Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

This isn't difficult. All three are guilty of gross misconduct. The impact of that gross misconduct can be dictated by the company. Lawrence and Bennett have been dealt with and have returned to work. Keogh rendered himself unable to work so the club have used their right to sack him after offering him a generous chance to stay on reduced terms. 

The bit that's weird is this; if he's so unable to work, if his conduct was so appalling, why has he been offered reduced terms at all? Why was he only dismissed after refusing to accept said terms? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

whatever your views on the rights, wrongs of this whole sorry saga - and whether Keogh was your hero or zero - the guy gave his all to Derby and has played a huge amount of games for us and on that basis alone it’s a shame that his career with the Rams comes to this kind of end - whether you think it’s self inflicted or not - it’s still a shame.

So here’s hoping for a good performance and 3 points on Saturday to lift the mood again - and some positive media coverage for a change!! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GadFly said:

The bit that's weird is this; if he's so unable to work, if his conduct was so appalling, why has he been offered reduced terms at all? Why was he only dismissed after refusing to accept said terms? 

Because Derby are generous employers and perhaps wanted to soften the blow due to his service to the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how Keogh can be sacked if the two other hollowed out pumpkins are still here and playing after one week  .  At a guess I would say its his lack of fitness/ ability to play negates any sale.  Not sure how the club can bang on about Lawrence devastation at Keoghs injury- sacking him a week later would make him feel much better I'd imagine .

My stance on the situation hasn't changed. I don't think any of them should have played again for Derby but unless some mutually agreed payoff has been agreed or something particular in Keoghs contract has been activated, this appears rather unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Keogh feels he's been wrongfully dismissed then he'll almost certainly bring action against the club. Until then can we please stop speculating on this? All we know is that the club's internal investigations have found that Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour amounted to lower level misconduct whilst Keogh's amounted to gross misconduct (and that is a very important distinction, by the way). We don't know the details uncovered in these investigations. We don't know the exact actions that have led to Keogh's dismissal. We can't comment upon how "fair" or "moral" it is when it's fallacious to assume that the three players have been found to have committed the exact same wrongdoing without distinction. The implication of the club's statements and actions is that they found that Keogh has committed an act or acts that Lawrence and Bennett did not and which were more serious than the acts Lawrence and Bennett committed. We do not know what these alleged acts were. Nor, for that matter, should any of the news outlets that are reporting on this, as protocol would seek to keep the findings of any investigation private and internal without the full consent of all parties involved. It's easy to assume that the differentiation between parties has been made due to their physical states in the aftermath of the incident, but there has been no confirmation that this is the case. The club's statement did not say this.

I think it also needs clarifying that criminal acts are not in and of themselves a basis for a charge of gross misconduct, especially if it is outside of the workplace, and likewise that gross misconduct does not have to be criminal. It's entirely possible for Keogh to have committed a non-criminal act that makes his position in and relationship with the club untenable, while the criminal acts committed by Lawrence and Bennett did not.

I just felt like I needed to make this post because I think a lot of people are viewing this as a very simple issue when in actuality law is nothing if not extremely, perhaps at times needlessly, complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

Because Derby are generous employers and perhaps wanted to soften the blow due to his service to the club

Oh right so they actually WILL "tolerate any of their 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 them into disrepute"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Not sure how Keogh can be sacked if the two other hollowed out pumpkins are still here and playing after one week  .  At a guess I would say its his lack of fitness/ ability to play negates any sale.  Not sure how the club can bang on about Lawrence devastation at Keoghs injury- sacking him a week later would make him feel much better I'd imagine .

My stance on the situation hasn't changed. I don't think any of them should have played again for Derby but unless some mutually agreed payoff has been agreed or something particular in Keoghs contract has been activated, this appears rather unfair.

If Bennett of Lawrence were both 33, had 18 months to run on their contract and had suffered an injury taking at least 18 months to fix in this crash, both of them would have been out on their ear with Keogh.

Bad analogy (given the circumstances), but if three cars were in a crash, but only one had any significant damage, it would be pointless to write-off all three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JfR said:

The implication of the club's statements and actions is that they found that Keogh has committed an act or acts that Lawrence and Bennett did not and which were more serious than the acts Lawrence and Bennett committed.

baalocks. The implication to anyone with half a brain and the ability to apply logic and critical thinking to a situation is that Keogh is worth less money, and is more of a liability/drain on resources to the club now than the other two are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These 4 seem happy to be sacked. Some things just happen. And Derby County are in the news again.

People are talking about us on the BBC, ITV, Sky Sports, Radio Stations, people who don't know anything about football or Derby County are flicking through their phones and commenting on Derby County again, the adults and the kids will be talking about it tomorrow in the work places and in the play grounds. It's a strange old world. From Maxwell to Richard Keogh and Wayne Rooney just around the corner. 

Derby County Football Club Lives On.

Love, Life & Unity. Good night.

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

If Bennett of Lawrence were both 33, had 18 months to run on their contract and had suffered an injury taking at least 18 months to fix in this crash, both of them would have been out on their ear with Keogh.

Bad analogy (given the circumstances), but if three cars were in a crash, but only one had any significant damage, it would be pointless to write-off all three.

Shame the one that's written off was a fairly reliable Volvo and we got left with a fur coat, no knickers Porche Boxster  and a 1980's Skoda last seen being used for parts at Looms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...