Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I doubt Mel has initiated this without legal advice,  advice from people far more experienced than the majority of us on here, probably all of us.

It is sad, but ultimately he is paid to do a job which he cannot do, not through injury caused by his occupation but injury caused by his negligence outside of work.

How many of us would be happy to pay someone in our employ full wages for a long period of time for something similar? 

I don't know what the defence will be when the others have not been sacked, perhaps just the fact they didn't injure themselves.

I think most certainly his career is now over which is a massive shame.

 

Wonder if it’s the same legal team that advised him on the sacking of Sam Rush ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

I bet the bottom line is, he won’t play again. It’s not like Shaun Barker who got injured playing. Keogh made a costly mistake. Derby don’t see why they should pay his wages. Quite right too. The whole episode has had an impact on the season. 

Someone I know told me a while back this was going to happen. He told me a few other things too.

tease-gif-4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely gutted about this but the truth is he was never going to play for us again - 18 months out and only another few months on the contract after that means we'd be paying him £2.6m for nothing - Can't afford that as a club - But horrible way for a guy to leave who's been a great player and genuinely seemed to have a love for the club and the fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that we've fired the guy who was in the passenger seat.... If it's about his behaviour then unless something has been completely misreported in the press the club don't have a leg to stand on.  If it's about his potential contribution to the team then Bennett should have been immediately sacked and Lawrence should have had his wages cut down to about 500 quid a week. I don't like the way we've treated him in this episode given that he's played in almost every game for the past 8-9 years. Yes he made an idiotic mistake and yes there should be some form of punishment but we shouldn't have fired him unless we were willing to let all of them go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I doubt Mel has initiated this without legal advice,  advice from people far more experienced than the majority of us on here, probably all of us.

 

Well hopefully it’ll be from a different source that advised him he could get rid of Rush cost free, that didn’t go as well as he hoped did it ? He’s actually starting to piss me right off, it seems like we’re lurching from one crisis to another on his watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nick_Ram said:

Anyone claiming that Keogh and Lawrence aren't being treated equally, welcome to the real world. Personally I wanted them all to get sacked. But Lawrence and Bennett still have something to offer the club, whether that's on the pitch or with a resale value. The club are an employer, they don't need to treat everyone the same in this case. 

Cocu now has an additional £25k a week to spend on a player he wants at CB. This is only good news given that the circumstance has already happened. We would certainly be whinging if we paid him £25k a week to see out his recovery.

Live and die by your actions.

They don't if they want to lose an employment tribunal case so you are correct in as much as this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Wonder if it’s the same legal team that advised him on the sacking of Sam Rush ?

 

1 minute ago, Pearl Ram said:

Well hopefully it’ll be from a different source that advised him he could get rid of Rush cost free, that didn’t go as well as he hoped did it ? He’s actually starting to piss me right off, it seems like we’re lurching from one crisis to another on his watch.

Did we ever know the outcome of this though? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Two points

1,He has made himself unemployable, so a tribunal might well find in the club's favour.

2,The maximum payout a tribunal can order is £50k. If they have to take a £50k hit to save over a million, I think they might just take the risk.

Keough wouldn't go near a tribunal for that reason. What he'll do is try to sue for unfair dismissal. 

 

Interesting.....didn't know that. 

 

Pure speculation on my part, but the law usually uses similar cases to judge outcomes. Just can't see how we can sack him for gross misconduct and not do the same for mb and TL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

If he had any decency about him he would have taken any pay cut offered if he really cared about the club. How he thinks he deserves to stay on the same wage whilst not being able to play due to his own fault is ridiculous

This only holds up if you’re privy to any legal advice he may have received 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, therealhantsram said:

Such offers are usually made 'without prejudice' 

It won’t make a bit of difference . It will be quoted back in court and will seriously undermine the Club's case - possibly fatally. Afterall it’s in the public arena already .

Gross misconduct  -and that’s what we are effectively dealing with here- is factually based. It can’t be GM unless u agree to a pay cut and then we’ll only call it serious misconduct...

This won’t end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paintingstandsatderby said:

Interesting.....didn't know that. 

 

Pure speculation on my part, but the law usually uses similar cases to judge outcomes. Just can't see how we can sack him for gross misconduct and not do the same for mb and TL. 

They aren't similar though. The others are still able to perform the duties specified on their contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PodgeyRam said:

That statement makes it sound like it was a question of ethics when deciding to sack him. 

In which case why are Bennett and Lawrence still at the club?

Because they can both still play, and are therefore assets. Mel isn't going to just throw £6m+ away. I fully expect both of them to be sold in January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between Keogh and Lawrence/Bennett is that Keogh can no longer do his job and the other two can.

The same would have happened to them if they sustained big injuries.

For me, Keogh should have taken the cut and stayed until the end. No football club will take him in the mean time so why not just take any salary for doing nothing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said:

That statement makes it sound like it was a question of ethics when deciding to sack him. 

In which case why are Bennett and Lawrence still at the club?

Perhaps they repented their sins?

But Keogh said it weren't his fault it was Alfie's?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...