Keogh Sacked

[Chester40]

12 minutes ago, CHCDerby said:

Yeah, I can't believe that. Why would anybody want his autograph now. 

Mel - Richard you arrogant fool, that wasn't a fan .. that was the club's agent and you have just signed a contract for 1p a week..

[Shaftesbury st]

1 hour ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

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 . 

There’s been a court case which shared virtually all of the details, I’m not sure there is much that is not known?. Maybe previous history within the club

[Smyth_18]

I am absolutely astounded that Keogh feels let down by Derby County.

 

The man was in a privileged position to Captain a professional football club. A job dreams are made of. There's a small matter of £25,000 a WEEK to add to that. 

He should have been leading that night whether he's on the pitch or not. Yet somehow he got into the car with a drunk team mate, who is also mentally unstable.

He then got injured when that car crashed. Leaving him unable to play for over a year. 

Somehow, this man feels he deserves to be payed the same amount as usual, as well as having thousands pumped into his rehabilitation.

 

A Bamford of the highest order. Good riddance. 

[Shaftesbury st]

1 hour 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 would put my knowledge of criminal law up against yours all day long. Obviously I do not know what is in their contracts but all of their actions have damaged the reputation of the club, would 100% equal Gross Misconduct.

And the pre election period you speak of is called Purdah, for the record. 
 

I am not confused about what is illegal or contractual, I think maybe you are confused about these and any moral issues within this argument. 

All just my opinion may I add

[TommyPowell]

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

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.

Oh did i dream that both Lawrence and Bennett had both said in a public the they were sorry and would accept any punishment handed down to them?

[TramRam]

6 minutes ago, cannable said:

Because the club statement justifying Keogh’s sacking is completely at odds with retaining Bennett and Lawrence… and if you really don’t believe it’s a PR disaster then just have a search on Twitter. Can’t remember the last time United fans were talking about us.

Each case is judged on it's own merit, L and B were punished to how the Courts and DCFC saw fit, Keogh likewise.

As for Twitter, Todays gossip is tomorrows chip paper

[TommyPowell]

my final thought on the matter (well for today anyway) Why would a guy on£24k a week rake a lift of an obviously drunk colleague rather that spend on a taxi?

[JfR]

15 minutes ago, cannable said:

Because the club statement justifying Keogh’s sacking is completely at odds with retaining Bennett and Lawrence… and if you really don’t believe it’s a PR disaster then just have a search on Twitter. Can’t remember the last time United fans were talking about us.

The part of the club statement regarding Keogh's sacking that everyone is calling hypocritical is exactly the same as part of the statement made about Lawrence and Bennett:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2019/10/club-statement-7
"Irrespective of the outcome of that process, 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."

I think a lot of people viewing that quote out of context and in isolation are viewing it to mean more than it does. It's just a cookie-cutter statement to suggest that misconduct at the club will not go without punishment, and that has been the case, even if the punishment has been different for different parties due to their different actions.

[SIWY]

As a 21 year old who’s been watching for 15 years this is all so sad as Keogh is my favourite player of all time. For a man with over 350 appearances and 2 player of the season awards to his name, the treatment Keogh has received from the club has been poor. From the day the club made their statement about the incident it’s clear that Keogh has been made a scapegoat, while Bennett and Lawrence were named in the squad to play Barnsley the very next day. Whatever your take is on whether or not it was right for Lawrence and Bennett to play, it doesn’t surely doesn’t sit right that 2 players should receive support from the club while one player has his contract terminated.

Now I understand Keogh was offered a reduced contract to stay at the club, but how do any of us know what was in this contract? Seen talk of half wages flying about and have no idea where this has come from. I can only guess that the offer must have been very poor from the club for Keogh to prefer to have his contract terminated over take the new contract.

Obviously, though, no player is bigger than the club and we have to move on. I can only hope that Keogh will come back to the club one day in some form. For now I can only wish him the best of luck with his recovery and rest of his career. Such a sad ending.

[REDCAR]

24 minutes ago, Smyth_18 said:

I am absolutely astounded that Keogh feels let down by Derby County.

 

The man was in a privileged position to Captain a professional football club. A job dreams are made of. There's a small matter of £25,000 a WEEK to add to that. 

He should have been leading that night whether he's on the pitch or not. Yet somehow he got into the car with a drunk team mate, who is also mentally unstable.

He then got injured when that car crashed. Leaving him unable to play for over a year. 

Somehow, this man feels he deserves to be payed the same amount as usual, as well as having thousands pumped into his rehabilitation.

 

A Bamford of the highest order. Good riddance. 

I'm on your team 

[Hinzy9]

Good riddance, he was a terrible leader both on and off the pitch

[REDCAR]

Just now, SIWY said:

As a 21 year old who’s been watching for 15 years this is all so sad as Keogh is my favourite player of all time. For a man with over 350 appearances and 2 player of the season awards to his name, the treatment Keogh has received from the club has been poor. From the day the club made their statement about the incident it’s clear that Keogh has been made a scapegoat, while Bennett and Lawrence were named in the squad to play Barnsley the very next day. Whatever your take is on whether or not it was right for Lawrence and Bennett to play, it doesn’t surely doesn’t sit right that 2 players should receive support from the club while one player has his contract terminated.

Now I understand Keogh was offered a reduced contract to stay at the club, but how do any of us know what was in this contract? Seen talk of half wages flying about and have no idea where this has come from. I can only guess that the offer must have been very poor from the club for Keogh to prefer to have his contract terminated over take the new contract.

Obviously, though, no player is bigger than the club and we have to move on. I can only hope that Keogh will come back to the club one day in some form. For now I can only wish him the best of luck with his recovery and rest of his career. Such a sad ending.

Not having it - you have Jamie P as your profile pic.

[mozza]

On the plus side, there's a 'Number Six' shirt available now, up for grabs.

[ramsbottom]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

we don't know the source of the leak, maybe an attempt to meet your expectation of knowing things you are not entitled to. maybe it was somebody close to Keo trying to gain sympathy.  I think the leak was a poor decision by somebody.  Staff relations are a mine field, you are being incredibly harsh on our club to think every step in such matters should perfectly meet your expectations.

I just think they're trying to make out it's a very black & white situation, when thanks to Percy's article everyone can see that it's anything but.

Hopefully we'll have a Mel soundbite/interview to placate the masses.

Just to reiterate, I think the club are 100% right to release him. And Keogh has been incredibly stupid/naive in turning the offer down.

[R@M]

17 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said:

I would put my knowledge of criminal law up against yours all day long. Obviously I do not know what is in their contracts but all of their actions have damaged the reputation of the club, would 100% equal Gross Misconduct.

And the pre election period you speak of is called Purdah, for the record. 
 

I am not confused about what is illegal or contractual, I think maybe you are confused about these and any moral issues within this argument. 

All just my opinion may I add

Your knowledge may well be of a higher grade, I only studied law for a year, this is however a civil matter and not a criminal one.

My point about your confusion was merely down to your statement that the whole world knows what the gross misconduct was. The all encompassing terminology refers to specific wording in the individuals contract. It could be that Keogh has it written into his contract he has to provide one manic stare per match and at least 10 ‘umms’ in the post match interview and did not fulfill this. My point being you cannot determine what the gross misconduct is without specific knowledge of the termination or contract. 

The clear criminal offences may not be determined to be gross misconduct, and/or there may be precedent already set by another employee of DCFC being convicted but not sacked. That would probably lead to an unfair dismissal case.

[cannable]

10 minutes ago, Hinzy9 said:

Good riddance, he was a terrible leader both on and off the pitch

Never understood this one 

Fairly certain it comes from when he had a go at Christie for losing the ball cheaply against Watford and he gave him a bollocking 

[Ewe Ram]

24 minutes ago, TommyPowel said:

my final thought on the matter (well for today anyway) Why would a guy on£24k a week rake a lift of an obviously drunk colleague rather that spend on a taxi?

Because no decent taxi driver would accept a passenger who is incapable of coherent conversation 

[Ghost of Clough]

At least we're back to having more LBs than CBs

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, Papahet said:

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

 

I had the opposite thought only this morning!

The thing is, you (us/the public) don't tend to find out about these "season-long fly on the wall documentaries" until about a month or so before it's aired!

It'd be just our luck that all this is being filmed for a season finale next May/June!  I suspect it would make horrendous and embarrassing viewing for any of us connected to the club... whilst the oppo fans would enjoy it even more than we enjoyed last season's offering from ******* Rd!   

 

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, Red Ram said:

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.

Most Professional footballers contracts will have clauses excluding them from 'undertaking high risk sports' but I am not privy to the exact wording. Taking part in the activity, skiing for instance can lead to the individual receiving a disciplinary action. The company will first investigate and the investigating manager will decide if there is a case for a disciplinary to take place. The disciplinary manager (I've done both in my company) will then investigate and decide two things, 1) Whether they believe he is guilty or not and 2) The level of punishment. The most severe punishment is gross misconduct which leads to an instant dismissal. The player could appeal this. So Keogh has been found guilty of gross misconduct whilst the other two have been found guilty but punished as far as they can without sacking them for gross misconduct.  Hope this helps.