Keogh Sacked

[ThePrisoner]

4 minutes ago, secretsquirrel said:

Poor old Cocu-why should he be left to clean up the mess it should be someone from board level to explain.Coco really has had crap from day 1

Well it's Thursday, so usual day for our pre-match press conference. So he's probably just going to comment on it, that'll be all.

[Dethorn]

The people on here banging on about consistency bothers me a little - unless they know all of the facts, in which case please let us know.

There are many factors which mean consistency is over ruled at many different levels.

My 6 month old dog shat on the kitchen floor and chewed through the phone cable the other day - got away with a mild ticking off, if my 12 year old dog had done it .....

My 18 year old took my car without asking, my 12 year old took my car without asking.

A murderer who shows remorse, pleads guilty and promises not to do it again tends to get a lighter sentence than someone who pleads not guilty, and swears that the DNA was planted, he wasn't there, it was his brother .... That is the rule of UK law, which has developed over 100's of years.

To me Lawrence and Bennett have both gone down the "we will take whatever punishment is thrown at us!" "we did wrong line". Whereas Alfie Keogh is in complete denial and will not even compromise with a pay cut while not being able to fulfill his duties.

If I had done what he has and my employer offered me a quarter of my wage to stay at home until retirement I would snatch their hands off. 

 

And then apologize for snatching their hands off.

[Papahet]

I’m gutted this isn’t being filmed for a Amazon Documentary, would be an absolutely quality watch.

 

[rammieib]

15 minutes ago, R@M said:

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. 

I think 90% of the people on this forum cannot understand gross negligence.  It will also be why the club will suffer another backlash publicly.  We've already seen comments from Arter and Hendrick who are in public profile positions criticizing. Good job they are not paying the 1.7 million from their own pocket.

[Spanish]

24 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

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

wouldn't that be breach of confidentiality?  It would be in my world and I would lose any related case.   

[sawley_ram]

Keogh is/was the captain of the team and he publicly stated he was "personally responsible" for what happened.

With that in mind the sacking makes sense. I don't know any other real facts (as many of us don't) so can't comment.

Edited October 31, 2019 by sawley_ram

[Red Ram]

1 hour 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.

This is the most coherent explanation I've seen so far as to why the club can potentially get away with sacking Keogh whilst only imposing a 6 week fine on the other two.

To use your example though, are you saying that it's gross misconduct to take the risk of going skiing or is it only gross misconduct if you actually get injured as a result of taking that risk? It's a crucial distinction because if it's the former then Bennett and Lawrence both took the same kind of risk and would therefore be just as liable for the same sanction as Keogh. However right at the end you state that it's gross misconduct because of Keogh's  "inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions" which seems to suggest that it's the latter i.e. it's only gross misconduct if you get injured (which seems unlikely as it would make risky behaviour more likely).

The club's actual statement says that "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" which seems to imply the former rather than the latter and is therefore equally applicable to Bennett and Lawrence.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

So I will be at PP on Saturday and I aim to show my support  for Keogh. I’m really not happy with the club at the moment. 
 

he had a contract of employment, the salary is irrelevant, and DCFC have sacked him and kept two others on who were:

1, convicted of a criminal offensive 

2, not injured 

3, are of an age that they still have a transfer value.

this is not right and sorry Mel, brings the reputation of the club into disrepute 

we are an honourable club, honour his contract 

This is all about their ability to return to work. Lawrence and Bennett have been dealt with and have returned to work. Keogh would have been dealt with in a similar manner but his own reckless behaviour rendered him unfit for work. Derby it seems as a responsible employer offered him an olive branch to stay on reduced terms. He turned that down.  What exactly have the club done wrong?

[Wolfie20]

Always been a fan of Keogh so his involvement in this whole tardy incident has blown that support away. Up to now the Clubs' reactions have mostly been understandable so maybe I'm missing something but the statement says Keogh has been sacked due to gross misconduct. If reports are correct and he was offered a revised contract on greatly reduced terms then it seems as though Derby County were, at some point, prepared to abandon their principles for a financial arrangement. Something doesn't add up!

The guy i feel sorry for in this total mess is Cocu - bet he hadn't realised that at times we could be a real basket case of a club. It's painful being a Rams fan this season - I just want 2019/20 campaign to finish with us safely tucked up in mid-table and ready to go again next August.

[MuespachRam]

I wonder if what really happened that night will ever come out..? Maybe now he had been sacked it will do.?

[Jourdan]

PR FC strikes again.

The club has really handled this whole episode poorly.

We just can’t stop courting headlines and controversy, can we?

In terms of conduct, I don’t see how you can justify keeping Lawrence and Bennett and standing by them, but not Keogh.

If one goes, they all go. If one stays, they all stay.

It speaks volumes about the state of the club that the long serving club captain has been sacked and a potentially messy legal battle looms, rather than an amicable agreement having been found.

An absolute shambles and both the club and the player come out of it looking pitiful.

I only wish the club had taken the same stance - concern over protecting its interests and the finances - when we were wasting money on Anya, Blackman, Butterfield, Ambrose, King and countless others who have contributed nothing to the club in recent years but still got paid handsomely for the privilege.

Can we win 10-0 on Saturday and get back in the headlines for winning football matches, please?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

4 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

Always been a fan of Keogh so his involvement in this whole tardy incident has blown that support away. Up to now the Clubs' reactions have mostly been understandable so maybe I'm missing something but the statement says Keogh has been sacked due to gross misconduct. If reports are correct and he was offered a revised contract on greatly reduced terms then it seems as though Derby County were, at some point, prepared to abandon their principles for a financial arrangement. Something doesn't add up!

The guy i feel sorry for in this total mess is Cocu - bet he hadn't realised that at times we could be a real basket case of a club. It's painful being a Rams fan this season - I just want 2019/20 campaign to finish with us safely tucked up in mid-table and ready to go again next August.

Wolfie, I don't think the club have altered their stance. The reduced terms was an offer to help Keogh despite being in line to be fired. It seems he turned that offer down so the club sacked him as is their apparent right. The other two weren't sacked, although they could have been, as they returned to work.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

18 minutes ago, Dethorn said:

The people on here banging on about consistency bothers me a little - unless they know all of the facts, in which case please let us know.

To me Lawrence and Bennett have both gone down the "we will take whatever punishment is thrown at us!" "we did wrong line". Whereas Alfie Keogh is in complete denial and will not even compromise with a pay cut while not being able to fulfill his duties.

This first line completely contradicts the second one. You clearly don't know all the facts either, so how can you assume what Lawrence's, Bennett's and Keogh's attitudes have been like while keeping a straight face?

Have your opinion, fine. But don't criticise people for making assumptions before going onto make a huge one yourself.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

6 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

I wonder if what really happened that night will ever come out..? Maybe now he had been sacked it will do.?

Highly doubt it. Every acrimonious dismissal the club has made seems to come along with some sort of non-disclosure agreement. Otherwise, you'd imagine that the likes of Clement and Pearson (particularly the latter, considering he was initially suspended for his alleged behaviour) would have spoken out by now.

[Chester40]

Interesting distinction for me would be whether if in law Keogh's contract, higher wage, position as club captain, length of service...literally does extend to him a greater level of responsibility (rather than a moral one merely as older, more mature, experienced player) much as a team leader or area manager, whatever.. would in another workplace.

[Dcfcsr92]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Without getting into a debate about their footballing abilities, who would have suffered by sacking Lawrence and Bennett? Not them. Another club somewhere would have signed them and their footballing careers, on exorbitant salaries, would have carried on. The club probably did as much as they could in terms of punishing them.

I do agree with what your saying but i still think all 3 should be sacked i said at the time they should be sacked and still stand by that! Lawrence and bennett both have fines fair enough and probably would get a contract else where but i just think its double standards, i think if Lawrence wasnt one of cocu favourites i do honestly think all 3 would of been gone

[BucksRam]

As with all these things there's going to be details we don't know, and never will.  Was Keogh's contract exactly the same as the other two buffoons' for example?  Usually, it's about the inability to perform your duties rather than an edict not to do something. The statement goes on about risk and bringing the club into disrepute and that's where the confusion comes from IMO as you will argue that Lawrence and Bennett did just that so eliciting a sense of injustice and inconsistency.  Poor PR / Media relations, probably written by our scouting team!

There will be more to this than we're seeing. I know who I'd rather have playing, but life's a beach. 

[LazloW]

This is obviously a big mess, and it does seem a shame that - whatever Keogh is alleged to have done to warrant being sacked, that his many years of service and high standing with (most) fans - could not be recognised and (as mentioned above) an amicable parting of the ways couldn’t have been achieved.  
 

Nobody looks good in this.. the club appear both inconsistent and a bit heartless (even though i imagine there are a lot of things that aren’t in the public domain yet); the player has had his reputation and legacy completely tarnished (if it wasn’t already... and I know that many won’t think of him as having a legacy but 2 player of the year trophies and this many games means a little bit I think... not absolute legend status, but certainly somebody we could recognise as having had a big part to play over a considerable period of time).

Mel certainly doesn’t seem to have a sentimental bone in his body!  

[StantonRam]

hi all

As soon as the details of the 'accident' were made public I inwardly predicted this.  Here's my take for what it's worth:

DCFC is a workplace just like any other.  The evening was a club event and therefore he was 'on duty' as Club Captain.  As Club Captain, he not only refused the offer of transport after consuming alcohol (why players at this level think they should be consuming ANY alcohol in midweek is another question for another day, I don't think that top tennis players or athletes drink alcohol during the competition season!!!), he chose to remain with two younger players and consume even more alcohol, much more apparently.  In doing so he incapacitated himself, thus rendering himself unable to fulfil his workplace function of ensuring the well being of the younger players, and then allowed them to drive drunk (unbelievable!!!) and endanger both themselves and members of the public.  He therefore has to carry the can for the whole incident.  His was the 'controlling mind' (I believe that is the legal term) and he is the architect of his own downfall.  He has no one to blame but himself.

I wish him well, I thank him for all his efforts, time to draw a line and move on.  If the club reach an out of court settlement then fine, as long as it doesn't cost too much, the PFA can negotiate that I'm sure.  He let the club and himself down, and if I were Mel Morris I would do exactly the same.  Sean Barker, Thorne, Fozzy etc are all completely different cases, and the club showed loyalty to them.

Sorry if that sounds harsh to some but I don't see how he can really complain TBH.

LR2

[Rample]

It looks purely a business decision. 

Lawrence and Bennett fit to play and with resale value kept, Keogh who will be out for over a year  and nearing retirement/too old for this level of football when he returns let go. 

One rule for one and one for another, and maybe a little bit harsh on Keogh, but definitely in the interest of the club. 

Be interesting to see where player power stands now. Not saying Keogh was divisive (amongst the players) but he did always seem to be mentioned in the group of players that went to Mel to complain etc. 

Anyway, best of luck with your recovery Rich, thanks for the effort and for actually caring over the past few years.