Jayram Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 I don’t disagree with Keogh being dismissed but it is sheer hypocrisy for the club not to subject the other two morons to the same sanction. This is what I despise about modern football - the total lack of morality. If Keogh had any financial value to the club this dismissal would not have happened. The club is a total embarrassment, it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inter politics Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 minute ago, CornwallRam said: Fair enough. I hope you feel better soon. A sense of humour bypass is always a tricky operation to get over. I know it's humour but your remark shot the poster down in a way to invalidate his passionate viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, ilkleyram said: We do not know this is true yet because the club have issued no formal statement Statement is here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcfcsr92 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said: How do you know what he was or wasn’t doing ? Odd comment to make without knowing the facts. Well he wasn't driving and he defo didn't run away from the crash like the other 2 say what you want but there all adults, 2 broke the law 1 got drunk and the 1 who didnt brake the law got done tbe most explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleEatonRam Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Jayram said: I don’t disagree with Keogh being dismissed but it is sheer hypocrisy for the club not to subject the other two morons to the same sanction. This is what I despise about modern football - the total lack of morality. If Keogh had any financial value to the club this dismissal would not have happened. We don't know what "gross misconduct" in this case means. Might mean more than has been publicised.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitYourJibbaJivin Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Remy the hare said: If there’s no other reasoning, it seems odd to me that Bennett and Lawrence get fined and Keogh gets sacked just for being a passenger. Surely the same fine for Keogh would have been fair. It’s morally wrong to sack him because he can’t do his job fully. I don’t know what job you do Daz but if i got injured at a works party and my employer sacked me for gross misconduct after 7 years of employment but let my colleagues off with a final warning/fine, I’d be a bit pi$$ed. I’m pretty sure this will end up (again) with a out of court settlement. We are an embarrassment ☹️ You’re not at the works party though mate, you’ve gone to the pub after the works party and got poo faced. Would your employer still be ok with paying you for 18 months if that was the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said: Surely there can be no other option than a court case where I would argue he would undoubtedly win. Two players who drive both guilty of gross misconduct and keep their jobs, clearly the act of misconduct determines the punishment not the refusal to take a pay cut That's right. And that's what we can be confident he has not been sacked for refusing a pay cut. Of that we can be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said: What makes you so sure? Not one person on here has thus far stated that they were there that night... or even know someone who was. Cheerleading... bullying... taking advantage of seniority... they are all possibilities, as are Keogh being carried to the car in a drunken stupor, or Lawrence "appearing" to be nowhere near drunk. We just don't know the facts! Someone has earlier mentioned the possibility of Keogh causing the accident, albeit from the back seat. That's a good point that I hadn't previously considered, but again, none of us know! Most of the things you suggest seem ridiculous, but it probably is the right stance to take. Frustratingly, we have very little idea of what happened that night, and I doubt that will ever change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcfcsr92 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 29 minutes ago, Paul71 said: I was somehow following all of what you said, until you put the image of Richard Keogh cheerleading in my head, now i am mentally scarred for life. Thanks. It's his new job you will still see him at half time duties in his tu tus ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bimmerman Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 gross misconduct could be a number of different things and we will never fully know in this case,he has made himself unable to complete the terms in line with his contract of employment for a prolonged period of time due to extra curricular activities,so would assume this is why he has been dismissed. he has failed to follow policies and procedures in line with said contract i would assume if rumour is true and Derby offered a new contract on reduced terms,it was potentially a different role of which he has rejected,leaving the club with no choice but to terminate his employment under employment law he has 7 days to appeal a decision,but if all the above is correct,its highly unlikely he would win the case please note that i keep using the word assume, as we will never fully know note-i've read that the club have given 14 day appeal period which is better then legal standard, and reason is bringing club into disrepute, he'll never win a court case as it can be proven that he has done just that from reading this forum alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Just an idea...but what happened with the outcome of the scuffle with the Forest grounds man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewe Ram Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 16 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: You don't get degrees of gross misconduct you do however get a range of different acts all of which constitute gross misconduct in themselves I didn’t mention the others committing gross misconduct. I said that what he did appears to have been more gross. I believe that there are far more murky depths to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 There are some very large anomalies in the clubs statements. Firstly stating that they applied the maximum contractual sanction they could in the case of Lawrence and Bennett. Not true. They could have dismissed both for gross misconduct quite justifiably for bringing the clubs name into disrepute, they chose not to take this course of action. They then dismissed Keogh for some act of gross misconduct whilst Lawrence and Bennett whom also committed acts of gross misconduct were not. This then just invites criticism of the clubs handling of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, cannable said: See, that would be fair if the club statement didn’t specifically state; “The club will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute. The club will be making no further comment at this time regards this matter until the conclusion of any potential appeal.” Fair point. Won't argue with that. In all honesty, my post related to folk (on here) quoting "Gross misconduct", but nobody on here having a clue as to what that refers. I'm not even sure whether the club has specifically referred to "Gross misconduct", have they? Is it yet known what exactly Keogh has been sacked for? As someone else posted, with regards to certainly 3 of the 4 involved, the club haven't "tolerated" their actions, as all 3 have been punished, one way or another. One thing's for certain... This whole episode is one hell of a mess, and I'm still not 100% proud to be a Ram, as I was on that Tuesday morning (before "that evening")! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayram Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said: We don't know what "gross misconduct" in this case means. Might mean more than has been publicised.. 7 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said: We don't know what "gross misconduct" in this case means. Might mean more than has been publicised.. Well it can’t mean any more than what those two ducking idiots did when they drove while pissed. That is the very definition of gross misconduct isn’t it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy the hare Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said: You’re not at the works party though mate, you’ve gone to the pub after the works party and got poo faced. Would your employer still be ok with paying you for 18 months if that was the case? Well that depends what the gross misconduct act actually was? It would be interesting to see what the gross misconduct act is 5 weeks after the event? Mel and co will pay out in court. All the best Richard, cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said: Most of the things you suggest seem ridiculous, but it probably is the right stance to take. Frustratingly, we have very little idea of what happened that night, and I doubt that will ever change. Quite! That was 100% deliberate on my part, merely to reinforce my point. Having said that, should any of it subsequently be proven to be even partly accurate, I will be the first to post an "ITK gif"! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramcoteRam84 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 We don’t know all the facts and the club are not compelled to reveal them in relation to Keogh, however based on what has been revealed, this does not look good. Easy to conclude (based on what’s in the public domain) that finances have played a role in the disciplinary actions taken and that should be irrelevant. It’s sack them all or sack none of them. Be interesting to see how this impacts the squad and also whether Cocu supports the decision. He could walk if he doesn’t! If it galvanises everyone, then maybe Keogh was a bad egg and this is good for the long-term. If he’s as well liked within the squad as it seems, this could do a lot of damage. Im usually on the positive side when I post, feeling quite negative about this tonight. I honestly think this season has just become about survival. Really hope I’m wrong. Really sad for a good servant like Keogh to have his Derby career ended in this way. He only has himself to blame, but the club have now handled this badly IMO and we need strong leadership now for this not to drastically affect our season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said: Technically, he is (allegedly) guilty of not wearing a seat belt, which is of course illegal, though I'm not aware of any charges having been made... or pending? Not seen any evidence/statements/rumours regarding the club fining Keogh for his part in this whole sorry mess. Have I missed this? Do you have more info? No mate, I think I just concluded that all of them would have faced some sanction or another to a greater or lesser extent. on the bigger picture, I think (and this is pure speculation) that they would most likely have sat down with RK / his reps and been discussing what to do re fines, salary, new deal and a whole raft of contractual stuff on both sides. I reckon whatever went on hasn’t worked out from a legal or willingness POV from one side or the other, so the club has made this decision ( if the reports and statements we are seeing on here are true) Very grim day. One mad incident and the darkest cloud is cast over his fine career. I don’t think anyone comes out of this well. I personally bear no ill will or want to cast judgment on anyone. - you just can’t without the facts. So for me it’s Just sadness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslad1992 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Fully agree with this, would have sacked the other two as well if they weren’t deemed as assets. Not like they couldn’t afford a taxi, or had free transport available earlier in the night. as for people questioning the legality in pretty sure the club would have been advised on what they can and can not do before acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.