GrimsbyRam

My message was prefaced with ‘if’.  
Without sounding facetious, have you heard of compromise agreements? There are numerous occasions whereby companies will try to settle matters to ‘avoid’ the matter going further. This would also prevent any future claim. This again is something that the club, as any multi Million pound business would do.
Gross misconduct can cover gross negligence. The club has investigated the incident and allowed him to respond. We do not know if during this period the club appointed an external investigator, again which would (if my understanding is correct) provide some independency.
I am not sure of the basis of any unfair dismissal claim.
Has the reason he been given not the real one?  Well that’s an obvious yes. His role in the situation has lead to him not being able to perform his contract.
Is it unfair? Well no because of his role in this he cannot perform his contract. If he seeks to argue that it is unfair because of the responses to similar actions of other employees, well there are cases to show that does not necessarily matter. The significant difference is that he cannot perform his contract. Lawrence and Bennett can.

Don’t understand why, if you did something irresponsible in your job that meant you could not perform for 18 months would you expect to be kept on, on full pay? You’d snap their hands off for half pay. Greedy stance to take if he has been offered any form of deal. Still not heard his apology either.

Don’t understand why, if you did something irresponsible in your job that meant you could not perform for 18 months would you expect to be kept on, on full pay? You’d snap their hands off for half pay. Greedy stance to take if he has been offered any form of deal. Still not heard his apology either.

My message was prefaced with ‘if’.  
Without sounding facetious, have you heard of compromise agreements? There are numerous occasions whereby companies will try to settle matters to ‘avoid’ the matter going further. This would also prevent any future claim. This again is something that the club, as any multi Million pound business would do.
Gross misconduct can cover gross negligence. The club has investigated the incident and allowed him to respond. We do not know if during this period the club appointed an external investigator, again which would (if my understanding is correct) provide some independency.
I am not sure of the basis of any unfair dismissal claim.
Has the reason he been given not the real one?  Well that’s an obvious yes. His role in the situation has lead to him not being able to perform his contract.
Is it unfair? Well no because of his role in this he cannot perform his contract. If he seeks to argue that it is unfair because of the responses to similar actions of other employees, well there are cases to show that does not necessarily matter. The significant difference is that he cannot perform his contract. Lawrence and Bennett can.

Sort of where I am.  Its the GM that shocks me.  Unless the club have completed a thorough investigation and the decision was made on more than a single event.  I wrote at the time that Mel would find it difficult seeing him everyday in physio realising he was paying big bucks for nothing.  The lack of public apology maybe reflecting a cocky attitude?  Tough but I for one won’t be launching a crowd funding effort to support him in his hour of need!  I am certainly sorry he has ended his career in this way but he clearly contributed to the problem

Keogh could have quietly accepted the deal and protected his own integrity and the club. The club would have supported him through his rehabilitation. To my mind, no apology is an unwillingness to admit wrong doing. He seeks sympathy rather than forgiveness. What had he done that was bad enough he couldn't own up? Always someone else's fault.
We don't know and may never know the full details of the night. I also wonder if Keogh may have had some warning due to his Forest grapple, which mysteriously went quiet( pure guess).
 

Don’t understand why, if you did something irresponsible in your job that meant you could not perform for 18 months would you expect to be kept on, on full pay? You’d snap their hands off for half pay. Greedy stance to take if he has been offered any form of deal. Still not heard his apology either.

Don’t understand why, if you did something irresponsible in your job that meant you could not perform for 18 months would you expect to be kept on, on full pay? You’d snap their hands off for half pay. Greedy stance to take if he has been offered any form of deal. Still not heard his apology either.

It’s simple really. Keogh would be in the starting 11 if he hadn’t sustained those injuries. He can’t play for over a year and in that time we don’t even know if he will play again. 
 
The other two aren’t injured and are still an asset to the club, why would you sack them if they can play and could be worth money in January or at the end of the season. 
 
I don’t quite get why people are feeling sorry for Keogh and getting peed off with the other two. 
 
Correct decision by Derby and the start of finishing this whole debacle. 

Don’t understand why, if you did something irresponsible in your job that meant you could not perform for 18 months would you expect to be kept on, on full pay? You’d snap their hands off for half pay. Greedy stance to take if he has been offered any form of deal. Still not heard his apology either.

He’s obviously been told by his lawyer that it won’t stand up in court. Club have probably been told the opposite.
Hopefully he’s gone sooner rather than later.