RandomAccessMemory

Exactly my thoughts, but given Keogh did injure his knee (badly!) in the crash and seemingly didn't get it treated at the time, I can't help but wonder when exactly he did get it treated and is that why the club are going down the gross misconduct line? Is it likely there would be something in a footballers contract specifically about injuries and making sure they are treated promptly and appropriately? If he'd done it on the pitch he would have been treated immediately and asap been wearing a leg brace and using crutches.
It's quite odd Sky are going with the trapped and couldn't escape due to knee injury line today, where on earth have they got that from?

I would say their journalism is certainly up there in terms of accuracy with their sister news organisation The Sun...

Yes, I probably gave them a bit too much credit there!

If the prosecution states that one of the passengers was treated for a facial injury yet nothing else is mentioned it suggests they didn't know about the knee injury at the scene
That would explain why the knee injury didn't come out until a couple of days after the crash

Is it really overthinking to wonder why Keogh's knee injury wasn't specifically mentioned in court when there was mention of a facial injury being treated and why from other Police and Ambulance service statements it seems he wasn't treated for his knee injury on the night but according to Sky article today he was left trapped for more than half an hour unable to escape because of said knee injury?
It all seems very odd, and I wondered if it could possibly explain a little more the clubs decision to sack him?

Sorry to quote myself, but I've found this
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/cctv-shows-Derby-players-cars-20317296
Hmm, that doesn't fit with the below does it?
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/11854668/richard-keogh-former-Derby-county-captain-to-build-case-against-club-after-sacking

Bugs me the comments from other people that aren't looking at the bigger picture who are basically like 'he's old and they saw a chance to get him off the books' he was our captain and was a major part of our team, it's not like we wanted to get rid of him is it!
And the 'what if it happened on the pitch?' angle it didn't happen on a pitch, it happened through his own negligence, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! We gave Barker a new contract when we knew he wasn't ever likely to play again for us because it happened on the pitch through a freak accident.
Why on earth should our club have to lose money due to the players' own negligence?

I think he can be seen in the pictures that have been posted. I also can't remember how many it was reported had treatment in hospital.

Surely not? Surely he thinks of the club as family (at least according to his agent!) He wouldn't rip off his family, would he?
It works both ways, this stuff! 

The radio interview is now being mentioned on the BBC website so if he was looking for even more publicity then he's achieved his objective. Might be trying to force the Club to back-track on the dismissal of his client since as it stands, pending appeal, his income from Keogh for the next 18 months is zilch! I hope Derby stand firm on it's decision.
Following the interview, which you would think went ahead with the knowledge and approval of Keogh makes me even more disappointed in the player. If so, it's completely the opposite of everything I thought Keogh was about.
You never know someone until you REALLY know them.

Keogh had a duty as a player to keep himself fit, a duty as a captain to set an example and provide leadership. He failed at both
Remembering what happened with Mutu at Chelsea - the precedent was set for club's to sue players for breach of contract. Mutu was banned for 7 months for testing positive for cocaine and Chelsea sued him for 17m euros!
You could argue that terminating Keogh's contract is going easy on him...

At first it puzzled me as to why the club didn't just announce that they had simply cancelled the remainder of Keogh's contract (like for example we did with Ledley). But it's because there is not the mutual consent to do so.
At that point you'd realise that the issue is with Keogh and not with the club. He doesn't want to cancel his contract, and he doesn't want to take reduced wages. He wants to hold the club to his contract and continue to be paid his full wage in the full knowledge that he's unlikely to ever play for us again and that he is entirely culpable for ending up in this situation.
Am I supposed to feel sympathy?
Normally we slate highly paid players who have a falling out but refuse to leave and are happy to train with the reserves while taking a full wage, but in this case - he's not even able to do that.
 

Also anyone posted this yet?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50292326
Seems to cover a lot of the interview in text - My favourite bit is:
"The only thing I pleaded for is that Richard be treated like family - he deserved to be treated like family."
I agree - I don't pay my family

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!

Yet there's been nothing from Keogh himself to us as fans that would suggest that, no statement or apology at all.

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!

Bugs me the comments from other people that aren't looking at the bigger picture who are basically like 'he's old and they saw a chance to get him off the books' he was our captain and was a major part of our team, it's not like we wanted to get rid of him is it!
And the 'what if it happened on the pitch?' angle it didn't happen on a pitch, it happened through his own negligence, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! We gave Barker a new contract when we knew he wasn't ever likely to play again for us because it happened on the pitch through a freak accident.
Why on earth should our club have to lose money due to the players' own negligence?

His agent saying "Should we wrap these players up in cotton wool?" is severely overstating the protection cotton wool offers in a car crash!

Bugs me the comments from other people that aren't looking at the bigger picture who are basically like 'he's old and they saw a chance to get him off the books' he was our captain and was a major part of our team, it's not like we wanted to get rid of him is it!
And the 'what if it happened on the pitch?' angle it didn't happen on a pitch, it happened through his own negligence, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! We gave Barker a new contract when we knew he wasn't ever likely to play again for us because it happened on the pitch through a freak accident.
Why on earth should our club have to lose money due to the players' own negligence?

Yet there's been nothing from Keogh himself to us as fans that would suggest that, no statement or apology at all.

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!

Bugs me the comments from other people that aren't looking at the bigger picture who are basically like 'he's old and they saw a chance to get him off the books' he was our captain and was a major part of our team, it's not like we wanted to get rid of him is it!
And the 'what if it happened on the pitch?' angle it didn't happen on a pitch, it happened through his own negligence, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! We gave Barker a new contract when we knew he wasn't ever likely to play again for us because it happened on the pitch through a freak accident.
Why on earth should our club have to lose money due to the players' own negligence?

Danny Murphy re: wearing a seatbelt 'it's not a crime is it?' erm yes Danny, it is!