Keogh Sacked

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, IronRam 140.6 said:

I'll bet that all 3 were lined up for the chop but by doing so the FFP book value for Lawrence and Bennett, as Keogh probably had very little, would have potentially created a situation whereby thresholds may have been crossed and points deductions/embargoes become a reality.

Cant think of any other reason for the difference in approach.

Other than 2 of them have 2 legs, and the other only 1. Have you worked it out yet?

[Ramleicester]

6 minutes ago, IronRam 140.6 said:

I'll bet that all 3 were lined up for the chop but by doing so the FFP book value for Lawrence and Bennett, as Keogh probably had very little, would have potentially created a situation whereby thresholds may have been crossed and points deductions/embargoes become a reality.

Cant think of any other reason for the difference in approach.

Nobody knows the reason for the different approach but by logical reasoning there must be one. We do not know but I guess it is fun to speculate and get upset with each other.

End of the day the most important thing is the three points today. What happened with Keogh is sad but time to move on.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

4 hours ago, RamNut said:

Sorry. The argument is obviously a bit too subtle for you. 

Very often you talk sense but on this thread you have lost the plot I'm afraid. You appear to be taking a contrary stance just for the sake of it. 

[Rambam2014]

Could someone who knows something about contracts & employment law please enlighten me.

I am just wondering about the accuracy of the title of this thread.

Given that RK is now, through non-footballing reasons, unable to fulfill his side of the contract with the club.

I would assume that the club are perfectly within their rights to re-negotiate that contract.

If RK has refused to accept that new contract, has he technically now made himself unemployed.

Or am I way wide of the mark ?

[RamNut]

11 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

Very often you talk sense but on this thread you have lost the plot I'm afraid. You appear to be taking a contrary stance just for the sake of it. 

I'm simply trying to point out the obvious - keogh wasn't necessarily pissed; no-one gets in the car of a clearly intoxicated driver so its quite possible that lawrence didn't appear to be over the limit, etc etc. People are basing their vitriol on alot of assumptions. We can't really say he deserves the sack because he was pissed, and got into the car of a clearly drunk driver. It's just assumptions. 

But that seems to be too difficult for many to understand. 

[May Contain Nuts]

37 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

Very often you talk sense but on this thread you have lost the plot I'm afraid. You appear to be taking a contrary stance just for the sake of it. 

It's almost as if he's trying to create a distraction to divert people's attention away from talking about the actions of Keogh and taking about the actions of everyone else instead. 

It's almost as if he has a particular bent towards defending individuals and their rights against those of a corporation, and that his chosen narrative (or natural position lead by his own ethical stance) based on those principles is that the club has acted unfairly towards Richard Keogh in comparison to others.

Perhaps a search of some past posts might reveal a pattern, but who's got time for that poo?

What I do know is that any time Richard Keogh does something wrong, one person voicing their criticism is usually met with 12 people voicing their defence of whatever it is he's done and another 3 trying to ridicule the 1 poster (who often doesn't help themselves by making OTT claims) who made the criticism, pointing the finger at failures elsewhere that caused the ultimate error to happen

Keogh has become somewhat of a protected species to a lot on here, the world's first anti-scapegoat, so it's not really a surprise there are some people who can't seem to accept the fact that he's being held fully accountable for his own actions and so have set out their usual stall.

The same goes for people who think the other way.

All that said, I think there's been more balance on display in this particular debate than any of those regarding his on pitch actions.

[Archied]

14 minutes ago, Coconut said:

It's almost as if he's trying to create a distraction to divert people's attention away from talking about the actions of Keogh and taking about the actions of everyone else instead. 

It's almost as if he has a particular bent towards defending individuals and their rights against those of a corporation, and that his chosen narrative (or natural position lead by his own ethical stance) based on those principles is that the club has acted unfairly towards Richard Keogh in comparison to others.

Perhaps a search of some past posts might reveal a pattern, but who's got time for that poo?

What I do know is that any time Richard Keogh does something wrong, one person voicing their criticism is usually met with 12 people voicing their defence of whatever it is he's done and another 3 trying to ridicule the 1 poster (who often doesn't help themselves by making OTT claims) who made the criticism, pointing the finger at failures elsewhere that caused the ultimate error to happen

Keogh has become somewhat of a protected species to a lot on here, the world's first anti-scapegoat, so it's not really a surprise there are some people who can't seem to accept the fact that he's being held fully accountable for his own actions and so have set out their usual stall.

The same goes for people who think the other way.

All that said, I think there's been more balance on display in this particular debate than any of those regarding his on pitch actions.

Yep and perhaps the other two are being held as accountable as possible without hurting the club and it’s finances ,,,, rightly so , why should the club pay the price for ALL those involved

[Rosythram]

3 hours ago, RamNut said:

I'm simply trying to point out the obvious - keogh wasn't necessarily pissed; no-one gets in the car of a clearly intoxicated driver so its quite possible that lawrence didn't appear to be over the limit, etc etc. People are basing their vitriol on alot of assumptions. We can't really say he deserves the sack because he was pissed, and got into the car of a clearly drunk driver. It's just assumptions. 

But that seems to be too difficult for many to understand. 

It doesn’t matter in my view if he’s pissed or not, the clown got into a car with a person incapable of driving, failed to put a seat belt on and subsequently got injured.

Ok taking your point if correct he wasn’t pissed, he just happens to be one of the most dense human beings to hobble on one leg.

What a plank.

In my opinion deserves his comeuppance even more.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 hours ago, Rambam2014 said:

Could someone who knows something about contracts & employment law please enlighten me.

I am just wondering about the accuracy of the title of this thread.

Given that RK is now, through non-footballing reasons, unable to fulfill his side of the contract with the club.

I would assume that the club are perfectly within their rights to re-negotiate that contract.

If RK has refused to accept that new contract, has he technically now made himself unemployed.

Or am I way wide of the mark ?

He's got to worried about his fit for work assessment!

[bimmerman]

4 hours ago, Rambam2014 said:

Could someone who knows something about contracts & employment law please enlighten me.

I am just wondering about the accuracy of the title of this thread.

Given that RK is now, through non-footballing reasons, unable to fulfill his side of the contract with the club.

I would assume that the club are perfectly within their rights to re-negotiate that contract.

If RK has refused to accept that new contract, has he technically now made himself unemployed.

Or am I way wide of the mark ?

You are 100% on the nail. He won't stand a chance if he attempts to appeal. 

If he's been dismissed for gross misconduct it'll be something stated against the terms of his contract of employment 

Technically, he hasn't made himself unemployed as if Derby dismissed him then offered a separate contract for a different role then he was doing at that exact minute, he has refused an opportunity of employment. 

There's much much more too this that we will never know. He may have acted a certain way during investigation proceedings ie refusing to answer questions. This can be classed as misconduct and can lead to dismissal in any other job

Basically, he been done up like a kipper and I doubt it'll get to court level. He may however sue the driver of the car now. 

[WystonRam]

4 hours ago, Ramleicester said:

Nobody knows the reason for the different approach but by logical reasoning there must be one. We do not know but I guess it is fun to speculate and get upset with each other.

End of the day the most important thing is the three points today. What happened with Keogh is sad but time to move on.

Different approach is basically the fact that Keogh is unable to perform the duties he is employed to do. The other two can and have been disciplined as would be the case in the “normal” employment world. If you are unable to perform the duties you are employed for, and the cause if that is as the case is with Keogh then an employer will be within their rights to offer an alternative role, if one exists, or terminate the contract of employment. This is assuming the club have a company handbook policy in place for all employees, including a clearly defined disciplinary procedure . The fact Derby have offered him an alternative role on £XXXX per week and he refused, means he has refused an alternative role, and I think the club are right to dismiss him. 

[Owd miner]

4 hours ago, Rambam2014 said:

Could someone who knows something about contracts & employment law please enlighten me.

I am just wondering about the accuracy of the title of this thread.

Given that RK is now, through non-footballing reasons, unable to fulfill his side of the contract with the club.

I would assume that the club are perfectly within their rights to re-negotiate that contract.

If RK has refused to accept that new contract, has he technically now made himself unemployed.

Or am I way wide of the mark ?

Ya correct mi owd 

[Amberram]

If you read between the lines on the whole sorry saga, Lawrence has some value, Keogh has none and Bennett is worth about 46p.

Come January all will be revealed, that’s my take on it anyway.

[DesertRam]

I've always been a keogh supporter for years, and am devastated at what has happened, but

he was the Captain, and presumably the one in charge when the fatefull decisions were made to

drive their own vehicles back home - he should have insisted, and they would have given in (IMO)

Seems harsh, but he was given an alternative!

[rammieib]

5 hours ago, Rambam2014 said:

Could someone who knows something about contracts & employment law please enlighten me.

I am just wondering about the accuracy of the title of this thread.

Given that RK is now, through non-footballing reasons, unable to fulfill his side of the contract with the club.

I would assume that the club are perfectly within their rights to re-negotiate that contract.

If RK has refused to accept that new contract, has he technically now made himself unemployed.

Or am I way wide of the mark ?

Read the thread.

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Coconut said:

It's almost as if he's trying to create a distraction to divert people's attention away from talking about the actions of Keogh and taking about the actions of everyone else instead. 

It's almost as if he has a particular bent towards defending individuals and their rights against those of a corporation, and that his chosen narrative (or natural position lead by his own ethical stance) based on those principles is that the club has acted unfairly towards Richard Keogh in comparison to others.

Perhaps a search of some past posts might reveal a pattern, but who's got time for that poo?

Cheers mate. No idea what you’re on about but I won’t hold it against you. Especially since every time i’ve met you i offered to buy you a pint.

[Ramslaar]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Can't you see how ironic and ridiculous your post is - you state that how anyone can get on their high horse without knowing the full story yet you yourself are also not in possession of the full facts unless you have some inside line to the happenings within Derby

You have also made a huge assumption by stating that there must have been a good reason with the facts they have - pray tell what were the facts as they aren't in the public domain?

 

And they will never get to the public domain as that would be just unprofessional.and all i can say is @van carter is on the correct lines.

[Ramslaar]

2 hours ago, bimmerman said:

You are 100% on the nail. He won't stand a chance if he attempts to appeal. 

If he's been dismissed for gross misconduct it'll be something stated against the terms of his contract of employment 

Technically, he hasn't made himself unemployed as if Derby dismissed him then offered a separate contract for a different role then he was doing at that exact minute, he has refused an opportunity of employment. 

There's much much more too this that we will never know. He may have acted a certain way during investigation proceedings ie refusing to answer questions. This can be classed as misconduct and can lead to dismissal in any other job

Basically, he been done up like a kipper and I doubt it'll get to court level. He may however sue the driver of the car now. 

Cant sue the driver as because the drink invalid his own insurance by drink driving they wont pay.plus he also invalid his own by not wearing a seat belt.deffo not done up like a kipper all his own doing.

[RamNut]

13 hours ago, GenBr said:

You are trying to argue that Keogh wasn't there

Comedy gold.?

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, Ramslaar said:

Cant sue the driver as because the drink invalid his own insurance by drink driving they wont pay.plus he also invalid his own by not wearing a seat belt.deffo not done up like a kipper all his own doing.

Not true.

If that were the case, anyone who is a victim of a drunk driver (eg being ran over by a DD, or having the front wall of your house destroyed by a DD) would have nowhere to go with a claim.  The (drunk) driver's insurance will still pay out to the victim. 

That's under "normal" circumstances of course.  I've no idea how things work if you voluntarily get in a car driven by your drunken best mate, and fail to wear your own seat belt!