Keogh Sacked

[ramit]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

So you’d leave him up poo street . Ok I believe you.

i would not have left my injured captain on the scene, so that statement is irrelevant.   

Keogh can though only blame himself for his injuries.

[ram59]

I've been one of Keogh's greatest supporters over the years, but I believe his actions over this incident have cost the club a great deal. 

The honour of being captain isn't just about wearing an armband, it's about being a leader on and off the pitch. That night when his leadership was needed, he wasn't up to the job and let the club down. He must have known that Bennett and Lawrence must have been over the limit, but didn't do enough to make sure everyone got home safely. 

As a result of Keogh's failure, the club has suffered massive disruption and appalling publicity. Also, we have lost, in Keogh, our captain and a key player. With us struggling to adhere to FFP, we couldn't afford to replace him with a similar quality player for the next 18 months, whilst also paying his wages. 

His dismissal was entirely justified imo and if people expect the club to have also sacked the other 2, then this would have cost the club even more, allowing a competitor to pick them up for nothing. 

I believe the club, having organised this event with the best intentions, have been left with little choice on how to react. 

[ramit]

6 minutes ago, ram59 said:

I've been one of Keogh's greatest supporters over the years, but I believe his actions over this incident have cost the club a great deal. 

The honour of being captain isn't just about wearing an armband, it's about being a leader on and off the pitch. That night when his leadership was needed, he wasn't up to the job and let the club down. He must have known that Bennett and Lawrence must have been over the limit, but didn't do enough to make sure everyone got home safely. 

As a result of Keogh's failure, the club has suffered massive disruption and appalling publicity. Also, we have lost, in Keogh, our captain and a key player. With us struggling to adhere to FFP, we couldn't afford to replace him with a similar quality player for the next 18 months, whilst also paying his wages. 

His dismissal was entirely justified imo and if people expect the club to have also sacked the other 2, then this would have cost the club even more, allowing a competitor to pick them up for nothing. 

I believe the club, having organised this event with the best intentions, have been left with little choice on how to react. 

i have been holding a different perspective, but can grudgingly agree

Still maintain though, that Lawrence is a massive tit

[TommyPowell]

54 minutes ago, RamNut said:

That bit is correct.....☝️

That bit isn’t.

it is quite possible that Lawrence appeared perfectly ok to drive. And said he was ok. Keogh accepted a lift and was then injured by a driver who drove like an idiot, legged it and then failed a breathalyser test. If I was Lawrence I would feel extremely guilty for what has happened to keogh. I’d probably even give him half of my wages if I was millionaire overpaid footballer. 

Are you serious this isnt a bystander getting a lift he was there he knew who had drank etc However theres is no getting away from the fact if captain marvel had worn his seat belt he probably wouldnt be injured

Edited December 3, 2019 by TommyPowel

[May Contain Nuts]

I haven't done any detailed research, just pulling up the first 2 articles that came up on a quick google search:

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/personal/personal-injury-compensation/road-traffic-accident-compensation-claims/claims-guide/not-wearing-a-seatbelt

Quote

The law is not fixed but general guidance has been given by the courts. If you weren't wearing a seatbelt, the amount you could claim might be reduced by a percentage of the total sum:

If your injuries would have been avoided if you were wearing a seatbelt, then your compensation can be reduced by 25%.

If your injuries would have been less serious if you were wearing a seatbelt, then your compensation can be reduced by 15%.

If your injuries would have been exactly the same if you were wearing a seatbelt, or worse, then your compensation should not be reduced.

However, a Court can impose whatever reduction it considers is fair and just in the circumstances.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/12/travelling-with-drunk-drivers/

Quote

So, what happens if you accept a ride from a driver who has been drinking and you’re later injured in a car accident?

Liability for Accidents Caused by Drink Driving

It’s normally accepted that liability for drink driving accidents will rest with the drunk driver, but courts will consider whether or not the passenger knew the driver was drunk before entering the vehicle.

Such knowledge held by an injured passenger could have a bearing on the final compensation amount paid in road traffic accident claims as the court could make a deduction for what’s known as “contributory negligence”.

The leading case on this matter is Owens v Brimmell [1977]. In this case, both the passenger and driver had been drinking in various pubs before they were involved in a car accident on their way home. The court considered the facts of the case and held that the claimant passenger’s damages had to be reduced by 20 per cent because he accepted getting into the car and must have known that the driver had drunk too much alcohol.

So, what happens when a passenger does not know how much the driver has drunk and whether or not the driver is over the legal limit?

The court will take an objective view and will consider what a reasonable person who was sober would have done if they were the passenger.

In the case of Booth v White [2003], both the claimant passenger and defendant driver had been drinking in a pub. The defendant left for a short while to play football while the claimant stayed in the pub and continued to drink alcohol. When the defendant returned to the pub, he and the claimant drank some more before they left in the defendant’s car. By this time the claimant was drunk, having drank between 10 and 15 pints of lager.

While the defendant was driving, he lost control of his car and a collision occurred causing the claimant to sustain serious injury. The court had to consider whether or not the claimant’s damages should be reduced for contributory negligence as he got into the defendant’s car knowing that he had been drinking alcohol.

The court held that, although the claimant was not required to “interrogate” the defendant as to how much alcohol he had consumed, he is required to make an assessment of the driver when considering, in the interests of his own safety, whether or not to accept a lift.

In considering the circumstances, the court made no deductions for contributory negligence as the claimant was considerably drunk and therefore not able to make a reliable assessment before accepting a lift home from the defendant.

The 2nd quoted article is a bit confusing, the outcomes of the 2 cases seem to totally contradict one another?

I might, probably do, have the whole thing arse about tit, but it seems from the things we 'know' that Keogh would be successful in an attempt to sue Lawrence, the only question is how much the other circumstances would affect the amount he gets?

Edited December 3, 2019 by Coconut

[Mucker1884]

6 hours ago, Coconut said:

I haven't done any detailed research, just pulling up the first 2 articles that came up on a quick google search:

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/personal/personal-injury-compensation/road-traffic-accident-compensation-claims/claims-guide/not-wearing-a-seatbelt

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/12/travelling-with-drunk-drivers/

The 2nd quoted article is a bit confusing, the outcomes of the 2 cases seem to totally contradict one another?

I might, probably do, have the whole thing arse about tit, but it seems from the things we 'know' that Keogh would be successful in an attempt to sue Lawrence, the only question is how much the other circumstances would affect the amount he gets?

From that, it seems that RK MAY NOT get a reduction for getting in the car, assuming he claims to have been too drunk himself to assess TL's condition/suitability to drive.
Whilst it hints that RK MAY get a reduction for not wearing his seatbelt, one cannot help but wonder whether he could also apply the "I was too drunk to make that decision" mantra, therefore getting no reduction at all.
If this proves to be the case, I would probably comment using words such as "Law" and "Ass" etc.

[RamNut]

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

From that, it seems that RK MAY NOT get a reduction for getting in the car, assuming he claims to have been too drunk himself to assess TL's condition/suitability to drive.

A rather extreme defence?

More likely to claim TL seemed ok. (If the breathalyser number crunching was correct, then he was only one drink over the limit). 

[RoyMac5]

22 minutes ago, RamNut said:

A rather extreme defence?

More likely to claim TL seemed ok. (If the breathalyser number crunching was correct, then he was only one drink over the limit). 

Even though he'd sat and watched him drink all evening.

[King Kevin]

12 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Harsh.

I very much doubt the truth over the evenings events has fully come out.

Maybe there's a side we are not seeing?

Well no other vehicle was involved only road furniture, so it's down to them and them only .We're only arguing over who has been the biggest dhead. 

[Bubbles]

are we really starting this again ...

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

A rather extreme defence?

More likely to claim TL seemed ok. (If the breathalyser number crunching was correct, then he was only one drink over the limit). 

Extreme indeed. 
But with regards to those links (posted by @Coconut) to which I was referring, and the content therein, it appears to be the way to go, to all but guarantee no legal liability (on RK's part) and thus no reduction in compo?  It appears precedent has been set, on that score. 
I'd say "your approach" comes with more potential for doubt and/or counter-accusation (Or be open to interpretation?), and subsequently part-liability and a possible reduction in compo aimed in RK's direction. 

All that, of course, is in relation to getting in the car in the first place. 
No idea whether the same approach would/could work for any defence regarding not wearing a seat belt (As appears to be assumed as fact?).

Quotes from those links:

In regards to (the injured passenger) being too drunk to assess the condition of the driver:
The court held that, although the claimant was not required to “interrogate” the defendant as to how much alcohol he had consumed, he is required to make an assessment of the driver when considering, in the interests of his own safety, whether or not to accept a lift.
In considering the circumstances, the court made no deductions for contributory negligence as the claimant was considerably drunk and therefore not able to make a reliable assessment before accepting a lift home from the defendant.

 

In regards to (the injured passenger) not wearing a seat belt:
Contributory negligence can apply in many situations. Below are some examples:
If a... passenger wasn't wearing their seatbelt in a road traffic accident, and was injured, or more badly injured, as a result.

That last quote doesn't appear to come with the "Too drunk to put my seat belt on" get out clause, as per the first quote, but that doesn't necessarily prove it cannot be used in (RK's) defence?

 

*Note my question marks... I'm asking more than I am stating as fact!  

 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, Squid said:

are we really starting this again ...

Strictly speaking, this should (arguably?) be in the "Drink Driving thread", as it now relates more to the night in question, as opposed to RK being sacked by the club?

Either way, it is current news, and involves one of our current leading attackers, and our former club captain. 
It involves civil lawsuits.  It will likely affect... to varying degrees... almost everyone connected to the club.

It is likely to affect the atmosphere at the club, and also the mental stability of "one of our leading attackers", whilst perhaps most of us would prefer him to be concentrating on his job in hand.

It also involves a former club captain and highly regarded player potentially never playing again... and apparently looking for someone to blame.

It's a story that, from the very onset, has split opinions here on these very pages... almost to 50/50 proportions!.  And of course, it is a story that looks like it is now going to have a sequel! 
I'd argue the topic now moves on... takes a step forward... continues with further developments... as opposed to it merely being "started again".

Personally... and selfishly... I can cope quite handsomely without discussing the inner depths of team formations, tactics, starting line ups and player ratings etc, but if truth be told, I'd be very disappointed if a forum specifically aimed at DCFC Fans, to discuss DCFC matters spectrum-wide, ignored a topic such as this, and a topic that could potentially affect on-pitch performances just as much as those aforementioned formations and tactics!

So in answer to your question... Damn right we are!   :-)

 

 

 

 

 

[BathRam72]

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Strictly speaking, this should (arguably?) be in the "Drink Driving thread", as it now relates more to the night in question, as opposed to RK being sacked by the club?

Either way, it is current news, and involves one of our current leading attackers, and our former club captain. 
It involves civil lawsuits.  It will likely affect... to varying degrees... almost everyone connected to the club.

It is likely to affect the atmosphere at the club, and also the mental stability of "one of our leading attackers", whilst perhaps most of us would prefer him to be concentrating on his job in hand.

It also involves a former club captain and highly regarded player potentially never playing again... and apparently looking for someone to blame.

It's a story that, from the very onset, has split opinions here on these very pages... almost to 50/50 proportions!.  And of course, it is a story that looks like it is now going to have a sequel! 
I'd argue the topic now moves on... takes a step forward... continues with further developments... as opposed to it merely being "started again".

Personally... and selfishly... I can cope quite handsomely without discussing the inner depths of team formations, tactics, starting line ups and player ratings etc, but if truth be told, I'd be very disappointed if a forum specifically aimed at DCFC Fans, to discuss DCFC matters spectrum-wide, ignored a topic such as this, and a topic that could potentially affect on-pitch performances just as much as those aforementioned formations and tactics!

So in answer to your question... Damn right we are!   :-)

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not

[uttoxram75]

Is there any link to Keogh actually suing TL or are we just guessing/rumour mongering/assuming etc?

[Rosythram]

I have to be honest and state that I am totally amazed by the fact any one cares.

Mr Keogh has run his course with DCFC, what he decides to do in the future is for him and only him, will it impact on me or DCFC probably not.

Correction definitely not.

[cosmic]

3 hours ago, Squid said:

are we really starting this again ...

I'd get used to it. It'll take 3-5 years for everyone on here to finally get their law degrees.

[Mucker1884]

59 minutes ago, Rosythram said:

I have to be honest and state that I am totally amazed by the fact any one cares.

Mr Keogh has run his course with DCFC, what he decides to do in the future is for him and only him, will it impact on me or DCFC probably not.

Correction definitely not.

I'll come to @UttoxeterRam83's post in a minute, but in the meantime, "IF" Keogh tries to sue Lawrence over this, are you seriously saying it won't affect DCFC?  He won't be taking Johhny Smith to court, or Mrs Brown from Acacia Avenue.  He will be taking one of our first team to court.  Someone we rely on to concentrate on his job.  Train hard, maintain concentration, score goals, or at the very least, set them up for someone else. 
It will put DCFC back on the front pages, again for all the wrong reasons.  "Derby County Forward Tom Lawrence...etc, etc...".  "Former Rams captain Richard Keogh... blah, blah, blah..."

Missed goal scoring chances and/or poor performances (from TL) would likely be blamed on him "having other things on his mind"!  Leaving him out because of this is no more positive (although many may argue that one!  LOL!)

And this is Tom Lawrence we are talking about here remember... someone who has had many quotes uttered in his direction regarding "mental fragility", "Recent loss of his mother", "The need to support and rehabilitate..." etc.

His (admittedly tardy) statement spoke of  being "...deeply disappointed in my behaviour and upset for my teammate and our Captain Richard Keogh".

Imagine how he may feel (and subsequently, how that would indeed affect DCFC) should he walk from court having been found to be the official cause... partially or entirely... of his former club captain, team mate, and quite possibly friend, potentially never playing the beautiful game again... or certainly not at a level to which he had previously become accustomed!

And that's leaving aside the potential for yet more Rams players having no choice but to get involved.  I appreciate it would be civil courts, but am I right in thinking there could still be the possibility of accusations and/or claims being made, and the need for witness statements etc?  (genuine question!)

That last paragraph aside, how you could think this whole potential sorry mess wouldn't affect DCFC, I truly don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate and respect some will have no interest in this whatsoever, and I'd also suggest my written posts almost certainly do me no favours, as they appear to suggest I have strong feelings on this subject, which believe it or not, I most certainly do not.  Deep down, my priorities, and my perspectives are well and truly ingrained after 56 years of real life, and DCFC doesn't even come close to being truly important in my life... But to suggest such an action from Keogh would not affect DCFC just seems a tad ridiculous to me.

 

Having said all that...

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Is there any link to Keogh actually suing TL or are we just guessing/rumour mongering/assuming etc?

Good point well made!

Until such time as it does (or does not) become "official", I'm gonna do myself (and everyone else!) a favour, and butt out of this one for the time being!  

#thankgodtheycry

Edited December 4, 2019 by Mucker1884

[Ramarena]

1 hour ago, Rosythram said:

I have to be honest and state that I am totally amazed by the fact any one cares.

Mr Keogh has run his course with DCFC, what he decides to do in the future is for him and only him, will it impact on me or DCFC probably not.

Correction definitely not.

I suppose it has the potential to impact the form of Lawrence.

[KCG]

Yawn!

[DarkFruitsRam7]

1 hour ago, cosmic said:

I'd get used to it. It'll take 3-5 years for everyone on here to finally get their law degrees.

I’m two and a half years off. I can’t be arsed to do employment law though!