GadFly

Get injured by your colleague driving pissed = take big wage reduction or get sacked. 
Drive pissed and injure your colleague = slap on the wrist then crack on as normal. 

Let's say he doesn't accept the offer... 
Are we going to sack Keogh for "gross misconduct" on the basis that he was a passenger in Lawrence's car whilst Lawrence was drunk... but not sack Lawrence himself for gross misconduct? Surely that's wildly hypocritical?  

These 4 seem happy to be sacked. Some things just happen. And Derby County are in the news again.
People are talking about us on the BBC, ITV, Sky Sports, Radio Stations, people who don't know anything about football or Derby County are flicking through their phones and commenting on Derby County again, the adults and the kids will be talking about it tomorrow in the work places and in the play grounds. It's a strange old world. From Maxwell to Richard Keogh and Wayne Rooney just around the corner. 
Derby County Football Club Lives On.
Love, Life & Unity. Good night.

It's not a moot point though is it though because the club make no reference to his injury or ability to play in their statement. They expect us to honestly believe it's about morality and conduct. 

Derby’s statement makes little sense as it is clear that the two drivers endangered others life’s whilst driving under the influence of alcohol.
And they have been found guilty of that offence in a court of law.
Surely they too should be sacked.
Legally they are on dodgy ground here.
”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."
Looks clear to me that the other two should be sacked.

I honestly would respect it a lot more if they were just honest and said "basically he's old AF, injured for 14 months, will probably never be the same player again and he's going to cost us a lot of money in wasted wages. The other 2 can hopefully be re-sold and can still play a part for us, it'd be too expensive to get rid of them and/or replace them, so we're less bothered, this has everything to do with money and football and nothing to do with morals" 
Instead, they've gone all high-horse about it and are trying to take some sort of ducked up moral high-ground and hoping we're too stupid to go "Eh?! What about Lawrence and Bennett who actually drove the cars!?" 
?

I would be embarrassed being Bennett or Lawrence after this. Sack all of them or none. 

Echo this sentiment.
Im sure a lot of money was spent on lawyers making sure this decision was watertight. 
Morally though it’s utterly ruthless and I expect better from DCFC. 

Trying to defend this decision reeks of tribalistic politics tbh. It's like Liverpool fans defending Suarez for his racism or biting opponents simply because he was THEIR player at the time. Forget the club for a second in your thinking, imagine it was another clubs players, Forest's even, and the whole thing looks a hell of a lot different ... from the perspective of what's morally right/fair/just this is absolute bullcrap, and Lawrence/Bennett should be sacked too if Keogh has been shown the door. 

This is basically it. The club aren't saying that though... they're making out like it's a moral thing and that they won't "tolerate" such actions, which makes them look like a bunch of ducking hypocritical Bamfords when you take the Lawrence/Bennett situation in to account in your thinking tbh. 

Trying to defend this decision reeks of tribalistic politics tbh. It's like Liverpool fans defending Suarez for his racism or biting opponents simply because he was THEIR player at the time. Forget the club for a second in your thinking, imagine it was another clubs players, Forest's even, and the whole thing looks a hell of a lot different ... from the perspective of what's morally right/fair/just this is absolute bullcrap, and Lawrence/Bennett should be sacked too if Keogh has been shown the door. 

Trying to defend this decision reeks of tribalistic politics tbh. It's like Liverpool fans defending Suarez for his racism or biting opponents simply because he was THEIR player at the time. Forget the club for a second in your thinking, imagine it was another clubs players, Forest's even, and the whole thing looks a hell of a lot different ... from the perspective of what's morally right/fair/just this is absolute bullcrap, and Lawrence/Bennett should be sacked too if Keogh has been shown the door. 

This is basically it. The club aren't saying that though... they're making out like it's a moral thing and that they won't "tolerate" such actions, which makes them look like a bunch of ducking hypocritical Bamfords when you take the Lawrence/Bennett situation in to account in your thinking tbh. 

Really ? You would have to give Bennett away.

Let's say he doesn't accept the offer... 
Are we going to sack Keogh for "gross misconduct" on the basis that he was a passenger in Lawrence's car whilst Lawrence was drunk... but not sack Lawrence himself for gross misconduct? Surely that's wildly hypocritical?  

Literally just been sacked for gross misconduct. 
So let’s start again... how are his actions classed as gross misconduct but Lawrence’s aren’t? Please explain. I may be being ducking stupid here but this is proper head scratcher for me. 

Literally just been sacked for gross misconduct. 
So let’s start again... how are his actions classed as gross misconduct but Lawrence’s aren’t? Please explain. I may be being ducking stupid here but this is proper head scratcher for me. 

Literally just been sacked for gross misconduct. 
So let’s start again... how are his actions classed as gross misconduct but Lawrence’s aren’t? Please explain. I may be being ducking stupid here but this is proper head scratcher for me. 

If Keogh says no deal, am not sure the club can carry out a sacking for gross misconduct without sacking the other two as well.  Even if they can, it wouldn't sit right with me.

The others committed a criminal offence rather than just be daft enough to be a passenger in the car. Not complicated. 

Let's say he doesn't accept the offer... 
Are we going to sack Keogh for "gross misconduct" on the basis that he was a passenger in Lawrence's car whilst Lawrence was drunk... but not sack Lawrence himself for gross misconduct? Surely that's wildly hypocritical?  

Exactly! Is it suddenly less of a case of gross misconduct if you're able to play work, and retain some form of resale value? Surely your ability to do your job after your misconduct, has no bearing on the severity of the misconduct itself? 

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.