Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Hate it when the wives get involved - it never ends well. My view of Chris Baird was changed significantly when his wife started having a go at fans on Twitter for saying that he'd been 'released'. Her argument was that he can't have been released if he left at the end of his contract, forgetting that that's what the word actually means in football.

Yeah, never ends well when players’ wives get involved with this sort of stuff. Seems like she has changed her bio again but the picture on twitter has still been seen by many, not that what she put was even bad. Doubt it could have any effect on a potential appeal by Keogh but probably best she keeps her opinions to herself for the time being.

Edited by SIWY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cannable said:

41st what? Transfermarkt doesn’t even do player ratings…

And WhoScored does hilarious ones. 

100% pass completion? 2/2 tackles? 3 interceptions? It's a 8.5 for you lad. 

(Even though every pass was pointless and the tackles were expected and the interceptions were hopeless opposition play. We do stats not context!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

To be fair she took a lot of grief from so called Derby Fans a few seasons back on Twitter so you can't blame her really. 

Fair point. I just don't think there was any need to do that today, particularly when a lot of the fans are behind him.

Then again, I think anyone who airs their grievances for all the world to see on social media is a bit immature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alpha said:

And WhoScored does hilarious ones. 

100% pass completion? 2/2 tackles? 3 interceptions? It's a 8.5 for you lad. 

(Even though every pass was pointless and the tackles were expected and the interceptions were hopeless opposition play. We do stats not context!!!)

I don’t mind WhoScored to back up an argument but it shouldn’t be the argument. It disproportionately rates some things higher than others. Dribblers and head and kick it centre-halves are guaranteed a better rating than playmakers and ball-playing centre-halves, for example.

Edited by cannable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Fair point. I just don't think there was any need to do that today, particularly when a lot of the fans are behind him.

Then again, I think anyone who airs their grievances for all the world to see on social media is a bit immature.

Social media is a powerfull influencer, If you're going to use it make sure there's no one out there that disagrees with you, Mrs Keogh has every right to stand behind her Husband and express her opinion, The supporter(not all) sees pro footballers wives as gold diggers who have tripped over the end of a rainbow and into a pit of loot.

I see the Derby Telegraph have deleted all the messages on the back page story where it says "Richard Keoghs wife had this to say after his sacking" I do not feel any sympathy with multi millionairs and their spouses when things go Bang in the night, The gravy train has stopped but there's money in the last carriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Not saying I don’t trust you but I think you are wrong re being able to sack L & B. Unless you can point me to the relevant laws and clauses. 
The fact that no other club has sacked a player for DD seems to back that up. 
Happy to accept being wrong if proved 

The relevant clause is whether the club deem their actions to be gross misconduct. There are a thousand plus things which could be deemed as gross misconduct. 

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/10-players-who-were-sacked-their-clubs-disciplinary-issues

See that link for examples of players sacked for gross misconduct. 

Think of this a different way, a club could punish an individual by giving them a level one, level two or level three warning. First decision is are they guilty or not. If yes, what level of punishment? As soon as L and B were guilty, they were given a level 2. Keogh a level 3. L and B could have been a L3. Now think of L3 as sacked for gross misconduct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R@M said:

After about 6 years I am finally understanding this forum and possibly the wider general Rams fan.....why over 50% don’t seem capable of separating criminal law from (civil) contract law is beyond belief....even after it has been explained dozens of times on this thread! Although by pure definition, 49.9% of the population are of below average intelligence. 

It doesn’t matter who likes what player, us, Mel, PCoc, we the public will only know what the actual ‘gross misconduct’ is, if the details are released. We will only know if Mason and Tom could have been sacked if details of the internal report are released. I would suggest a law student, HR manager or anyone with an idea for business could garner (with the facts) whether the latter has any bearing on the former. 

 

this made me laugh more than it should of...

PCoc's Derby County

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, R@M said:

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. 

Again, for something to be gross misconduct, it has to be written into the contract 

The above my friend is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen today regarding this incident, I don’t think you really believe what you have written. 

No point debating it further, time will tell after the solicitors get on with this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shaftesbury st said:

Again, for something to be gross misconduct, it has to be written into the contract 

The above my friend is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen today regarding this incident, I don’t think you really believe what you have written. 

No point debating it further, time will tell after the solicitors get on with this

Yeh sorry @R@M you're 100% wrong there

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

99.99% of all employment contracts mention gross misconduct somewhere and footballer's contracts will too - But even if it doesn't you can be considered in breach of your contract as show in the link above 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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Not saying I don’t trust you but I think you are wrong re being able to sack L & B. Unless you can point me to the relevant laws and clauses. 
The fact that no other club has sacked a player for DD seems to back that up. 
Happy to accept being wrong if proved otherwise. 

Have a read of this article:

https://www.hja.net/can-employers-employees-behaviour-outside-work-causes-damage-companys-reputation/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yeh sorry @R@M you're 100% wrong there

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

99.99% of all employment contracts mention gross misconduct somewhere and footballer's contracts will too - But even if it doesn't you can be considered in breach of your contract as show in the link above 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 agree with what you are saying, and your point proves mine and your opinion backs up what I said. For context, I was trying to explain that we can only guess as to what the gross misconduct actually is, but all contracts mention it. But some contracts have different (GM) terms. For example a teacher could not date an 18 year old student as it would be deemed gross misconduct  but a general shop worker could. 

Gross misconduct is a civil contract law dispute and as such is bound by the individual terms of said contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, R@M said:

I agree with what you are saying, and your point proves mine and your opinion backs up what I said. For context, I was trying to explain that we can only guess as to what the gross misconduct actually is, but all contracts mention it. But some contracts have different (GM) terms. For example a teacher could not date an 18 year old student as it would be deemed gross misconduct  but a general shop worker could. 

Gross misconduct is a civil contract law dispute and as such is bound by the individual terms of said contract. 

They very rarely state what the gross misconduct is - They mostly just say (in better legalese) "we can terminate your employment for gross misconduct" - You'd have a gazillion pages of documentation if they had to list every single scenario which constituted gross misconduct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cheron85 said:

They very rarely state what the gross misconduct is - They mostly just say (in better legalese) "we can terminate your employment for gross misconduct" - You'd have a gazillion pages of documentation if they had to list every single scenario which constituted gross misconduct

Again, I agree, but some professions have these and my premise is, the GM is for the reason he has effectively incapacitated himself which is usually now written into professional sports contracts; not for general bringing the club into disrepute. 

I should add that this is just theoretical based upon my basic law knowledge and the fact the other two have not been sacked, but I am open to the facts as they are released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I can't get my head around is this: was Keogh seriously expecting us to pay him £2 million for a period where he couldn't play due to an accident which he contributed to (not wearing a seatbelt)?

Even the reduced offer of £1m (£12.5k a week) is extremely generous when the insurance will not cover non-footballing injuries. Why refuse that?

Up until now, I have never questioned his passion nor commitment to the club, but if that's to be believed, it's his own petulance that has landed him in this position. Why should the club be expected to pay for Keogh's own negligence in keeping himself fit to honour the terms of his contract?

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...