Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

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. 

Neither are on as much as Keogh.

But my point wasn't a hypothetical, as if they were in the same situation.

My point is that the punishment being laid down on Keogh, due to his playing circumstances changing following the incident - the fact that he's now injured for the vast majority of his remaining contract and likely not covered by the insurance, is a pay cut. If he refuses to accept that punishment, he may get sacked.
It's also implied (again, implied) by the term "Final offer", that there has been negotiation to this point. As if Keogh has been refusing previously.
The (public) punishment laid down on Lawrence and Bennett following the incident were demands for rehabilitation work, work in the community and fines of their wages. If they refused to comply with any aspect of their punishment, they'd have been sacked.
Equal treatment.

There's no moral issue here.

Edited by SaintRam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StapenhillRam said:

Would it be possible for Keogh to sue Tom Lawrence for loss of earnings ??????

It's a legal can of worms. 

Keogh probably rejected the offer out of hand, so now we get the perceived ultimatum from the club as reported by Percy.

Keogh's position now depends upon what his legal people think, if they think he could win in court they can sue for wrongful dismissal (I'm not sure he can, but we don't have the same facts as the club and player) then he will reject. 

If his legal team think he's got a chance of losing they will recommend accepting/trying to negotiate the new deal. The only thing that could get in the way is his pride. 

Back to your original point- If he rejected the offer and then lost a wrongful dismissal, then he MIGHT have rights to go after Lawrence should he want to take that avenue, but it would be a burn your bridges move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StapenhillRam said:

Would it be possible for Keogh to sue Tom Lawrence for loss of earnings ??????

Well in theory you would think yes, but here is where the waters start to get very muddy. If Keogh wasn't wearing a seat belt

then that would have undoubtedly have contributed to the severity of his injuries.

Plus whose responsibility is it to ensure everyone in a car wears a seatbelt? Driver / individuals, anyone know for certain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Neither are on as much as Keogh.

But my point wasn't a hypothetical, as if they were in the same situation.

My point is that the punishment being laid down on Keogh, due to his playing circumstances changing following the incident - the fact that he's now injured for the vast majority of his remaining contract and likely not covered by the insurance, is a pay cut. If he refuses to accept that punishment, he may get sacked.
It's also implied (again, implied) by the term "Final offer", that there has been negotiation to this point. As if Keogh has been refusing previously.
The (public) punishment laid down on Lawrence and Bennett following the incident were demands for rehabilitation work, work in the community and fines of their wages. If they refused to comply with any aspect of their punishment, they'd have been sacked.
Equal treatment.

There's no moral issue here.

Oh there absolutely is a moral issue here. 4 people were involved in the incident. 2 people were driving their cars whilst drunk and 2 people were passengers. The 1 individual who has already suffered the most from the incident via his injuries, is now also suffering the most severe punishment of the 4. How on earth is that not a moral issue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gfs1ram said:

Well in theory you would think yes, but here is where the waters start to get very muddy. If Keogh wasn't wearing a seat belt

then that would have undoubtedly have contributed to the severity of his injuries.

Plus whose responsibility is it to ensure everyone in a car wears a seatbelt? Driver / individuals, anyone know for certain?

The individual is responsible,  unless that person is a minor. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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.

Did you? The quote you posted agrees with @TommyPowel. It says they will sack him if he doesn't agree to the deal hence he isn't be sacked yet. It is now his decision whether he wants to stay or not. If he declines the deal he leaves if he doesn't he stays.

5 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

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. 

If the other players were no longer capable of playing for the next 2 years and were already at the end of their career then yes sacking would be on the table if they refused to accept a pay cut. Keogh has absolutely zero resale value at this point - this is not the case for Lawrence and to a lesser extent Bennett. If all players were the same age and unable to play they would all be in the same situation. Its a business with very tight constraints - not a charity. Keogh basically ended his career and you expect us to pay him full wages whilst he sits there making no contribution to the club at all - absolutely baffling. I'd also like to know what the other morally wrong reasons have we been in the press for before this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gfs1ram said:

Well in theory you would think yes, but here is where the waters start to get very muddy. If Keogh wasn't wearing a seat belt

then that would have undoubtedly have contributed to the severity of his injuries.

Plus whose responsibility is it to ensure everyone in a car wears a seatbelt? Driver / individuals, anyone know for certain?

Passengers are all responsible for themselves, once they hit age 14. 13 and below its the responsibility of the driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gfs1ram said:

Well in theory you would think yes, but here is where the waters start to get very muddy. If Keogh wasn't wearing a seat belt

then that would have undoubtedly have contributed to the severity of his injuries.

Plus whose responsibility is it to ensure everyone in a car wears a seatbelt? Driver / individuals, anyone know for certain?

It's the responsibility of the adult passengers to ensure they have their belts on, not the driver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Treat as 3 separate incidents. 

I'd imagine this would be the same sort of outcome had it been Keogh's Mrs who was over the limit and crashed with him in the car. 

 

I think it is fair. A smaller (but guaranteed) salary with access to some of the best facilities in the country for his rehabilitation isn't bad considering he only has himself to blame for getting into the car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Squid said:

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?

I understand your reasoning but I still disagree. I don't think being a good defender translates to being a good teacher, which is essentially a coach's role. Particularly when he's more of an instinctive, do or die type defender, as opposed to the likes of Davies, who excels at the bread and butter side of the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

Oh there absolutely is a moral issue here. 4 people were involved in the incident. 2 people were driving their cars whilst drunk and 2 people were passengers. The 1 individual who has already suffered the most from the incident via his injuries, is now also suffering the most severe punishment of the 4. How on earth is that not a moral issue? 

He chose to get into the car. He chose to not wear a seatbelt. He's come away from the incident unable to earn the wages he's given; and done so in a situation where insurance will not help his employers cover the cost. He's now literally a waste of money for 80% of his remaining contract.

Handing out the punishments to Lawrence and Bennett that we have and sacking Keogh on the spot would have been a perfectly balanced decision. Offering him a pay cut instead and continuing his employment IS taking into account the personal suffering he's already incurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IlsonDerby said:

Treat as 3 separate incidents. 

I'd imagine this would be the same sort of outcome had it been Keogh's Mrs who was over the limit and crashed with him in the car. 

 

I think it is fair. A smaller (but guaranteed) salary with access to some of the best facilities in the country for his rehabilitation isn't bad considering he only has himself to blame for getting into the car. 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Van Cone De Head said:

We hope he stays with the club.

I was going to say we need leaders but realised that I would get slaughtered for it.

Can't agree with you. Whilst we most certainly miss Keogh on the pitch I cannot help think that off the pitch he's the kind of leader we could well do without.

TBH getting rid of him might help bring about a 'culture change' at the Club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GenBr said:

If the other players were no longer capable of playing for the next 2 years and were already at the end of their career then yes sacking would be on the table if they refused to accept a pay cut. Keogh has absolutely zero resale value at this point - this is not the case for Lawrence and to a lesser extent Bennett. If all players were the same age and unable to play they would all be in the same situation. Its a business with very tight constraints - not a charity. Keogh basically ended his career and you expect us to pay him full wages whilst he sits there making no contribution to the club at all - absolutely baffling. I'd also like to know what the other morally wrong reasons have we been in the press for before this?

I don't understand why you're having so much trouble understanding my point? I don't care about how 1 can't contribute and isn't worth anything and the others are .... I completely understand why the club are doing what they're doing. I'm looking at the situation purely out of my own morals and I don't think it is fair that 1 person is suffering more severe consequences than the other 3 involved. That's it, there's nothing more to it. You, SaintRam and others can keep repeating stuff about the financial consequences and why the club is making the right choice which is fine and I agree with, but I just don't believe it to be morally correct, that's all.

As for the press stuff, the stadium sale and Rooney signing come to mind. Sure they're both legal and haven't gone against any rules (unless the EFL change their mind), but even the most biased Derby fans can surely see selling a stadium to yourself to avoid FFP punishment and having a betting company heavily involved in a player's arrival isn't a great look.

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...