RandomAccessMemory

I think you'll be able to listen again when the show is finished, it's normally on their website later on.

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?

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 has just defended Keogh's decision to get in the car with a drunk driver - wow! 

Ridiculous isn't it!

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.
There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.
We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.
It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.
There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.
We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.
It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

As he's appealing the decision, perhaps we could still let him use the facilities for a reasonable fee - £25K a week sounds pretty fair.....

Was informed by Mel Morris directly.
Derbys position is that Keoghs actions have made it impossible for him to perform his duties as a football player, where as Lawrence and Bennett still can.
He's looking to appeal and is being supported by the PFA in his legal case.
PFA and Derby County have offered to support him with use of their facilities in his rehabilitation regardless.
Derby were keen on an amicable position but Keogh turned down wage cut as he didn't agree with it.
 

Great post, I agree entirely -  a much more precise and focused version of my rambling!

Can anyone prove that if it was Lawrence or Bennett who had sustained the knee injury then the club wouldn't have offered them the same 'accept reduced terms or face the sack' deal? Nope.  Can they prove that if Keogh hadn't been injured he would have still been excluded from matchday squads? Nope.
In which case the whole "One rule for one" thing is complete nonsense, Keogh hasn't been more harshly treated than the others he's been treated according to the outcome of HIS actions - each individual player involved is responsible for their own actions on the night in question and has to face the music according to the fallout of them.
Who was driving, who was a passenger, it doesn't matter. They are all responsible for their own well-being. Yes, it's unfortunate for Keogh that he was the passenger and the only one injured, but it doesn't diminish his responsibility. What's happened has happened, that's all you can deal with - none of this theorising and moralising makes any difference.
Lawrence and Bennett have been dealt with according to their own individual circumstances, Keogh has been dealt with according to his. That isn't unfair, it's logical. They aren't individually responsible for Keogh's actions, Keogh isn't individually responsible for theirs, although  they do have an equal and collective responsibility towards each other.
That's probably the saddest thing, they've all failed each other, utterly and indiscriminately. They're supposed to be a team, they're supposed to look out for each other. Some team eh?
Do I think that Richard Keogh should have been sacked purely on the basis of that night's events (or what we know of them)? No, I don't. Do I think Richard Keogh deserves to be paid his full earnings for a year and a half due to receiving injuries that were a result of his own actions? No, I don't.
So, what's the solution?
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable alternative to how we've acted towards Keogh given the injury he sustained was a consequence of his own actions, instead the Outraged of Derby are too busy arguing the semantics of the club's statement and the rest haven't offered any solution other that "they should all have been sacked", a blanket statement that takes very little about the real life circumstances and is, actually, the only unfair approach to it.

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.
There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.
We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.
It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.
There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.
We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.
It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.

Because Derby are generous employers and perhaps wanted to soften the blow due to his service to the club

This isn't difficult. All three are guilty of gross misconduct. The impact of that gross misconduct can be dictated by the company. Lawrence and Bennett have been dealt with and have returned to work. Keogh rendered himself unable to work so the club have used their right to sack him after offering him a generous chance to stay on reduced terms. 

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.

The main thing I noticed about Keogh, he has tweeted since it happened thanking people for their support, but there has been absolutely no sign of a public apology from him for his part in the whole thing. Would this indicate he believes he has nothing to apologise for? I wonder if there has been a behind the scenes apology?
Whatever you think of the other two and their actions that night, they have been both punished by the club and apologised, and it was before reaching court, so they didn't wait until after the court case to see what happened before they took responsibility, and they have now also been punished by the court.
Their situations are not the same as Keogh's. They are fit to play and as such can hold up their end of their contracts with the club, and so they are able to begin to repay the club on the pitch. Keogh is not and I'd guess the clubs offer to keep him employed but lower his wage was them giving him his chance to do the same.