GadFly Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 hours ago, Brummie Steve said: On having to cease work through ill health I had:- 6 months on full pay then 6 months on half pay then a mediical to decide if I should be granted ill health retirement with my pension entitlement enhanced. In circumstances like the three rampaging Rams (severally or in consort) I don't think my employers (in common with the police and other public service employers) would have been legally bound to make any remuneration except, extraordinarily, an actuarily reduced pension. Much as I like Richard Keogh,I fail to see how the club is duty bound to pay him over £1 million PA to do nothing. It may be a different world as a pro footballer but I would expect the club to follow legal advice on the way forward. This whole argument is a bit of a red herring when the club makes zero reference to his ill health in their statement, and makes it all about his conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMBOB Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 30 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said: There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract. It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs. Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work. It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts. Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous. The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet. The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy. His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer. Absolutely spot on ! My thoughts entirely. The only question is why it has taken so long to come to this decision and why wasnt he suspended from the club. I think also many other footballers across the country may just be taking note and will maybe...hopefully, think before driving after drinking in the future.....they could be one accident away from the same fate. Now that would be an interesting situation for our overpaid, prima donners in the Premiership and indeed their clubs. Imagine a top four Premiership club sacking their top striker who has bust his knee badly and who is earning half a million a year . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, RamNut said: It’s amazing how many people are suddenly claiming that this is the right thing to do blah blah blah. when it happened I posted that all three should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, and that the culprits should be sacked if the judgement went a certain way. there were plenty prepared to take issue with me and not a single poster argued that Keogh should be sacked. Not one. The club had apparently handled it all very correctly etc etc. . Now all of a sudden the little worms have turned. The worst culprit in the whole affair was Lawrence. Pissed. Drove. Smashed into Bennett. Injured a passenger. Abandoned the scene. But he committed an ‘indiscretion’. Total hypocrisy. At the time it happened I dont think many realised Keogh would be getting paid £2m for doing nothing. Had he not been injured and was still able to do what he is paid for, I'm sure he would not have been sacked. No hypocrisy at all. gccrowdpleaser, Chester40 and Hinzy9 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: At the time it happened I dont think many realised Keogh would be getting paid £2m for doing nothing. Had he not been injured and was still able to do what he is paid for, I'm sure he would not have been sacked. No hypocrisy at all. Of course they knew. They knew how long he was out for. Edited October 31, 2019 by RamNut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gccrowdpleaser Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, GadFly said: This whole argument is a bit of a red herring when the club makes zero reference to his ill health in their statement, and makes it all about his conduct. The reality versus what can be said in a statement are two very different things. Am I right in thinking there has been no official statement from the club? What we may be seeing in terms of 'statement' is quite possibly wording from the dismissal hearing or letter. Often these things are covered by legal terminology in terms of what can and can't be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, angieram said: I love the way Jeff Hendrick spells through how he would say it! I don't love the way he's wading in on a club who stuck by him when he had his own court issues and gave him a professional contract as a youngster with a diagnosed medical condition when others weren't interested . G STAR RAM, Bubbles, Chester40 and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Just now, RamNut said: Of course they knew. They knew how long he was out for. Did they? Pretty sure that there was a few days between the accident and DCFC confirming Keoghs involvement and injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, GadFly said: This whole argument is a bit of a red herring when the club makes zero reference to his ill health in their statement, and makes it all about his conduct. The club haven't yet made an official statement. I doubt we'll get one until 14 days time or if Keogh appeal's the decision sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewe Ram Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 49 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said: Has she goat a point or just milking it ? This same one that says she’s been unfairly targeted on social media? She’s just posted a great big ‘bring it on’ hasn’t she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Just now, G STAR RAM said: Did they? Pretty sure that there was a few days between the accident and DCFC confirming Keoghs involvement and injury. Correct. The posts were made in the following 6 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: I don't love the way he's wading in on a club who stuck by him when he had his own court issues and gave him a professional contract as a youngster with a diagnosed medical condition when others weren't interested . No surprise to see him sticking up for a colleague doing something stupid when drunk... RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Still, takes our minds off Brexit.. GenBr, GboroRam, ThePrisoner and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconram Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 There is more to this than anyone knows, various rumours from that evening. Two former work colleagues lost driving license due to drink driving but they didn't lose there jobs as the could still perform hence Bennett and Lawrence. Keogh wasn't driving but cannot perform, a generous offer by the club , they have done the investigation and would not have taken this decision lightly, fair decision Thanks for the memories Richard but a case of craziness has cost you unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 minute ago, RamNut said: Correct. The posts were made in the following 6 days. Well cant believe that there was nobody advocating the players being sacked. Knowing the details I certainly would have had no problem with any or all of them being sacked. Had Bennett/Lawrence got a custodial sentence and been unable to play sacking would have been justified too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Do we think Keogh was surprised by this outcome?. How would we tell? FWIW I'm glad he's not lurking round the club & hope that Lawrence & Bennett are sold in January. There's seemingly a toxic atmosphere around the club this season & it needs getting rid of. Maybe this was a condition of the incoming investment?...... Ewe Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 According to BBC East Midlands News, Cocu is due to make a club statement this afternoon. Bubbles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaftesbury st Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 10 hours ago, R@M said: So you know what the ‘gross misconduct’ actually is? I don’t, but do know that in many standard contracts where the worker relies on their health to carry out their duties, it is deemed gross misconduct if injuries are sustained (which prevent said duties) and are due to negligence or illegal behaviour; it is therefore a sackable offence. Do I know what the Gross misconduct is?. Are you being serious, the whole world knows what it is. So let’s just take your view here then for arguments sense, do you really believe the drivers did not commit Gross Misconduct because based on this punishment and your rationale that’s what you are saying. And tell me what illegal behaviour Keogh committed ? Nothing, there is no offence at all which is why he was not detained or prosecuted. The behaviour of the club cannot be defended in my opinion, either sack them all or sack none of them. I have a little knowledge of employment law and I mean a little and if he goes to court Keogh wins hands down and could argue he has been treated differently based on age and would most likely win this by way of a settlement in excess of what he is already owed with damages. GadFly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Derby County will win a legal case hands down IMO. Feels morally wrong that because two other individuals can continue kicking a ball, and thus have an asset value (I dont believe asset value can ever be bought up as an argument here, but fulfillment of contract absolutely can), their punishment is dealt with in a separately manner. Derby's statement on this matter about dealing with individuals who out others at risk is sheer embarrassment for the club. On face value, the offence committed by the two is of greater severity and that's all the general public/media will care about. It will them put us in a very bad light again. Its another poor handling of the situation for me. GadFly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 37 minutes ago, ramjit said: Who gets injured at work and takes home full pay..all this I feel sorry for keogh,mels wrong he shouldn’t of sacked him ffs,give your head a wobble’folks,I think personally he a greedy t@@t now refusing a pay cut,why would you refuse it.not like he gonna be doing much else is it for a good while.who wouldn’t mind doing fa for a few grand a week. I give up... who did get injured at work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brammie Steve Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, GadFly said: This whole argument is a bit of a red herring when the club makes zero reference to his ill health in their statement, and makes it all about his conduct. Entering the realm of pedantry and semantics now!? What is 'dismissal' ''the sack' 'termination of contract' and how does one distinguish this from the euphemistic 'parting company' or the apocryphal 'permanent unpaid holiday'. How does one differentiate between 'health grounds' 'conduct unbecoming' and 'no longer able to fulfil the terms of one's contract'? This is a legal and needs to be left in the learned hands of those who are taught about what is tort. I agree with my learned friend and brother.."It takes our minds off Brexit!" Edited October 31, 2019 by Brummie Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now