Keogh Sacked

[Brammie Steve]

3 minutes ago, Dimmu said:

£2.3m is about how much I spend having a night out.

Lucky bar steward, he managed to drink (most likely free) beer and earn the same amount.

Unfair world.

That's football mate!

Monopoly money rules OK!

[Ramarena]

2 minutes ago, Bluedogmaz said:

I think Keogh was quite within his rights to do what he did and was it not your favourite Football club you would probably all be saying fair play to him. In his shoes I would have done the same as most others would I am sure. It's not about just football, it's his livelihood and after the way Bennett and Lawrence were treated (Remember one of them actually broke the law) for the same incident he was right to feel aggrieved.

The emotions involved in supporting you favourite football team means we do not apply normal life rules to it but football for players is a job and I've read of a good many who don't even like the sport they just happen to be good at it. So it may be more bad news but in truth another example of mismanagement IMO rather than everyone putting the blame on Keogh.

The other two could continue fulfilling the terms of their contracts after suspension.....Keogh could not!

Keogh was offered a club paid taxi home, which he refused.

Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt in the accident.

Keogh was not fired on the spot.

Keogh started rehab with the clubs support.

Keogh was offered a new contract at a reduced wage, offering him some security, despite him almost destroying his own career.

What else should the club have done?

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, MrPlinkett said:

I would have sacked Keogh for not taking every reasonable step to ensure he was fit to play,  and sacked the other two for being convicted criminals. 

You would have been done for unfair dismissal for the other 2

[May Contain Nuts]

3 minutes ago, MrPlinkett said:

I would have sacked Keogh for not taking every reasonable step to ensure he was fit to play,  and sacked the other two for being convicted criminals. 

Whereas I wouldn't have sacked any of them...

..but I wouldn't want to be paying someone 46 weeks worth of wages when they were unable to do their job either. Who would?

Damn me and my desire to find a suitable outcome for everyone involved.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Coconut

[Gisby]

7 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

2 were still able to play , 1 rendered himself unable to play . If all three were either fit or unfit i am sure all 3 would have had the same sanctions.

Exactly this ... how the argument that all 3 should suffer the same consequences when 2 out of the 3 could continue to fulfil their employment contract but the 3rd could not simply confounds me!!!! I’ll never be convinced of this argument as it is not logical ?‍♂️

[Spanish]

Just now, Gisby said:

Exactly this ... how the argument that all 3 should suffer the same consequences when 2 out of the 3 could continue to fulfil their employment contract but the 3rd could not simply confounds me!!!! I’ll never be convinced of this argument as it is not logical ?‍♂️

How do you know the other 2 weren’t fined?

[Bluedogmaz]

4 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

The other two could continue fulfilling the terms of their contracts after suspension.....Keogh could not!

Keogh was offered a club paid taxi home, which he refused.

Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt in the accident.

Keogh was not fired on the spot.

Keogh started rehab with the clubs support.

Keogh was offered a new contract at a reduced wage, offering him some security, despite him almost destroying his own career.

What else should the club have done?

Well the decision from the tribunal makes the answer to your question very easy.

They should have continued to have paid his contract and that action is now a matter of law after the decision.

Your kidding yourself if you think you would have acted personally any differently in the circumstances when you have a family to think about etc

[AndyinLiverpool]

10 minutes ago, Coconut said:

I didn't realise there could be another one tbh

I dunno. I'm losing track switching between this shambles and the shambles in the other threads.

[Ramarena]

Just now, Bluedogmaz said:

Well the decision from the tribunal makes the answer to your question very easy.

They should have continued to have paid his contract and that action is now a matter of law after the decision.

Your kidding yourself if you think you would have acted personally any differently in the circumstances when you have a family to think about etc

You mean the EFL tribunal??????

Lets be clear that this was not an employment law tribunal!

As a side note...........We found today that there was no accountancy expert on the EFL panel that found us guilty on our accounts.

Whats the betting there wasn’t an employment law specialist on the Keogh decision!

[Gisby]

9 minutes ago, Spanish said:

How do you know the other 2 weren’t fined?

??? .... I don’t but they weren’t sacked. I thought we were debating that all 3 should have suffered the same punishment. What’s being fined got to do with it ?? Keogh wasn’t fined he was sacked when he wouldn’t accept the clubs offer. Don’t get you’re point. 

[Bluedogmaz]

3 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

You mean the EFL tribunal??????

Lets be clear that this was not an employment law tribunal!

As a side note...........We found today that there was no accountancy expert on the EFL panel that found us guilty on our accounts.

Whats the betting there wasn’t an employment law specialist on the Keogh decision!

So in the same circumstances you would have just written off £2.5 Million for you and your family because you loved your employer so much?  ??

Hilarious - Not a chance! 

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, Bluedogmaz said:

Well the decision from the tribunal makes the answer to your question very easy.

They should have continued to have paid his contract and that action is now a matter of law after the decision.

Your kidding yourself if you think you would have acted personally any differently in the circumstances when you have a family to think about etc

What, as a professional sportsman with a family to think about you think it as acceptable to get legless then crawl into a back of a car and allow another pished person to drive you home. 

[Ramarena]

5 minutes ago, Bluedogmaz said:

Well the decision from the tribunal makes the answer to your question very easy.

They should have continued to have paid his contract and that action is now a matter of law after the decision.

Your kidding yourself if you think you would have acted personally any differently in the circumstances when you have a family to think about etc

If I was an employer and an employee find themselves badly injured and unable to work again as a result of a criminal act. 

I’m not sure I wouldn’t have done something similar. 

How many employers would keep paying a high earning employee, who may never be able to work for them again due to their own recklessness?

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Gisby said:

??? .... I don’t but they weren’t sacked. I thought we were debating that all 3 should have suffered the same punishment. What’s being fined got to do with it ?? Keogh wasn’t fined he was sacked when he wouldn’t accept the clubs offer. Don’t get you’re point. 

The other 2 could work ,he was sacked because he couldn’t.  Or are you saying that he was sacked because he was drunk and the other should also be sacked ?

[Ramarena]

1 minute ago, Bluedogmaz said:

So in the same circumstances you would have just written off £2.5 Million for you and your family because you loved your employer so much?  ??

Hilarious - Not a chance! 

I would have taken the employers offer.

As I may not be able to get as good an offer again if the doctors were telling me I may not be able to work again!

[Bluedogmaz]

Irrelevant to the point I was making. In the same circumstances you would personally have pursued the claim I have no doubt.

All this crying and hating Keogh for what any sane person would have done (In pursuing their case at a tribunal) is frankly ridiculous.

The legal team advising Mel have a lot to answer for IMO.

[Gringo]

Just to clarify the Keogh position, this was not an employment tribunal and definitely not employment law, this is a civil case for breach of contract. 

Please note the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal from an employment tribunal – £86,444, whereas contract law is open ended.

My position if I was Mel would be,  I am not paying f'off, so sue me and that position can be kicked down the road for many years.

[Angry Ram]

2 hours ago, YouRams said:

An accident that could’ve been avoided if a responsible captain took his keys off him and ordered them all a taxi...

Probably not enough of a misdemeanour to warrant being sacked for though. Gross misconduct is clearly defined and I fail to see how it is applicable here. At the time I assumed there was more to this but apparently not..

[Ramarena]

2 minutes ago, Asheville Ram said:

Just to clarify the Keogh position, this was not an employment tribunal and definitely not employment law, this is a civil case for breach of contract. 

Please note the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal from an employment tribunal – £86,444, whereas contract law is open ended.

My position if I was Mel would be,  I am not paying f'off, so sue me and that position can be kicked down the road for many years.

It was also the EFL adjudicating!

[derbydaz22]

7 minutes ago, Spanish said:

What, as a professional sportsman with a family to think about you think it as acceptable to get legless then crawl into a back of a car and allow another pished person to drive you home. 

As the club captain it makes it even worse and Keogh thinks this acceptable ? Why should the club continue to pay him through injury when his own actions and bad choices led to it.