Jump to content

Keogh out for the season

RoyMac5

By RoyMac5
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply
angieram

angieram

Posted
Posted

There's a lot of talk in the two threads about terminating players' contracts.

Didn't Stoke try to do just that to Saido Berahino after he was convicted of being three times over the drink driving limit and failed? 

How anyone expects to do it for Keogh, who wasn't actually breaking any law at the time, I don't know. Presumably, once the players who stayed behind and refused the club's transport, they were just citizens on a night out. 

If more comes out in court that makes him guilty of some criminal offence, that's different. 

Or if we've got a non-drinking policy for players that is clearly laid out. I'd be very surprised if we had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sith Happens

Sith Happens

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Only slightly different surely? The underlying crime is operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol not whether you actually had a accident or not (unless you cause a death in which case the punishment can be much more severe).

Well someone looks to have potentially suffered a career ending injury so i would say quite a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sith Happens

Sith Happens

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, angieram said:

There's a lot of talk in the two threads about terminating players' contracts.

Didn't Stoke try to do just that to Saido Berahino after he was convicted of being three times over the drink driving limit and failed? 

How anyone expects to do it for Keogh, who wasn't actually breaking any law at the time, I don't know. Presumably, once the players who stayed behind and refused the club's transport, they were just citizens on a night out. 

If more comes out in court that makes him guilty of some criminal offence, that's different. 

Or if we've got a non-drinking policy for players that is clearly laid out. I'd be very surprised if we had.

We don't know the full facts of course, but for me I would be surprised if the club don't have some clause in the contract that the player will take every reasonable precaution to remain fit and available for selection. I wouldn't think there is a non-drinking policy but surely there has to be some expectation the player will do his utmost to maintain his fitness when not on club time.

People have accidents, it can happen anywhere of course. There may be no such clause and if not then there is no chance his contract will be terminated.

We will know more as the facts are revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamNut

RamNut

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, angieram said:

There's a lot of talk in the two threads about terminating players' contracts.

Didn't Stoke try to do just that to Saido Berahino after he was convicted of being three times over the drink driving limit and failed? 

How anyone expects to do it for Keogh, who wasn't actually breaking any law at the time, I don't know. Presumably, once the players who stayed behind and refused the club's transport, they were just citizens on a night out. 

If more comes out in court that makes him guilty of some criminal offence, that's different. 

Or if we've got a non-drinking policy for players that is clearly laid out. I'd be very surprised if we had.

We might try to settle his contract by agrrement in order to limit our losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCG

KCG

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Raich Van Carter said:

If it’s deemed gross misconduct then they can be sacked without prior issues or opportunity to improve.

I’d imagine they’d have no legal problem sacking them, more of a financial one (I.e. Lawrence prob has a transfer fee value to him). Keogh not likely to play again for us by most accounts and Bennett... seemed a decent squad player but replaceable. 

From a PR perspective (sponsors, reputation, etc) they prob should be sacked and potentially sued (thinking Lawrence transfer fee). 

The reality is, we don’t have all the facts and there are prob other factors in play that influence the final decision. I trust Mel to make the right call, whatever it is. 

 

"While it’s possible to dismiss an employee who is facing or has a drink driving conviction, the fairness of such a dismissal will depend on a variety of factors, for example, the nature of the job. There would be no need to dismiss a worker who does not drive for work purposes and is able to get to and from work by alternative means than a car. If driving is only a small part of the role, it you may be able to make alternative arrangements to accommodate the employee during the period of disqualification."

https://russellhrconsulting.co.uk/the-hr-headmistress-blog/can-i-dismiss-an-employee-who-is-found-to-be-driving-under-the-influence-of-alcohol/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GenBr

GenBr

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, KCG said:

"While it’s possible to dismiss an employee who is facing or has a drink driving conviction, the fairness of such a dismissal will depend on a variety of factors, for example, the nature of the job. There would be no need to dismiss a worker who does not drive for work purposes and is able to get to and from work by alternative means than a car. If driving is only a small part of the role, it you may be able to make alternative arrangements to accommodate the employee during the period of disqualification."

https://russellhrconsulting.co.uk/the-hr-headmistress-blog/can-i-dismiss-an-employee-who-is-found-to-be-driving-under-the-influence-of-alcohol/

I don't really think the drink driving is necessarily the issue here is it? @Raich Van Carter is talking about gross misconduct. 

"Gross misconduct is an act which is so serious that it justifies dismissal without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, for a first offence. They must be acts that destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, making the working relationship impossible to continue"

I've no idea if somebody seriously injuring themselves outside work due to their own stupidity rendering them unable to do their job for a couple of years can actually be included as gross misconduct since it didn't actually take place in work time. Even if it could be counted as gross misconduct though it still has to go through a fair process - its not really an ongoing problem (I hope) and I assume the players have expressed remorse and the club has come up with a plan to reintegrate them, so unless it happens again I'd be surprised if we sacked any of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCG

KCG

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, GenBr said:

I don't really think the drink driving is necessarily the issue here is it? @Raich Van Carter is talking about gross misconduct. 

"Gross misconduct is an act which is so serious that it justifies dismissal without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, for a first offence. They must be acts that destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, making the working relationship impossible to continue"

I've no idea if somebody seriously injuring themselves outside work due to their own stupidity rendering them unable to do their job for a couple of years can actually be included as gross misconduct since it didn't actually take place in work time. Even if it could be counted as gross misconduct though it still has to go through a fair process - its not really an ongoing problem (I hope) and I assume the players have expressed remorse and the club has come up with a plan to reintegrate them, so unless it happens again I'd be surprised if we sacked any of them.

 

I thought the legal quote I posted would make it clear that it is very unlikely the club will go down that route. I don't think the club will run the risk of losing a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...