Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

The article says dismissal can't be ruled out, so that's hardly the case that we're definitely sacking him.  Seems a little sensationalist from Percy, who is usually above that sort of thing.  Although Keogh couldn't really moan if the club reduced his wages, he'd quite rightly feel aggrieved if he was sacked.

One thing springs to mind though, when Bryson & Hughes were injured Mel said Butterfield & Johnson's signings were covered by the insurance we had in place.  Now, taking this situation into account

1 - Do we no longer have such bumper insurance to cover Keogh's wages?

2 - Do we have the insurance, but it doesn't cover this sort of thing?

3 - Looking at our precarious FFP situation at the moment, was Mel merely bull-mudding about the whole thing when we signed those two financial sinkholes?

1 I think we do

2 that's the current guess

3 impossible to know, reality probably a bit "nuanced" and not totally untrye, but not the simple whole truth that insurance covered BJ and Butters coming in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Srg said:

Would love to know how we could sack him and not the other two considering he wasn't even driving. I'm sure his lawyer would eat that one up. Or, y'know, shoddy journalism.

Simple his contract wont b e renewed  when it expires next year

34 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

So the 2 main culprits have been given a fine and are already back in the team and playing like nothing happened, but the passenger who's already suffered the most is now being threatened with being sacked? Sure he's the captain and should know better, but if you're exploring the possibility of sacking him then you should have probably done that with the other 2 as well.

he was the club captain and should A) Have  made sure the players did not get into that state.

B) He was the one not wearing a seat belt,which must have had some bearing on the injuries he sustained.

C ) Wasnt it him that tried to give the police a false name.

No I am not a Keogh critic in fact I rate/rated him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

So the 2 main culprits have been given a fine and are already back in the team and playing like nothing happened, but the passenger who's already suffered the most is now being threatened with being sacked? Sure he's the captain and should know better, but if you're exploring the possibility of sacking him then you should have probably done that with the other 2 as well.

They are not sacking him .Them seem to be offering a new contract sat new terms,the ball surely is in his court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TommyPowel said:

Simple his contract wont b e renewed  when it expires next year

he was the club captain and should A) Have  made sure the players did not get into that state.

B) He was the one not wearing a seat belt,which must have had some bearing on the injuries he sustained.

C ) Wasnt it him that tried to give the police a false name.

No I am not a Keogh critic in fact I rate/rated him.

I thought that was a joke Forest fans made up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

I might be in the minority, but it doesn't sit right with me that 3 people were involved in the incident and 1 of them (the 1 who didn't actually commit a crime) is facing the sack whilst the others aren't. Sure the other 2 can play and still contribute, but that shouldn't exempt them from the same punishment as Keogh.

Yeh but the financial implications to the club aren't anywhere near as hefty for the others - The other 2 we have punished, the state has punished and are now once again contributing in a way in which they are earning the wages we pay them - In fact they're gonna do extra community work and we're not paying them for 6 weeks so we're kinda making money from them

Keogh on the other hand did something stupid and has paid a much worse price - But if his wages aren't covered by the club then Derby essentially have to pay out £2m over the next 18 months to a guy who cannot do his job - Because of an extremely avoidable accident

If he'd fallen down the stairs at home or something like that I'd have more sympathy - But this was his own reckless stupidity and I'm not sure why we should continue to pay him the same wage for doing nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds horrible but, unfortunately, the reality is that footballers are assets. Tom Lawrence and Mason Bennett are still young(ish) and are assets with potential resale value (should their form drastically improve), which could be beneficial to the club. 

Keogh is heading for the wrong end of 30 and will likely never play again. He's certainly not going to be able to play anywhere near to the standard we have seen in the last few years. His resale value is now £0.

Again, this sounds horrible. But is the reality of the industry that is football. 

Derby are doing what is in the best interests of the club itself, as opposed to Richard Keogh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was Keogh I'd take it, it's not like he could go somewhere else for more pay. However the fact this has leaked means one of the parties isn't happy about it. 

If I was my guess, Keoghs camp is not happy and is hoping sympathetic fans pressurise the club to not deduct his pay or meet halfway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I never get statements like that. Having a bit of passion doesn't make you a good coach.

Don't mean like gaffer or anything - What I meant was like a defensive coach, help out with the younger lads - if you get what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff 

the club are well within their rights to sack an employee who is unavailable for work due to an incident away from work, whilst in football this generally doesn’t happen as they are ‘assets ’  but with his age and prognosis it is very much a poor situation for Keogh 

the club could legally wash their hands with him and say goodbye whilst following their own procedures so I very much suspect that he would be a fool not to accept the offer whatever it is. ( he could of course sue Lawrence for lost earnings) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

You not read the article? It says if he declines their offer him being sacked cannot be ruled out.

And the others involved would face the sack if they refused what was put on the table, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaintRam said:

And the others involved would face the sack if they refused what was put on the table, too. 

If the others involved were offered the same as Keogh and refused, do you believe they'd be sacked too? I don't.

Everyone can keep banging on about the club doing what's best for itself because Bennett and Lawrence can still contribute and have resale value etc. but to me it's just another morally wrong decision by a football club who've been in the press for all sorts of morally wrong reasons over the past few years. 

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...