Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

Not relevant in elite sports otherwise you’d have people in wheelchairs suing football clubs cos they applied for the job of striker and didn’t get it. 

Of course it's relevant. Employment law applies across the board as does the 2010 Equalities Act. Anyway with Keogh we're talking about an employee who was already under contract, not someone applying for a job. Keogh, Keogh, Keogh!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

His clever lawyers would have had a field day over the inconsistency. 
They might also have said: when you sacked him you thought he might never play again. So it’s disability discrimination 

How could it be proved exactly what Derby County 'thought'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

His clever lawyers would have had a field day over the inconsistency. 
They might also have said: when you sacked him you thought he might never play again. So it’s disability discrimination 

I'm guessing that opinion would have come from a specialist in knee injuries. I'm sure talk at the time was at least 18 months out due to the severity. With that duration matching the length of his contract, the professional opinion was that he wouldn't be able to fulfil his contract due to his own negligence. 
If it was 18 months out due to an injury in training, in a match or just a freak accident, he wouldn't have been sacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

If it was 18 months out due to an injury in training, in a match or just a freak accident, he wouldn't have been sacked.

If he'd have done the decent thing and accepted a lower wage for a while, he wouldn't have been sacked.

If anything we were too generous to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

His clever lawyers would have had a field day over the inconsistency. 
They might also have said: when you sacked him you thought he might never play again. So it’s disability discrimination 

It’s not disability discrimination more of a frustration of contract due to sickness in relation to not being able to do his contracted job of employment ( attempt to play football) I am sure that if he had been injured cutting the grass he wouldn’t have been dismissed from his job, yet he was due to his own contributory negligence under the influence of a substance and as a very senior employee he should have known what he was doing.

Derby have very recent history of looking after players, employees, when there are not under obligation to do so - Shaun Barker, contract extension when it was known he wouldn’t be fit during that extension. Keogh problem was his own contribution to the episode and Derby generously offered him another paid role which he declined I believe to help him during his recovery. They paid him to play football and represent the club appropriately.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

It’s not disability discrimination more of a frustration of contract due to sickness in relation to not being able to do his contracted job of employment ( attempt to play football) I am sure that if he had been injured cutting the grass he wouldn’t have been dismissed from his job, yet he was due to his own contributory negligence under the influence of a substance and as a very senior employee he should have known what he was doing.

Derby have very recent history of looking after players, employees, when there are not under obligation to do so - Shaun Barker, contract extension when it was known he wouldn’t be fit during that extension. Keogh problem was his own contribution to the episode and Derby generously offered him another paid role which he declined I believe to help him during his recovery. They paid him to play football and represent the club appropriately.  

The other difference being that when Barker was injured Derby had the honourable Nigel Clough as manager and he'd never forgotten Barker playing for him against Leeds for him when he was still injured. See the excellent Barker documentary for details.

No way Keogh would have been sacked after the Joiners if Clough had been manager because Clough has strong principles and is loyal to his players.

 

Edited by Red Ram
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the club might have missed a trick here. I've just checked up on statuary sick pay, and an employer has to pay £95.85 for up to 28 weeks if an employee can't work due to illness or injury. Let's not quibble about gross misconduct etc., lets just pay him the £2683.80 we owe him, and no hard feelings. 

I can't believe the lawyers are making such a big fuss about it 🤪

tenor-2.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

No way Keogh would have been sacked after the Joiners if Clough had been manager because Clough has strong principles and is loyal to his players.

Only if they're loyal to him, he doesn't have much time for people acting stupidly or dishonourably.

Clough has strong principles, yes... but what that really means is he wouldn't stand for the appalling behaviour exhibited by someone in such an exalted position as club captain.

He wouldn't even have a say on whether a player was sacked, he'd just bomb them out of the squad, have them training with the kids and stubbornly refuse to play them again.

Edited by Coconut
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

The other difference being that when Barker was injured Derby had the honourable Nigel Clough as manager and he'd never forgotten Barker playing for him against Leeds for him when he was still injured. See the excellent Barker documentary for details.

No way Keogh would have been sacked after the Joiners if Clough had been manager because Clough has strong principles and is loyal to his players.

 

Not sure Cywka would necessarily agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Ram said:

The other difference being that when Barker was injured Derby had the honourable Nigel Clough as manager and he'd never forgotten Barker playing for him against Leeds for him when he was still injured. See the excellent Barker documentary for details.

No way Keogh would have been sacked after the Joiners if Clough had been manager because Clough has strong principles and is loyal to his players.

 

The BIG difference is that Barker was injured PLAYING FOOTBALL (as in doing his job) for Derby County Football Club (as in his employer) whereas bug eyed freak was injured because he was STUPID, DRUNK and BREAKING THE LAW.

it has nothing to do with principles or loyalty it is ALL down to the moron Keogh.

AND I would guess (and thats all anyone could do) that Clough would have binned all 3 of the players off actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Ram said:

The other difference being that when Barker was injured Derby had the honourable Nigel Clough as manager and he'd never forgotten Barker playing for him against Leeds for him when he was still injured. See the excellent Barker documentary for details.

No way Keogh would have been sacked after the Joiners if Clough had been manager because Clough has strong principles and is loyal to his players.

 

Different set of circumstances - Keogh being in a car accident whilst breaking the law and not wearing a seat belt and Barker injured on the pitch doing his job 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sparkle said:

Different set of circumstances - Keogh being in a car accident whilst breaking the law and not wearing a seat belt and Barker injured on the pitch doing his job 

Err yes I agree! That's why my post started with the words "the other difference being"...

I'm not denying Keogh was at least partly responsible for his injury. I'm simply saying sacking him was a completely disproportionate response, especially as Bennett and Lawrence weren't sacked. How can the club maintain the ludicrous double-think - it's a sackable offence unless you accept a much reduced contract in which case, hey presto, it isn't. Clearly nothing more than blatant opportunism - no wonder he won the case!

If any of us went out one night, had a few too many beers and injured ourselves to the extent that we were unable to work for 6 months, how many of us would resign from our jobs on the spot, even though we knew our contract entitled us to full sick pay, just because we felt it was somehow 'only fair' to our employers? That's what some posters are effectively saying Keogh should have done!

Stuff happens! When it does it's your opportunity to treat people decently. Like Clough did with Barker. Treating Keogh the way Derby did was short-sighted in the extreme. He's back playing championship football now and, if he's even close to being the player he was, he's significantly better than what we've got. And as the Ryan Conway article recently revealed, his sacking had a deleterious effect on the morale of the rest of the squad because they apparently felt it was totally unfair and he was a popular figure in the dressing room.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

I'm not denying Keogh was at least partly responsible for his injury. I'm simply saying sacking him was a completely disproportionate response, especially as Bennett and Lawrence weren't sacked. How can the club maintain the ludicrous double-think - it's a sackable offence unless you accept a much reduced contract in which case, hey presto, it isn't. Clearly nothing more than blatant opportunism - no wonder he won the case!

You don't understand the employment tribunal process do you. 

But anyway Keogh couldn't fulfil his contract down to his own fault. The other two could still fulfil theirs.

Edited by RoyMac5
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

You don't understand the employment tribunal process do you. 

But anyway Keogh couldn't fulfil his contract down to his own fault. The other two could still fulfil theirs.

Well I certainly understand the outcome which reflects the diametric opposite of what you've implied above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Red Ram said:

 

If any of us went out one night, had a few too many beers and injured ourselves to the extent that we were unable to work for 6 months, how many of us would resign from our jobs on the spot, even though we knew our contract entitled us to full sick pay, just because we felt it was somehow 'only fair' to our employers? That's what some posters are effectively saying Keogh should have done!

 

 

It may be unlikely that people would resign in the same situation (although some might), but the employer wouldn't be paying full salary either for as long as the injured employee took to recover from their non-work related injury. Many would get sacked, some may get unpaid leave, some may get statuary sick pay (followed by no pay at all), but the number getting full pay for as long as they wanted would be close to zero. 'Full sick pay' only applies for a limited period, and not if the employee was fully or partly responsible for their injury due to their own drunken recklessness.

You may have a point about him being treated unfairly compared to the other two (although as I and others have said, they could still fulfil their contracts; Keogh couldn't), but the idea that the club haven't treated him well compared to any other employee who can't work due to their own stupidity is, in my opinion, a poor one. They even offered him a compromise deal on lower pay, with full support in his recovery, and he refused.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Red Ram said:

Well I certainly understand the outcome which reflects the diametric opposite of what you've implied above.

Not sure he won the argument that he shouldn’t have been sacked, he won the argument that the correct disciplinary procedures were not followed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.