Does the recent decline show how important Keogh was?

[ramit 4,404]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

All that matters. Keogh was in the wrong and never apologised to the club or fans.

That's right, Keogh hurt the club with his stupidity and then dared to feel hard done by, instead of getting on his knees.  Yes i know his legs were shattered, but he still should have, heh

[RoyMac5 13,233]

3 minutes ago, ramit said:

That's right, Keogh hurt the club with his stupidity and then dared to feel hard done by, instead of getting on his knees.  Yes i know his legs were shattered, but he still should have, heh

He doesn't write a post or speak a comment with his knees - you don't think he made a mistake, heh?

[ramit 4,404]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

He doesn't write a post or speak a comment with his knees - you don't think he made a mistake, heh?

[Spanish 3,465]

1 hour ago, TomTom92 said:

There’s two sides to every story. However as a supporter of Derby County and not Keogh’s welfare my thoughts are as follows; 

Derby were unlucky on the night that both Bennett and Lawrence were involved. Admittedly Derby was lucky that neither sustained a subsequent injury and that their sentences didn’t stop them from contributing to the season. 
 
However Derby were unlucky in the fact that due to Bennett and Lawrence’s involvement. It made the decision to sack Keogh look callous and morally corrupt on Derby’s part.
 
Personally I think Keogh/his agent have shown their true colours and unfortunately that means they will not be regarded in the same breathe as Bryson/Martin when I reminisce about that era. 
  
I do wish him luck at Huddersfield as he was by far not the worst player to ever wear the hallowed white shirt. However I hope we crush him in court.

Nothing wrong to sack Keogh.  Although I support the club’s decision about the other 2 that is the only decision that may have looked callous etc.  Morally corrupt, far too far

[Tyler Durden 3,159]

9 hours ago, Coconut said:

Condescending & imperious as ever.

The importance of following regulations is clear - don't do it and you leave yourself open to this sort of situation. I've never said the club haven't acted naively/stupidly from a legal standpoint in how they've carried out their actions, but I back them all the way in the decisions they came to & the reasons for them.

You're right - the scruples or morals of the case hold absolutely no importance in the judgement, which is exactly why it's a hollow victory.  If you reduce the thread to a clinical, emotionless discussion on the strict formalities of the case then sure, hooray for Keogh! This is a football forum though, not a legal debate club.

He can be as legally vindicated as he likes, but if he had anything about him as a person he wouldn't be pursuing the club for the money.

Your assertion that he won't have stained his reputation because a disciplinary panel deem him to be legally correct seems pretty misguided to me.

Taken back a bit by the first bit to be honest am happy to debate anyone on here it's clear we don't agree on the subject matter but if people can't be civil on here even if they do disagree then I don't know what's what.

Lost track of what we were even discussing now tbh

 

[Beetroot 9,285]

13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Lost track of what we were even discussing now tbh

Dunna worry the thread had gone a bit surreal anyways.

13 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

if the club do not win their appeal against the ET verdict of Keogh being unfairly dismissed.

[cannable 6,819]

Yeah, it’s weird this thread’s come up again

People shouldn’t drink drive and yet I’m sure most of us on here have been in a car with a drunk driver 

Average defender, he was that good at playing the ball he was our best midfielder for about three seasons 

Appealing a sacking is about procedure, not about whether it was justified 

Forest are Bamfords 

[DCFClks 893]

8 minutes ago, cannable said:

I’m sure most of us on here have been in a car with a drunk driver

erm... no

[Tyler Durden 3,159]

8 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

Derby were unlucky on the night that both Bennett and Lawrence were involved. Admittedly Derby was lucky that neither sustained a subsequent injury and that their sentences didn’t stop them from contributing to the season. 

 
However Derby were unlucky in the fact that due to Bennett and Lawrence’s involvement. It made the decision to sack Keogh look callous and morally corrupt on Derby’s part.

I don't see what luck has got to do with anything or should be used as a mitigating factor for the way Derby as a club handled the outcomes of the three protagonists?

The circumstances unfolded as thus and Derby had to handle the matter in a fair even and consistent manner which they did not. Nothing to do with luck whatsoever. 

And it won't be Keogh who will be crushed in court as you put it, the appeal will be directed against the Employment Tribunal whom made the decision to argue that they made an error in law coming to the conclusion which they did i.e. they did not apply the law correctly to reach their outcome. 

 

[Coconut 6,251]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Taken back a bit by the first bit to be honest am happy to debate anyone on here it's clear we don't agree on the subject matter but if people can't be civil on here even if they do disagree then I don't know what's what.

Lost track of what we were even discussing now tbh

 

Pretty simple really

"All your quotes about jumping through lots of hoops is just an irrelevance too, if you don't understand the importance of following the protocol or just choose not to then on your head be it and should expect to be punished accordingly. 

You instantly dismiss my points as irrelevant and imply that I don't understand why protocols are important! 

Perhaps you meant 'if a company doesn't understand' rather than 'if you don't understand',  but how was I meant to take your post as anything other than condescending and arrogant? I wouldn't have called your post particularly civil, but maybe I took it the wrong way?

8 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

The circumstances unfolded as thus and Derby had to handle the matter in a fair even and consistent manner which they did not. Nothing to do with luck whatsoever. 

There was no one action which would have been a 'fair, even and consistent way to handle the matter' other than (maybe, but I wouldn't agree) sacking them all on the spot, but that was never the choice the club wanted to make. Clearly that was an error on their part.

I think they tried to sort everything out too quickly, rushed it & bodged, clearly they weren't thorough enough;  the press release when Keogh was sacked was also a confusing mess.

They're being damned for trying to tailor the punishment to suit the individual, their actions, responsibilities and the outcome. Bad move.

A very basic interview question posed to teenagers looking for their first job used to center around them having to explain what equality means to them, with a big red mark next to their name if they answer along the lines of  "it's about treating everyone the same regardless of their race, religion or sexuality"  (It was a really crap question)

The I'd have sacked them all" solution some give feels like the equivalent of that answer but instead of it being an obvious fail an employment a tribunal seems to look at it as the correct method in dealing with things.

Edited February 26 by Coconut

[CBRammette 1,144]

Never liked him, dont miss him, they were all unprofessional yobs who dragged our club down to the gutter and shouldnt this be under ex-players?

[RamNut]

He was a good player for us, but we have all moved on.

[Ramslaar 256]

9 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

I don't see what luck has got to do with anything or should be used as a mitigating factor for the way Derby as a club handled the outcomes of the three protagonists?

The circumstances unfolded as thus and Derby had to handle the matter in a fair even and consistent manner which they did not. Nothing to do with luck whatsoever. 

And it won't be Keogh who will be crushed in court as you put it, the appeal will be directed against the Employment Tribunal whom made the decision to argue that they made an error in law coming to the conclusion which they did i.e. they did not apply the law correctly to reach their outcome. 

 

Why was it not fair or consistent.you must have facts we dont??

[Tyler Durden 3,159]

1 hour ago, Coconut said:

Pretty simple really

"All your quotes about jumping through lots of hoops is just an irrelevance too, if you don't understand the importance of following the protocol or just choose not to then on your head be it and should expect to be punished accordingly. 

You instantly dismiss my points as irrelevant and imply that I don't understand why protocols are important! 

Perhaps you meant 'if a company doesn't understand' rather than 'if you don't understand',  but how was I meant to take your post as anything other than condescending and arrogant? I wouldn't have called your post particularly civil, but maybe I took it the wrong way?

There was no one action which would have been a 'fair, even and consistent way to handle the matter' other than (maybe, but I wouldn't agree) sacking them all on the spot, but that was never the choice the club wanted to make. Clearly that was an error on their part.

I think they tried to sort everything out too quickly, rushed it & bodged, clearly they weren't thorough enough;  the press release when Keogh was sacked was also a confusing mess.

They're being damned for trying to tailor the punishment to suit the individual, their actions, responsibilities and the outcome. Bad move.

A very basic interview question posed to teenagers looking for their first job used to center around them having to explain what equality means to them, with a big red mark next to their name if they answer along the lines of  "it's about treating everyone the same regardless of their race, religion or sexuality"  (It was a really crap question)

The I'd have sacked them all" solution some give feels like the equivalent of that answer but instead of it being an obvious fail an employment a tribunal seems to look at it as the correct method in dealing with things.

I haven't read all of your reply but looking at the length it's obviously well researched and well written as usual which wasn't a sarcastic comment, I was just taken aback regards your opening comments in your original post which in my opinion were a tad unnecessary rather then just reply back with obviously what you consider to be a robust response to my thoughts which you have done. 

[cannable 6,819]

10 hours ago, DCFClks said:

erm... no

Perhaps I should have said ‘drink’ rather than ‘drunk’. 

Legally, two pints and you’re done 

[Rab a dab doo 1,306]

Do you want a one word answer to your leading question, well it is a simple No

[Rampage 6,741]

21 hours ago, ramit said:

I am watching the Rams game, I thought that you knew that.

[TomTom92 333]

13 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

I don't see what luck has got to do with anything or should be used as a mitigating factor for the way Derby as a club handled the outcomes of the three protagonists?

The circumstances unfolded as thus and Derby had to handle the matter in a fair even and consistent manner which they did not. Nothing to do with luck whatsoever. 

And it won't be Keogh who will be crushed in court as you put it, the appeal will be directed against the Employment Tribunal whom made the decision to argue that they made an error in law coming to the conclusion which they did i.e. they did not apply the law correctly to reach their outcome. 

 

The point I’m trying to make about luck is that if Keogh had entered in to a car of John Smith who Keogh knew was over the limit, then would Derby have been vilified for getting rid? 
 
I’m not saying from a legal viewpoint how Derby acted was correct. But as a supporter of the football club and not Keogh’s welfare I wouldn’t have been best pleased sacking all 3 players and therefore weakening our squad over the actions of the players involved. 
 
It may be a cynical way of thinking but that’s my stance. As for who crushes who, I have no doubt that you’re correct. However none of this would be an issue if Keogh had accepted the renegotiated terms.

[Wignall12 691]

"Does the recent decline show how important Keogh was?" .............NO !

[ramit 4,404]

1 hour ago, Rampage said:

I am watching the Rams game, I thought that you knew that.