Jump to content

Keogh Sacked


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

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.

That's actually not true though. He has the same protected employment rights as any other worker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's actually not true though. He has the same protected employment rights as any other worker. 

Yes he most certainly does, how ever making yourself unfit for work due to a none work related issue ie being a total dick does mitigate that somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a 2 yr fixed term contract, and 9 months before the end faced 6 months out with a severed Achilles, also caused by drunkenness, although they didn't know that.

My employer offered me 2 options, a pause without pay until I was fit to return, or stay on full pay under the original contract, with the same end date.

I chose the 2nd option not surprisingly, best holiday I ever had.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TommyPowel said:

theres nothing like  taking something out of context.MM was explaining how a player coulddeliberately get himself sacked so he could go play for another team

No one thought about pouring a bottle of spirit on Anya and said he had been drinking and injured Himself then in the last 3 years 

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

Correction for you 

Lawrence wouldn’t be without a club for long because he is an average championship player with an agent. 

Bennett wouldn’t be without a club for long because he has an agent and is an average division 3 player. 

Bennett is a lot better than a lot of people give him credit for on here - lampard got a very decent product out of him and I am sure Cocu will although he seems very pre occupied currently 

34 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's actually not true though. He has the same protected employment rights as any other worker. 

And even if he won an unfair dismissal case on the basis of comparable treatment with the other two he would only get the maximum allowed  which is £50,000 total I believe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Average. 

Better than Gary Micklewhite or Gordon Hughes. 

Bet that’s stumped you. 

PS The Championship is a good league despite what Ramage thinks. 

Better standard than the players if yesteryears

Lawrence isn’t fit to clean Micklewhites adidas Kaisers....as for Gordon Hughes, a little bit before my time.!

The championship isn’t a good league, It is an average league full of average players. 

The players are a lot fitter and faster than back in the good old days that’s for sure but better.? I’m not so sure that Lawrence would have danced down the wing in the mud like Ted McMinn or dominated the midfield on a Sunday league pitch like John Gregory did, all with Stuart Pearce and Vinny Jones smashing into them every 2 minutes without fear of a yellow card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Average. 

Better than Gary Micklewhite or Gordon Hughes. 

Bet that’s stumped you. 

PS The Championship is a good league despite what Ramage thinks. 

Better standard than the players if yesteryears

Not a lot of people know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

No one thought about pouring a bottle of spirit on Anya and said he had been drinking and injured Himself then in the last 3 years 

Bennett is a lot better than a lot of people give him credit for on here - lampard got a very decent product out of him and I am sure Cocu will although he seems very pre occupied currently 

And even if he won an unfair dismissal case on the basis of comparable treatment with the other two he would only get the maximum allowed  which is £50,000 total I believe 

Which would give him good cause to take DCFC to civil court for loss of earnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Lawrence isn’t fit to clean Micklewhites adidas Kaisers....as for Gordon Hughes, a little bit before my time.!

The championship isn’t a good league, It is an average league full of average players. 

The players are a lot fitter and faster than back in the good old days that’s for sure but better.? I’m not so sure that Lawrence would have danced down the wing in the mud like Ted McMinn or dominated the midfield on a Sunday league pitch like John Gregory did, all with Stuart Pearce and Vinny Jones smashing into them every 2 minutes without fear of a yellow card. 

image.thumb.jpeg.00ceaf5431158afb977b28a4bf38be38.jpegGordon was great in his time but today’s footballers are faster fitter and more skillful.

Lawrence is far from an average Championship footballer he’s above average  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I once had a 2 yr fixed term contract, and 9 months before the end faced 6 months out with a severed Achilles, also caused by drunkenness, although they didn't know that.

My employer offered me 2 options, a pause without pay until I was fit to return, or stay on full pay under the original contract, with the same end date.

I chose the 2nd option not surprisingly, best holiday I ever had.

 

 

That’s the Church of England for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nuwtfly said:

It explains absolutely nothing and, if anything, only confuses me more.

From the article quoting Mr Morris, it does clarify things for me. As in, it was feasible to sack Keogh who has a minus monetary value as a long term injured player,  but not so with the Bennett and Lawrence who, if sacked could sign for other clubs. So potentially a significant net monetary loss to DCFC, with the two players  (free to offer their services to the highest bidder)  standing to make a gain from their misconduct. Also the mention of precedent was an interesting point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

They didn't sack him because he wouldn't agree to a new contract. They sacked him for gross misconduct.

Uhm, so if he had accepted the new contract, he would not have been guilty of gross misconduct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...