Keogh Sacked

[Andicis]

6 minutes ago, Cocu_Doodle_Do said:

Don't think I have ever seen a Derby player give more on a pitch than Keogh. Every single game he would come off that pitch drenched in sweat.

Those saying he could have stayed if he took a big wage cut need to answer why he should get a big wage cut and TL and MB don't!

One rule for one..

Probably why Keogh didn't agree to it. From what we know he didn't even commit an unlawful act he was just unlucky to be the one who got the bad injury from it!

It's not complex. Tom Lawrence and Mason Bennett are not out until December 2020. They can do their job. Keogh can't. He's lucky we offered him a wage cut anyway. 

[GenBr]

4 minutes ago, Cocu_Doodle_Do said:

 

Those saying he could have stayed if he took a big wage cut need to answer why he should get a big wage cut and TL and MB don't!

 

Because they can still play. Keogh is no longer capable of fulfilling the terms of his contract due to his own negligence. He should feel priveleged we offered him anything at all. Seems pretty straight forward to me. The other two havent been paid for 6 weeks.

[RandomAccessMemory]

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.

There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.

We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.

It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

[Rosythram]

I know that some companies will not pay you if you are off work due to sports injuries.

Keogh is a sports person who cannot fulfil has contractual obligation due to a none sports injury due to absolute stupidity on his part.

Why on earth should he be treated differently to the normal working person, at the end of the day he made the decision to get into the vehicle and not put on a seatbelt, deservedly so he got his just reward.

[ThePrisoner]

4 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Because they can still play. Keogh is no longer capable of fulfilling the terms of his contract due to his own negligence. He should feel priveleged we offered him anything at all. Seems pretty straight forward to me. The other two havent been paid for 6 weeks.

It's so simple, I don't understand why people don't see this viewpoint. Letting their own opinions of the players get in the way of the actual hard facts that two players are still available for selection.

Edited October 31, 2019 by ThePrisoner

[Mucker1884]

38 minutes ago, SIWY said:

He’s not actually done anything against the law or against club rules though has he? Sure, it wasn’t right of him to get in the back of the car with a drunk driver, but the accident wasn’t his fault seeing as he wasn’t behind the wheel. Keogh just made a poor decision (easily done when drunk) and has come worst off out of everyone!

I understand I am massively biased towards Keogh and it probably shows in my opinion on the matter, but hypothetically, if he was injured in any other drink drive related accident (say his wife was at the wheel), would he have had to take a reduced contract? Or is he being made a scapegoat here because of his status as club captain? I genuinely can’t help but feel like it’s the latter.

Technically, it appears he has broken the law, by not wearing a seat belt, but seeing as no charges have been brought (as yet), "I'll give you that one"... No he hasn't broken the law.

We don't know whether he has broken any club rules or not... that is why this whole thread is going around in circles... and I'm as guilty as anyone for contributing!

Also, we don't know that the accident "wasn't his fault".  A flick of the tab here.  A yank of the hair there.  What appears to be a bit of a jape to a drunken back seat passenger can soon become a dangerous distraction to a driver... sober or otherwise!  Now, I appreciate nothing of that ilk came out in court, but imagine if that was the story subsequently being fed by the driver and/or the front passenger to the club... during the investigation...off the record, so to speak.
I reiterate, we just don't know the facts leading to this reduced contract offer, and the subsequent dismissal, so none of us can say that Keogh has been fairly or unfairly treated!

Hypothetically... I would imagine... without any personal insight into law and/or employment law... that if Keogh had reported to work with his leg in a clamp, unable to play for the next 15 months, and it transpired that the cause was due to him knowingly (drunkenly or otherwise) accepting a lift (or demanding one!) from a driver that was subsequently charged and punished for drink driving... regardless of whether that driver was a work colleague, a spouse, a secret lesbian lover, or a contortionist from Venezuela... then yes, I do believe the outcome would have been the same!

[OohMartWright]

I haven't read all of the previous 37 pages on this thread, but I would like to float a theory which may or may not be valid:

If DCFC continued to pay Keogh's contract in full until its expiry, that would count as a player's salary for FFP purposes and be liable to Income Tax in his hands. DCFC sack Keogh, without having sacked Bennett or Lawrence who committed criminal offences, leaving DCFC open to claims of unfair dismissal/age discrimination. Keogh launches Employment Tribunal proceedings, but the case is settled quickly. The settlement payment is no longer a salary, but liquidated damages for breach of contract, which MIGHT fall outside FFP and/or be exempt from Income Tax in Keogh's hands.

Just a thought. Any views?

[IslandExile]

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I consider the clubs offer of half pay very generous

where is that figure of "half pay" come from?

I've only seen rumours of "reduced pay".

I would have thought "Half pay + rehabilitation facilities" is a reasonable deal.

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Totally agree.  The main reason why Keogh got just as much "stick" from me as the other nobs, when all this first kicked off.  It even spread to Hudds, once the video became public knowledge.  I also felt he "should have known better" and should have shown more responsibility as an apparent "senior pro".

I do hope that you don't consider my previous post to have been my opinion.  I had hoped that the starting line would have covered my arse on that score!  (Insert winking emoji!) 

Either way, I would still argue that showing a professional and responsible attitude throughout a works event... and beyond... does still not equate to Keogh being "injured at work", in my book.

agreed, if I was at work and got bladdered at lunch time (I used to work in the city) and then hurt myself by falling over when I got back I don't think my employer would have been very sympathetic.  I also would guess that all the after 8's have received some form of punishment.

[Rosythram]

12 minutes ago, Cocu_Doodle_Do said:

Don't think I have ever seen a Derby player give more on a pitch than Keogh. Every single game he would come off that pitch drenched in sweat.

Those saying he could have stayed if he took a big wage cut need to answer why he should get a big wage cut and TL and MB don't!

One rule for one..

Probably why Keogh didn't agree to it. From what we know he didn't even commit an unlawful act he was just unlucky to be the one who got the bad injury from it!

Why is committing an unlawful act significant, he cannot due to not having a lot between the ears fulfil his contractual agreement which is/was to play football for Derby County FC.

If me or you could not go to work due to getting a none work related injury and we had a fixed term contract, we would be sacked.

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, OohMartWright said:

I haven't read all of the previous 37 pages on this thread, but I would like to float a theory which may or may not be valid:

If DCFC continued to pay Keogh's contract in full until its expiry, that would count as a player's salary for FFP purposes and be liable to Income Tax in his hands. DCFC sack Keogh, without having sacked Bennett or Lawrence who committed criminal offences, leaving DCFC open to claims of unfair dismissal/age discrimination. Keogh launches Employment Tribunal proceedings, but the case is settled quickly. The settlement payment is no longer a salary, but liquidated damages for breach of contract, which MIGHT fall outside FFP and/or be exempt from Income Tax in Keogh's hands.

Just a thought. Any views?

I've read this elsewhere and although it has some interest I don't think it is the prime motivator

[Mucker1884]

This thread is definitely going around in circles.  Apologies for my own part in this, but I'm going to take a back seat for a while...

 

...Oh... Wait!

 

 

 

[Angry Ram]

Might start another thread with my comment.. ?

[Rambam2014]

40 minutes ago, Rambam2014 said:

Football is not like any other workplace.  Very few of us as employees are also assets of the company in financial terms.

DCFC have a very reduced squad this season, and whether we admit it or not, are not playing well enough to be considered out of a possible relegation battle this year.

All three of those idiots involved could have been considered as committing "gross misconduct" for their actions.

2 of them are still fit enough to carry out their contractual obligations, 1 of them is not.

I think all three could have been dismissed for their actions, however in their current position Derby need experienced players to try and get results. Whatever we think of them, personally i would not have been sorry to see all three go!!

IF, and it is IF, RK has turned down the club's offer to get paid a substantial salary whilst he is rehabilitated also at the clubs expense, then how can anyone have any sympathy with that.

It smacks of total arrogance and lack of judgement.  Not qualities I would look for in a captain of my team

Not one of us that posts on here knows the exact facts about what happened that night or since.  Not many of us, if any at all, are  experts in Football finances or Employment Law.  All we can do is support the club.

 

[May Contain Nuts]

Can anyone prove that if it was Lawrence or Bennett who had sustained the knee injury then the club wouldn't have offered them the same 'accept reduced terms or face the sack' deal? Nope.  Can they prove that if Keogh hadn't been injured he would have still been excluded from matchday squads? Nope.

In which case the whole "One rule for one" thing is complete nonsense, Keogh hasn't been more harshly treated than the others he's been treated according to the outcome of HIS actions - each individual player involved is responsible for their own actions on the night in question and has to face the music according to the fallout of them.

Who was driving, who was a passenger, it doesn't matter. They are all responsible for their own well-being. Yes, it's unfortunate for Keogh that he was the passenger and the only one injured, but it doesn't diminish his responsibility. What's happened has happened, that's all you can deal with - none of this theorising and moralising makes any difference.

Lawrence and Bennett have been dealt with according to their own individual circumstances, Keogh has been dealt with according to his. That isn't unfair, it's logical. They aren't individually responsible for Keogh's actions, Keogh isn't individually responsible for theirs, although  they do have an equal and collective responsibility towards each other.

That's probably the saddest thing, they've all failed each other, utterly and indiscriminately. They're supposed to be a team, they're supposed to look out for each other. Some team eh?

Do I think that Richard Keogh should have been sacked purely on the basis of that night's events (or what we know of them)? No, I don't. Do I think Richard Keogh deserves to be paid his full earnings for a year and a half due to receiving injuries that were a result of his own actions? No, I don't.

So, what's the solution?

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable alternative to how we've acted towards Keogh given the injury he sustained was a consequence of his own actions, instead the Outraged of Derby are too busy arguing the semantics of the club's statement and the rest haven't offered any solution other that "they should all have been sacked", a blanket statement that takes very little about the real life circumstances and is, actually, the only unfair approach to it.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Coconut

[Nuwtfly]

Anyone fancy summarising the main points of this, if you've got access?

 

[Big Bad Bob]

I find this whole saga really sad. There will be many facts that are not in the public domain, so it's only natural for people to draw their own conclusions to the bits of information they have garnered. It's such an awful end for someone who has played over 350 games and 7 years for the club, both for the player and club.

Without wishing to be drawn into the massive debate currently raging, I am intrigued by the following statement from the club:

"As we have said from the outset, 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," they said." Based on the information that is available, Richard's actions could be considered as bringing the club into disrepute. However, the actions of both Tom and Mason could be considered as all of the above i.e. putting themselves, their colleagues, members of the public at risk of injury or worse and bringing the club into disrepute.

[mwram1973]

5 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Anyone fancy summarising the main points of this, if you've got access?

 

Nothing suprising tbh, I'd have thought he would appeal. It's whether he takes it further. If he doesn't then I think it's safe to say he was more involved in the accident that any of us realized.

Edited October 31, 2019 by mwram1973

[ramsbottom]

1 hour ago, SIWY said:

He’s not actually done anything against the law or against club rules though has he? Sure, it wasn’t right of him to get in the back of the car with a drunk driver, but the accident wasn’t his fault seeing as he wasn’t behind the wheel. Keogh just made a poor decision (easily done when drunk) and has come worst off out of everyone!

I understand I am massively biased towards Keogh and it probably shows in my opinion on the matter, but hypothetically, if he was injured in any other drink drive related accident (say his wife was at the wheel), would he have had to take a reduced contract? Or is he being made a scapegoat here because of his status as club captain? I genuinely can’t help but feel like it’s the latter.

If his Mrs was pissed up, and he decided to get into the car anyway, then yes, I believe the club would take the same action.  The long & short of it is that he willfully his well being at risk when he decided to get in Lawrence's car, and as others have mentioned already, there will be terms in his employee contract that states he shouldn't knowingly partake in any potentially dangerous activity that could hinder his capacity to do what he's employed to do.  It's probably quite vague and doesn't specifically state "Don't get in cars when the driver is intoxicated", but I'm sure there's enough legal leeway that means he shouldn't have gotten in the car when the driver was intoxicated".  Therefore he's breached the terms of his contract, and can be dismissed.  Obviously the club didn't want to take this stance, or they wouldn't have bothered to offer him a reduced wage, and access to the medical expertise that will help him play again.  It boggles the mind that he didn't snatch their hands off...

[May Contain Nuts]

26 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

People seem to think it has to do with their respective 'values' for FFP, I'm of the opinion that it's to do with the situation as a whole.

There could have been many different endings to that night, from exactly the same decisions being made by the same people, including an innocent bystander getting injured or even killed, it's very likely that if the end scenario was different then the punishment would be different, including Keogh getting the same punishment as Lawrence and Bennett if he was not injured and able to fulfil his contract, and vice versa.

We must not forget that unless Keogh didn't willingly get into Lawrence's car then he has to be to blame for the situation he now finds himself in, he was with them on the night out therefore he must have been aware they were drinking, he must have been aware they got into their cars to drive home after said drinking yet he chose to go with them, he got injured and whilst Lawrence was driving, it was solely Keogh's own decisions and actions that injured Keogh and left him unable to fulfil his contract, he was not an innocent bystander who got caught up in something completely out of his own control. John Percy's article of yesterday said it's alleged that Keogh was not wearing a seatbelt, if so did this impact on his injuries? If it did it's another black mark against his decision making that night.

It's very simple, if Keogh gets a taxi home and by some twist of fate the taxi had an accident and he got injured in the same way then he'd still be employed now, as it would have been out of his control and he'd have taken all actions possible to avoid an injury.

Great post, I agree entirely -  a much more precise and focused version of my rambling!