RoyMac5 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) will "robustly defend" Richard Keogh after his sacking by Derby County. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50322199 Quote The player will appeal against Derby's decision and the PFA have told him they will back him in that and any subsequent challenge to his dismissal because they do not view the treatment of Keogh as being in line with the action taken against Lawrence and Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said: The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) will "robustly defend" Richard Keogh after his sacking by Derby County. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50322199 Non story. That's exactly what any union would say about one of their members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) will "robustly defend" Richard Keogh after his sacking by Derby County. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50322199 Of course they will. But you can't compare Keogh to Lawrence and Bennett. He can't fulfill his contract. Secondly he had the added responsibility of being captain, which clearly the club hold such a position in high regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Don’t think anyone was expecting the PFA to turn round and tell him to duck off, they’re always gonna defend a player in this situation so there’s no surprises there. Still don’t think they’ll have a case, because as morally wrong as I think it is that Keogh was treated differently to the other two, the “gross misconduct” charge would’ve been different for the latter two, so there’s no way to compare the punishments imo. If they build a case based on arguing about being treated differently, I don’t reckon they’ll get very far as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanoakaram4life Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 How can Keogh have a case when he is unfit for work and unwilling to take a pay cut. If it happened to me and I took that stance, my boss would tell me to f##ck right off to the job centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyPowell Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 12 minutes ago, deanoakaram4life said: How can Keogh have a case when he is unfit for work and unwilling to take a pay cut. If it happened to me and I took that stance, my boss would tell me to f##ck right off to the job centre. most bosses would.But i assume at this stage the PFA just have Keoghs account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, deanoakaram4life said: How can Keogh have a case when he is unfit for work and unwilling to take a pay cut. If it happened to me and I took that stance, my boss would tell me to f##ck right off to the job centre. Keogh was well within his rights to refuse to take a pay cut as per any other ordinarily employed worker. Whether Derby were within their rights to then sack Keogh is something that remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 'the PFA have told him they will back him in that and any subsequent challenge to his dismissal because they do not view the treatment of Keogh as being in line with the action taken against Lawrence and Bennett' Imagine this won't come as a surprise to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 47 minutes ago, BondJovi said: Of course they will. But you can't compare Keogh to Lawrence and Bennett. He can't fulfill his contract. Secondly he had the added responsibility of being captain, which clearly the club hold such a position in high regard. He can’t fulfill his contract but is that really primarily his fault? i know lots of you will argue that it is. (Funny that no-one argued for him to be sacked at the time) It is hard to comprehend how anyone other than tom Lawrence could be adjudged to be the prime culprit. People have focussed on the fact that keogh accepted a lift, but what about the decision to drive; the decision to take two passengers; the decision to drive like an idiot; the decision to disappear from the scene. I fear that there are a few other issues too. The fact that Lawrence was unhurt was a pure fluke. When looking at misconduct, it’s surely the conduct that matters, not the random chance outcome of who was hurt and who wasn’t. The club has been (soft?)supportive with regards to the two drivers, but has been brutal to keogh. I predicted that the club would want to limit their financial loss, and it would be understandable to negotiate a reasonable reduction in salary. Its not yet clear exactly what constitutes gross misconduct in his case, but not in the case of the others. It’s not yet clear whether keogh was faced with an ultimatum- take a 90% pay cut or be sacked. Yes, he was at fault but his previous good service seems to have counted for very little. If Lawrence hadn’t driven like an idiot and crashed no-one would have been any the wiser. I think the club have got it wrong - Again - and we are getting a really poor reputation with regards to the numerous sackings. It doesn’t encourage anyone to show any loyalty. Dog eat dog. Eventually we will get our comeuppance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, europia said: 'the PFA have told him they will back him in that and any subsequent challenge to his dismissal because they do not view the treatment of Keogh as being in line with the action taken against Lawrence and Bennett' Imagine this won't come as a surprise to anyone. Yes they are going to defend the case on the consistency or lack of argument which has been the stance on here by the posters who disagree with Morris' decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 31 minutes ago, Millenniumram said: Don’t think anyone was expecting the PFA to turn round and tell him to duck off, they’re always gonna defend a player in this situation so there’s no surprises there. Still don’t think they’ll have a case, because as morally wrong as I think it is that Keogh was treated differently to the other two, the “gross misconduct” charge would’ve been different for the latter two, so there’s no way to compare the punishments imo. If they build a case based on arguing about being treated differently, I don’t reckon they’ll get very far as far as I can see. It will be settled out of court, RK will get his compensation. I haven’t got the legal skills in this area to base this on anything but a gut feeling however I just think the inconsistency will go against Derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Just now, AdamRam said: It will be settled out of court, RK will get his compensation. I haven’t got the legal skills in this area to base this on anything but a gut feeling however I just think the inconsistency will go against Derby. I too don’t imagine it’ll go to court based on our previous dealings, but I really don’t think he’ll get his full contract paid up. They may be able to pull something out the bag, but I just can’t think that it’ll be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, RamNut said: He can’t fulfill his contract but is that really primarily his fault? i know lots of you will argue that it is. (Funny that no-one argued for him to be sacked at the time) It is hard to comprehend how anyone other than tom Lawrence could be adjudged to be the prime culprit. People have focussed on the fact that keogh accepted a lift, but what about the decision to drive; the decision to take two passengers; the decision to drive like an idiot; the decision to disappear from the scene. I fear that there are a few other issues too. The fact that Lawrence was unhurt was a pure fluke. When looking at misconduct, it’s surely the conduct that matters, not the random chance outcome of who was hurt and who wasn’t. The club has been (soft?)supportive with regards to the two drivers, but has been brutal to keogh. I predicted that the club would want to limit their financial loss, and it would be understandable to negotiate a reasonable reduction in salary. Its not yet clear exactly what constitutes gross misconduct in his case, but not in the case of the others. It’s not yet clear whether keogh was faced with an ultimatum- take a 90% pay cut or be sacked. Yes, he was at fault but his previous good service seems to have counted for very little. If Lawrence hadn’t driven like an idiot and crashed no-one would have been any the wiser. I think the club have got it wrong - Again - and we are getting a really poor reputation with regards to the numerous sackings. It doesn’t encourage anyone to show any loyalty. Dog eat dog. Eventually we will get our comeuppance. Keogh I imagine would have been encouraged initially by Derby to take pay cut as he contributed to the reason he cannot play for the next 12 months due to his own actions. There would also be mentioned at the same time that if he did decline this proposal then potentially he could then face a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct and one potential outcome could be his instant dismissal. Keogh obviously declined the proposal then Morris delivered on his original threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Just now, Millenniumram said: I too don’t imagine it’ll go to court based on our previous dealings, but I really don’t think he’ll get his full contract paid up. They may be able to pull something out the bag, but I just can’t think that it’ll be enough. If Derby are that confident in being correct in their decision to sack him, then there is no reason why they wouldn’t let it goto court, just like the Sam Rush case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 This has got NDA bound out of court settlement written all over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 minute ago, AdamRam said: If Derby are that confident in being correct in their decision to sack him, then there is no reason why they wouldn’t let it goto court, just like the Sam Rush case. I didn’t think the Sam Rush case actually went to court did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 Just now, Millenniumram said: I didn’t think the Sam Rush case actually went to court did it? One did which we lost, the other one didn’t though you are correct ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: Keogh I imagine would have been encouraged initially by Derby to take pay cut as he contributed to the reason he cannot play for the next 12 months due to his own actions. There would also be mentioned at the same time that if he did decline this proposal then potentially he could then face a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct and one potential outcome could be his instant dismissal. Keogh obviously declined the proposal then Morris delivered on his original threat. I doubt that’s legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 minute ago, RamNut said: I doubt that’s legal. What expertise do you have in this area out of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.