat Pizza everyday and have a heart attack so you can't fulfill your contract. Your fault? Quite possibly but you may have a genetic predisposition - should you be sacked? Should smokers be sacked when they get cancer and end up being hospitalised for treatment? Should you be sacked if you take a chance on going to the pub during a pandemic and end up with Long Covid and are unable to work for several months?
It's an unsustainable argument which is precisely why it doesn't work like that. It would be institutionalising the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support. That's why his wife's instagram handle temporarily became "wife of professional scapegoat'.

A new thread on the main board has also just made me remember how little Keogh thought of his responsibilities to his team-mates as their captain. A fine example he set that night.

..except he wasn't sacked as a response to him taking part in the events of the night, the club's intentions were never to sack anyone but hand out a suitable punishment for the players' actions & the consequence of them. The club wanted to assist with the rehabilitation of all involved.  It's Keogh's pigheadedness and lack of ability to take any personal responsibility for what happened to him that got him sacked.
The bolded part is simply nonsense.
If I rendered myself unable to work for 6 months through my own stupidity I wouldn't 'resign on the spot' I'd wait to see what the company said about it, but fully expect that the most likely outcome is that I'm going to be sacked. I wouldn't be entitled to full sick play because I'd broken the terms of my contract, I'd be facing the prospect of a sacking on my CV, to have ruined my chance of a reference for another job, damaged my reputation and to receive no pay until I found myself another job.
You talk about people being treated decently?
If my employer came back to me and offered me the chance to keep my job, pay for the medical bills to help me get back in working condition and actually pay me a salary throughout it I'd snap their bloody hands off - not act like I was entitled to more than they've offered me.
I'd feel like the luckiest man alive, I'd feel like I'd been  treated very decently indeed.
..but then I'm not an arrogant, entitled rick who doesn't accept responsibility for his own actions.

It may be unlikely that people would resign in the same situation (although some might), but the employer wouldn't be paying full salary either for as long as the injured employee took to recover from their non-work related injury. Many would get sacked, some may get unpaid leave, some may get statuary sick pay (followed by no pay at all), but the number getting full pay for as long as they wanted would be close to zero. 'Full sick pay' only applies for a limited period, and not if the employee was fully or partly responsible for their injury due to their own drunken recklessness.
You may have a point about him being treated unfairly compared to the other two (although as I and others have said, they could still fulfil their contracts; Keogh couldn't), but the idea that the club haven't treated him well compared to any other employee who can't work due to their own stupidity is, in my opinion, a poor one. They even offered him a compromise deal on lower pay, with full support in his recovery, and he refused.
 

Well I certainly understand the outcome which reflects the diametric opposite of what you've implied above.

You don't understand the employment tribunal process do you. 
But anyway Keogh couldn't fulfil his contract down to his own fault. The other two could still fulfil theirs.

Err yes I agree! That's why my post started with the words "the other difference being"...
I'm not denying Keogh was at least partly responsible for his injury. I'm simply saying sacking him was a completely disproportionate response, especially as Bennett and Lawrence weren't sacked. How can the club maintain the ludicrous double-think - it's a sackable offence unless you accept a much reduced contract in which case, hey presto, it isn't. Clearly nothing more than blatant opportunism - no wonder he won the case!
If any of us went out one night, had a few too many beers and injured ourselves to the extent that we were unable to work for 6 months, how many of us would resign from our jobs on the spot, even though we knew our contract entitled us to full sick pay, just because we felt it was somehow 'only fair' to our employers? That's what some posters are effectively saying Keogh should have done!
Stuff happens! When it does it's your opportunity to treat people decently. Like Clough did with Barker. Treating Keogh the way Derby did was short-sighted in the extreme. He's back playing championship football now and, if he's even close to being the player he was, he's significantly better than what we've got. And as the Ryan Conway article recently revealed, his sacking had a deleterious effect on the morale of the rest of the squad because they apparently felt it was totally unfair and he was a popular figure in the dressing room.
 

Tell Captain Keogh to duck off,plonker

The employment tribunal isn't about the 'merit' of Keoghs case it is about the 'process' of whether he was unfairly dismissed. The two topics are separate things.

Is there an argument that he damaged DCFC property/resources? 

Different set of circumstances - Keogh being in a car accident whilst breaking the law and not wearing a seat belt and Barker injured on the pitch doing his job 

The BIG difference is that Barker was injured PLAYING FOOTBALL (as in doing his job) for Derby County Football Club (as in his employer) whereas bug eyed freak was injured because he was STUPID, DRUNK and BREAKING THE LAW.
it has nothing to do with principles or loyalty it is ALL down to the moron Keogh.
AND I would guess (and thats all anyone could do) that Clough would have binned all 3 of the players off actually.

Not sure Cywka would necessarily agree

Only if they're loyal to him, he doesn't have much time for people acting stupidly or dishonourably.
Clough has strong principles, yes... but what that really means is he wouldn't stand for the appalling behaviour exhibited by someone in such an exalted position as club captain.
He wouldn't even have a say on whether a player was sacked, he'd just bomb them out of the squad, have them training with the kids and stubbornly refuse to play them again.