Jump to content

gccrowdpleaser

Member
  • Content Count

    610
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to i-Ram in Investment Close   
    The first answer is definitely 2. Sorry I can’t help with the other two questions.
  2. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from neil62uk in Fulham (A) vs Derby - Match Thread   
    Awful from Roos
  3. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to Coconut in Matt Clarke Injury   
    I think we concede enough headers from crosses without putting Wisdom in at CB, his judgement of the ball in the air is as bad as Waghorn's and he jumps (upwards) less often than Chris Martin.
    The best option to replace Clarke is probably Forsyth, if he's ready. He's impressed for the U23s.
  4. Like
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from 86 Schmokes & a Pancake in Keogh Sacked   
    It's absolutely impossible to say what his breathalyser reading would be based on numerous factors.  6 pints would not equate to 91.
    It depends on body type, blood absorption, time of consumption, type of drink, speed of intake of drink, other intakes such as water and food, medication such as anti inflammatory medicines or anti depressants, physiological condition. 
    Absolutely loads of factors influence it. 
     
  5. Like
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to Spanish in Keogh Sacked   
    quite agree.  What was the impact of throwing up, what was the impact for going awol for 45 mins?  Some appear to see it as their job to absolve RK from responsibility and blame everybody else, including DCFC.
  6. Like
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to RamNut in Keogh Sacked   
    This is an estimate based on an accepted calculation model that takes into account gender, weight, time, and number of drinks to estimate a blood alcohol content and from that the breath alcohol content.
  7. Like
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Spanish in Keogh Sacked   
    It's absolutely impossible to say what his breathalyser reading would be based on numerous factors.  6 pints would not equate to 91.
    It depends on body type, blood absorption, time of consumption, type of drink, speed of intake of drink, other intakes such as water and food, medication such as anti inflammatory medicines or anti depressants, physiological condition. 
    Absolutely loads of factors influence it. 
     
  8. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Derby4Me in Keogh Sacked   
    Second clear lack of judgement from Keogh is having that guy as his agent. He speaks so poorly. Contradicts. Rambles. Not good PR.
    I suspect he has been very poorly advised and that was an attempt by his agent to try and undo so damage hes caused. 
     
  9. Like
  10. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to David in Boro (H) Match Thread   
    Also worth mentioning, this is exactly the performance you want to see from the players following the news this week.
    Many questioned how they would react, like professionals is the answer. 
  11. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to Sean in v 'Boro (H) - Predictions   
    Derby 4-1 Middlesbrough
     
    FRGS Marriott
    A first half brace from Jack Marriott before Assombalonga pulls one back for Boro. Graeme Shinnie strikes in the 70th minute and Marriott completes his hat trick late on and finally announces himself to the Championship. Cocu is crying. Marriott is crying. Everyone is crying.
    Steve Gibson stages a dirty protest outside Mel Morris Stadium shortly after the full time whistle.
    Derby County are staying up.
  12. Haha
    gccrowdpleaser reacted to Rolleston in Keogh Sacked   
    Cocu clearly dosn't know what he is managing, or he would never have allowed a team bonding session that was destined to get out of hand. He has to take some of the blame for this
  13. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from goldstar in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  14. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from angieram in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  15. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from John Doe in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  16. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from QuitYourJibbaJivin in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  17. Like
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Andicis in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  18. Like
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from DCFC1388 in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  19. Like
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from LB_DCFC in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  20. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Hinzy9 in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  21. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from RoyMac5 in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  22. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from jono in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  23. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Derby4Me in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  24. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Coconut in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
  25. Clap
    gccrowdpleaser got a reaction from Chester40 in Keogh Sacked   
    There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
    Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
    Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
    It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
    Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
    In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
    The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
    The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
    His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.
×
×
  • 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.