Ellafella Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 hours 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? Invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 hours ago, RamNut said: Of course they knew. They knew how long he was out for. You’re dealing with a professional devils advocate (with honours) here you know. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ellafella said: Invalid. agreed It cannot be liquidated damages as they have to be agreed at the beginning of a contact and have to be a true estimate of the losses suffered by the party suffering the loss. Keogh will most probably be in breach of the conditions of his contract with Derby. The only legal opening for Keogh is, was his sacking by Derby for gross misconduct fair, however it’s clear that no one forced him into the backseat of a car driven by someone he knew to have been drinking. rammieib 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Xlor said: Hause is a centre half Mbenba didnt play many in the championship because hes too good for it Gomez, stones, tarkowski, keane all play for england. You asked for a list of better players and ive given you one yet your not accepting it. Keogh was average, deal with it. Couple more for you off the top of my head. Terry, lascelles. Hause started 6 games at CB last season (4 at LB). He played 7 mins in 17/18. In the seasons prior to that, he was at best a squad player in a bottom half Wolves side. Gomez played mostly at RB and occasionally at LB a for Charlton. Stones played every single Championship game at RB.[I thought you said you watched all of these play at CB in the Championship?] The rest at most had 1 good season at this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shang Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 In an effort to make it really clear for people but also stripping away any emotion from it. From a purely legal perspective... Lawrence / Bennett: Personal gross misconduct but can still capably fulfil their professional contract. Keogh: Personal gross misconduct that made him physically incapable of fulfilling his professional contract. R@M, r_wilcockson, Day and 3 others 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 15 minutes ago, Shang said: In an effort to make it really clear for people but also stripping away any emotion from it. From a purely legal perspective... Lawrence / Bennett: Personal gross misconduct but can still capably fulfil their professional contract. Keogh: Personal gross misconduct that made him physically incapable of fulfilling his professional contract. Of course, if he wants to get litigious, he may still have some claim to damages from Lawrence Bennett, to which he might try to add loss of earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, Shang said: In an effort to make it really clear for people but also stripping away any emotion from it. From a purely legal perspective... Lawrence / Bennett: Personal gross misconduct but can still capably fulfil their professional contract. Keogh: Personal gross misconduct that made him physically incapable of fulfilling his professional contract. Gross misconduct is being sacked for an offence seriously it requires an instant dismissal. Lawrence and Bennett have not been found guilty of gross misconduct. Read the DCFC statement, doesn’t refer to those words. If it did they wouldn’t be employed at the club anymore. Keogh is guilty of gross misconduct according to DCFC, hence he’s now unemployed (pending an appeal). R@M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shang Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, rammieib said: Gross misconduct is being sacked for an offence seriously it requires an instant dismissal. Lawrence and Bennett have not been found guilty of gross misconduct. Read the DCFC statement, doesn’t refer to those words. If it did they wouldn’t be employed at the club anymore. Keogh is guilty of gross misconduct according to DCFC, hence he’s now unemployed (pending an appeal). Ah my mistake rammieib 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 44 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said: agreed It cannot be liquidated damages as they have to be agreed at the beginning of a contact and have to be a true estimate of the losses suffered by the party suffering the loss. Keogh will most probably be in breach of the conditions of his contract with Derby. The only legal opening for Keogh is, was his sacking by Derby for gross misconduct fair, however it’s clear that no one forced him into the backseat of a car driven by someone he knew to have been drinking. Im no lawyer, and am going to say that I haven’t got a clue on the in and outs of which way this may or may not go. However, I’m guessing that RK has taken legal advice on this and if he didn’t have a leg to stand on (excuse the pun) would have taken the reduced offer made by the club, for him to challenge the decision would lead me to believe that his legal team think they have a good case should it goto court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Over the last few years it feels like we have known the price of everything and the value of nothing. The dealings of the last few weeks have only enhanced that view for me. archram, CWC1983, Edtheram and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 54 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: Hause started 6 games at CB last season (4 at LB). He played 7 mins in 17/18. In the seasons prior to that, he was at best a squad player in a bottom half Wolves side. Gomez played mostly at RB and occasionally at LB a for Charlton. Stones played every single Championship game at RB.[I thought you said you watched all of these play at CB in the Championship?] The rest at most had 1 good season at this level. I’m not sure it’s even worth arguing to be honest. My point about Keogh’s forays into midfield were to draw players in and create angle and not to go on solo runs was met with a laughing face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Ellafella said: Invalid. Well Keogh certainly is at present i-Ram, Turnstile, RoyMac5 and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said: 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? Fully agree. Life is not fair and the fact is the other 2 were not injured as a result of the incident and he was. They all took a risk and he came out worse for it. The way it goes sometimes. Having heard he turned down a very generous revised offer my sympathy is non-existent. Yes, things may appear awful for him at the moment but 99% of his countrymen wouldn't consider £12,500 a week for sitting on the sidelines for 18 months as too much of a hardship. Contextual ofc but the point stands. He could have quiety took the offer, felt aggrieved by it but got on with it. The fact he hasn't indicates he expects the punters at pride park to, at least in part, also contribute to him maintaining a wage when he cannot play due to his own stupidity. Carnero 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfs1ram Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 According to the Times - "Keogh was sacked after refusing to accept a pay cut from £29,000 a week to £3000 a week while he was sidelined by injury and not wearing a seat belt, reports @Lawton_Times" #DCFC GenBr and Rev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, AdamRam said: Im no lawyer, and am going to say that I haven’t got a clue on the in and outs of which way this may or may not go. However, I’m guessing that RK has taken legal advice on this and if he didn’t have a leg to stand on (excuse the pun) would have taken the reduced offer made by the club, for him to challenge the decision would lead me to believe that his legal team think they have a good case should it goto court. It is difficult to imagine what might happen in any future court case but Keoghs decisions and actions were his and his alone. Keogh is not a victim, if there are parties that have, and will, suffer as a result of Keoghs decisions and actions then they are Derby County and Keoghs family. The Scarlet Pimpernel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, SillyBilly said: Fully agree. Life is not fair and the fact is the other 2 were not injured as a result of the incident and he was. They all took a risk and he came out worse for it. The way it goes sometimes. Having heard he turned down a very generous revised offer my sympathy is non-existent. Yes, things may appear awful for him at the moment but 99% of his countrymen wouldn't consider £12,500 a week for sitting on the sidelines for 18 months as too much of a hardship. Contextual ofc but the point stands. He could have quiety took the offer, felt aggrieved by it but got on with it. The fact he hasn't indicates he expects the punters at pride park to, at least in part, also contribute to him maintaining a wage when he cannot play due to his own stupidity. This figure has never been confirmed. The Twittersphere has invented it and rumour is now being rolled as fact. The only idea of his new potential wage given was ‘a fraction’ of his current wage. Rev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, gfs1ram said: According to the Times - "Keogh was sacked after refusing to accept a pay cut from £29,000 a week to £3000 a week while he was sidelined by injury and not wearing a seat belt, reports @Lawton_Times" #DCFC Dramatically different figures quoted there, yesterday the rumour was half pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Dramatically different figures quoted there, yesterday the rumour was half pay. Yeah all speculation, we have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Even 3 k per week and Ongoing medical treatment is a generous offer by Derby r_wilcockson, LeedsCityRam and The Scarlet Pimpernel 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Shang said: In an effort to make it really clear for people but also stripping away any emotion from it. From a purely legal perspective... Lawrence / Bennett: Personal gross misconduct but can still capably fulfil their professional contract. Keogh: Personal gross misconduct that made him physically incapable of fulfilling his professional contract. yes, my view as well, And regardless of whoever else is guilty of misconduct, the club (it seems to me) can chose whether to sack or not. I am no lawyer but a defence of “you did it differently for others” doesn’t really stack up. There is an agreement between you and the club. It appears to have been broken. How the club reacted to others isn’t really relevant in contractual terms between 2 parties. Or is it ? barristers please comment. I am desperately sorry for RK .. I think he is a terrific player but we don’t know what deal, if any he was offered. but I can’t help feeling he has been badly advised or been rash himself. But that is opinion only, based on gossip and supposition. We simply don’t know the facts. How can we honestly judge or comment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now