Keogh Sacked

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, RamNut said:

I doubt that’s legal.

You can't force anyone to take a pay cut as that would be an unlawful deduction of wages.

A company though could put across the message in an informal manner than they believed that the person was responsible for contributing to being unavailable for work so am amicable solution to avoid a potential disciplinary hearing would be to accept a wages reduction. 

I have quite properly had similar conversations with my staff basically saying that they can resign now with their notice period paid and references provided or if they choose not to then then would then face a formal disciplinary hearing and one potential outcome could be instant dismissal.

This is standard practice in a lot of businesses as it's less messy for an individual to resign rather then potentially going to an employment tribunal after the employee has been forcibly removed. 

[TuffLuff]

Just a hypothetical thought, but let’s say Keogh accepted the reduced offer it comes back ahead of schedule then what happens? He’s fully fit, back in the first team but on his last contract with a severely reduced wage? 
 

Simply put, I think the club maybe think his career is over and could have offered him a contract whilst he recovers from the injuries. Keogh, being like most people in professional sport, is backing himself to get fit and play again. So accepting the offer would be accepting your career is over.

I think if you look at it this way, I think it makes the agents comments make a bit more sense at the very least.

 

[RamNut]

7 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

You can't force anyone to take a pay cut as that would be an unlawful deduction of wages.

A company though could put across the message in an informal manner than they believed that the person was responsible for contributing to being unavailable for work so am amicable solution to avoid a potential disciplinary hearing would be to accept a wages reduction. 

I have quite properly had similar conversations with my staff basically saying that they can resign now with their notice period paid and references provided or if they choose not to then then would then face a formal disciplinary hearing and one potential outcome could be instant dismissal.

This is standard practice in a lot of businesses as it's less messy for an individual to resign rather then potentially going to an employment tribunal after the employee has been forcibly removed. 

I thought it was a basic tenet of contract law that a contract had to be freely entered into by both parties, and that if one party entered into the contract “under duress” then it was not legally binding. 

[TommyPowell]

21 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I thought it was a basic tenet of contract law that a contract had to be freely entered into by both parties, and that if one party entered into the contract “under duress” then it was not legally binding. 

But if a employee willfully got into a position that made it impossible to carry out  their duties. Surely that could be said that the employee had broken their contract?

[Gaspode]

If the PFA are really basing their case on inconsistency in the way Keogh has been treated compared to the others, it suggests that they think the others should have been sacked as well - strange that they want more of their members to be out off work....

[Tyler Durden]

31 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I thought it was a basic tenet of contract law that a contract had to be freely entered into by both parties, and that if one party entered into the contract “under duress” then it was not legally binding. 

Yes agreed but it would be extremely difficult to prove the duress part - Keogh wouldnt have been explicitly told that he would be sacked if didn't consent to taking a pay cut, he would have been advised that if he didn't consent one possible outcome would then be a disciplinary hearing convened for gross misconduct and one potential outcome of that hearing could be his dismissal.

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, Gaspode said:

If the PFA are really basing their case on inconsistency in the way Keogh has been treated compared to the others, it suggests that they think the others should have been sacked as well - strange that they want more of their members to be out off work....

Understand your comments but not true - both Bennett and Lawrence were offered the rehabilitation route after being fined the maximum sum according to their contracts, the PFA would be looking for Derby to apply the same resolution therefore in Keogh's case.

[Gaspode]

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

Understand your comments but not true - both Bennett and Lawrence were offered the rehabilitation route after being fined the maximum sum according to their contracts, the PFA would be looking for Derby to apply the same resolution therefore in Keogh's case.

It was a joke!

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, Gaspode said:

It was a joke!

Yes I did think it was tongue in cheek. 

Though no offence directed at yourself I've been on this forum long enough to see some ridiculous comments which have been meant in all seriousness

[BathRam72]

8 hours ago, RamNut said:

He can’t fulfill his contract but is that really primarily his fault? -   YES

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, (IF HE ACCEPTED A LIFT FROM SOMEONE HE KNEW HAD BEEN DRINKING THEN SURELY HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING)  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 (ISN'T THAT A CONTRADICTION OF YOUR FIRST STATEMENT?) 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.

In my opinion for what it is worth. I am torn as to who or what is right in this situation.

I personally feel that if I was in a specific job/role such as this where an injury means I can not fulfil that role, then I would be expected to move to another position where I could be of use.

Keogh unfortunately is a footballer, that has gone (at least for 18 or so months) He can not fulfil his role for which he appears to be very well paid. His alternative is to look at another position within football.

Could he coach, pundit or what ever?. However his playing days are over for now. As a business ask your self if you would be happy to carry on paying a massive amount for something that isn't producing???

I think maybe he should have accepted the offer, got himself fit at the clubs expense, then tried to work back to playing or towards his future in football or what ever that may be.

[Tyler Durden]

The reason that there is so much debate around the issue is that in isolation there wouldn't be so much kerfuffle if it had been Keogh climbing into the back of a mates car who was smashed but had no connection whatsoever with Derby. 

The issue that had caused Derby so much bile spewed in their direction is that the incident wasn't in isolation, it has to be judged in the context that two other Derby employees have been found guilty by our courts of drink driving during the same incident who then were fined by the club to the maximum extent then the matter considered closed. 

I have sympathy for Mel Morris in that he did not wish for or create this situation but not in the manner which he has dealt with it.

[CornwallRam]

9 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

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. 

He's not an ordinary worker. He's under a fixed term contract and has made himself unable to fulfil his contractual obligations. Effectively, his actions have rendered him contractless. The club have offered him a new contract which he appears to have declined.

[RoyMac5]

45 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I have sympathy for Mel Morris in that he did not wish for or create this situation but not in the manner which he has dealt with it.

Why? Because if it hasn't been dealt with correctly there will surely be comeback on the Club/Mel.

The two incidents although happening at the same time were different in their outcome, that is the bit people can't get their heads around. Keogh can't do his job, the other two can. #simples

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Yes I did think it was tongue in cheek. 

Though no offence directed at yourself I've been on this forum long enough to see some ridiculous comments which have been meant in all seriousness

[RoyMac5]

Quote

There were other severe repercussions. When Lawrence crashed his car into a lamppost, club captain Richard Keogh was sat in the back seat, without a seat-belt. He suffered anterior cruciate and medial collateral ligament damage and is facing 14 months out. He was sacked last week for gross misconduct.

From Cocu's interview with John Percy in the Telegraph (see other thread)

[TuffLuff]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

From Cocu's interview with John Percy in the Telegraph (see other thread)

May I just point out that this isn’t a direct quote from Cocu but how John Percy is reporting the incident. He’s probably correct and it’s a small detail but it’s significant to say that interpretation has not come out of anyone from the club publicly!

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

May I just point out that this isn’t a direct quote from Cocu but how John Percy is reporting the incident. He’s probably correct and it’s a small detail but it’s significant to say that interpretation has not come out of anyone from the club publicly!

The club have given almost no direct quotes about Keogh, understandably. But how do you know what Cocu said to him, I know journalists make it up, but in this case?

[cheron85]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

How do you know what Cocu said to him, I know journalists make it up, but in this case?

I think @TuffLuff was just pointing out for those who might not click and read the article that it wasn't a direct quote from Cocu in the article - It was part of the 'storytelling' which Percy wrote around the interview for context

We obviously don't know where Percy got that information and it absolutely could have been off the record from Cocu, but best not to speculate eh? ? 

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I think @TuffLuff was just pointing out for those who might not click and read the article that it wasn't a direct quote from Cocu in the article - It was part of the 'storytelling' which Percy wrote around the interview for context...

Of course. I made the assumption that lack of speech quotes would give that away, but probably not for most. ?

[AdamRam]

The JP interview is an interesting development, a lot of people were very quick to assume it was RK or his agent who leaked the pay cut story. I still believe it looks better on the club that they offered RK a pay cut and therefore they would have more to gain for this to come out in the public domain, however for me as the actual details of this deal, or if indeed there was one, are unknown, then it’s an unfair stick to beat him with.