Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bristol City said:

Derby have been caught between a rock and a hard place.

Had Keogh got into his own car drunk, crashed and bust his knee I suspect that most football fans would applaud their decision to sack him for gross misconduct as they feel that rsh footballers think they can get away with anything.

Derby's problem is that the actions of Mount and Lawrence in the same incident makes it appear that their stance and action over Keogh is  motivated more by hard financial prudence that moral indignation.

Following on from Pride Park Gate it does not paint the club in the best moral light.

Mount plays for Chelsea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

There were a fair few, and there was a general feeling Keogh, although partly culpable if he wasn't wearing his seat belt, was basically an injured party in this, Lawrence and Bennett should be slung out but Keogh helped.

However the monetary value consiqences have led to the reverse.

I'd be less annoyed if the club have said "it saves us two million quid what do you expect, and junking Lawrence and Bennett would mean we can get any transfer fee" instead of "the two with value must be helped, the one that costs us is morally intolerable"

I understand it, but find it distsasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RAMBOB said:

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 .

The driving incident would be Gross Misconduct as it would damage the reputation of the club and would / has been deemed as that.

I do agree the lack of information though is extremely poor and only further disenfranchises fans from the club who will be asking why only him, they could have addressed this easily. 
 

The whole thing has been poor, a total cover up and lack of responsibility from the club but are any of us surprised?. We have been a joke for many years now, sacking managers left right and centre, we have been like a teenager who wins the lottery at times,totally irresponsible with money and our business dealings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

 

However the monetary value consiqences have led to the reverse.

I'd be less annoyed if the club have said "it saves us two million quid what do you expect, and junking Lawrence and Bennett would mean we can get any transfer fee" instead of "the two with value must be helped, the one that costs us is morally intolerable"

I understand it, but find it distsasteful.

That's not how I see it...

Two can still do the job they get paid handsomely to do.. 

One can't.  So we have ended his contract. 

Seems fair enough to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long overdue. What strikes me is the arrogance of Keogh in assuming that he is entitled to £1.62m over the 15 months he is likely to be out injured for (worked out at £25k per week)

He was employed on those terms purely as a professional footballer. Due to his own idiotic actions, he is unable to fulfil his contract to be a professional footballer. What did he think he was going to be doing of benefit to the club during those 15 months? Be an ambassador for the club? Be an example to the young players? The club have offered to still pay him & to aid his rehabilitation - he should count himself lucky on both scores but clearly lacks the humility to even be grateful for that.

I do understand the argument that the treatment of Lawrence & Bennett seems very lenient in comparison. The differentiation though is that a) there would be a higher standard of behaviour expected from an experienced player and a club captain and the obvious one that b) Keogh is unable to play for the foreseeable future whilst the other two can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this, everything recently shouldn't break us fans up, we agree and disagree but we're still Derby County and no player is bigger than the club. 

There is a big game on Saturday and an even bigger one on the weekend after - I'm sure the players will be truly gutted Keogh has gone.

But lets back Cocu he will never have had to deal with anything as ridiculous as this, You've got to feel sorry for him...

Players come and go but the fans will always be here.... Bloody love Derby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Long overdue. What strikes me is the arrogance of Keogh in assuming that he is entitled to £1.62m over the 15 months he is likely to be out injured for (worked out at £25k per week)

He was employed on those terms purely as a professional footballer. Due to his own idiotic actions, he is unable to fulfil his contract to be a professional footballer. What did he think he was going to be doing of benefit to the club during those 15 months? Be an ambassador for the club? Be an example to the young players? The club have offered to still pay him & to aid his rehabilitation - he should count himself lucky on both scores but clearly lacks the humility to even be grateful for that.

I do understand the argument that the treatment of Lawrence & Bennett seems very lenient in comparison. The differentiation though is that a) there would be a higher standard of behaviour expected from an experienced player and a club captain and the obvious one that b) Keogh is unable to play for the foreseeable future whilst the other two can.

I think your last point is the key to this whole thing.

We would have had to have looked at this with a team of lawyers, no doubt, to even consider this step because it can so easily be challenged otherwise. Obviously, we don't know specifics of his contract, but you can imagine some of the arguments that he might make outside of the fine print - such as the difference in treatment for him compared to the others, or even ageism.

But I think the fact that insurance likely wouldn't pay out for this injury, and we are lumped with his wages to essentially do nothing for practically all his contract will be the overwhelming factor. The article quotes 14 months, so if that's to believed, you looking after next Christmas before he's "fit" - and that fitness would be relative given the massive injury it is.

The weird thing is the statement the club made. That doesn't make sense when you do judge all three in that manner - again, without knowing contract specifics. If you look at it purely from the fact he's the only one unable to actually do his job for practically the remainder of his employment term, it makes complete sense.

Edited by Srg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right decision, wrong way of handling it.  If the club's statement had explained that they don't see the point in urinating a million pounds into the wind, so made the exceedingly generous offer to still pay a completely useless employee (useless as in unable to play, not their ability @MuespachRam ) more than a fair amount of money, and help in their rehab, yet the employee turned it down.  Then I don't think so many folks would be up in arms about it.  Purely on a business level this makes sense, but the PR spin has made us look like a bunch of tools...

If keogh wants help with his legal team I'm sure a Mr S Gibson of Middlesbrough will lend a hand

Edited by ramsbottom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said:

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.

 

So you are party to the exact contract details of Keogh, Bennett and Lawrence? The whole world does not know what constitutes as gross misconduct as per their contracts....I certainly don’t. 

You clearly seem to be confused regarding what is illegal and what is contractually unacceptable, and clearly have only a little understanding of employment law.

For example, it was recently mentioned in an interview with Lewis Hamilton that he is contractually not allowed to partake in winter sports. While this is not illegal, if he was to make himself unavailable to perform his day job through injury due to his choice to partake in a winter sport, he could be dismissed under gross misconduct. A more common form of this can be found within the Civil Service, it is gross misconduct to outwardly express political bias in the run up to an election. 

I hope this helps you understand a little better regarding what is opinion, (your disdain for the action taken) and the potential legalities of said action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shaftesbury st said:

The driving incident would be Gross Misconduct as it would damage the reputation of the club and would / has been deemed as that.

I do agree the lack of information though is extremely poor and only further disenfranchises fans from the club who will be asking why only him, they could have addressed this easily. 
 

The whole thing has been poor, a total cover up and lack of responsibility from the club but are any of us surprised?. We have been a joke for many years now, sacking managers left right and centre, we have been like a teenager who wins the lottery at times,totally irresponsible with money and our business dealings. 

The club will have done there own internal investigation. No cover up they will not have been able to release details firstly because of the court cases for Lawrence and Bennett and now because of any potential appeal and maybe court case regarding to Keogh. The club will be following due process as advised by their legal team. 
Details may follow with a court case or may be kept confidential if any legal agreement is made. A lot of speculation being written on here none of us know the full facts of the night and if there are other matters which have happened previously which have been taken into account.  I don’t see how the club could have dealt with this any differently . 
 Also the delay with dealing with RK could be due to him having surgery and letting that take place first. 
The last bit about Is just how you see it which is your opinion which is fine others may see it differently . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll lead this in by stating again that I've always been a Keogh fan, love the guy and the thing I'm MOST gutted about over the whole incident is that we don't have him in our side

Anyone posted this link yet?

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds

You can dismiss an employee if:

  • they’re incapable of doing their job to the required standard
  • they’re capable, but unwilling to do their job properly
  • they’ve committed some form of misconduct

I'd say that top one is pretty clear cut? Never mind whether you think he's a 'good' player the very minimum standard for a footballer is that they are available for selection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said:

The driving incident would be Gross Misconduct as it would damage the reputation of the club and would / has been deemed as that.

I do agree the lack of information though is extremely poor and only further disenfranchises fans from the club who will be asking why only him, they could have addressed this easily. 
 

The whole thing has been poor, a total cover up and lack of responsibility from the club but are any of us surprised?. We have been a joke for many years now, sacking managers left right and centre, we have been like a teenager who wins the lottery at times,totally irresponsible with money and our business dealings. 

Again, for something to be gross misconduct, it has to be written into the contract. Maybe, under the contractual terms, the offence committed by the other 2 was not enough to sack them. How many others at the club (all staff) have been allowed to keep their jobs after a similar conviction? 

The key point, i premise, is that he has made a decision that has resulted in him being unable to do his job. 

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...