Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Red Ram said:

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.

..except he wasn't sacked as a response to him taking part in the events of the night, the club's intentions were never to sack anyone but hand out a suitable punishment for the players' actions & the consequence of them. The club wanted to assist with the rehabilitation of all involved.  It's Keogh's pigheadedness and lack of ability to take any personal responsibility for what happened to him that got him sacked.

The bolded part is simply nonsense.

If I rendered myself unable to work for 6 months through my own stupidity I wouldn't 'resign on the spot' I'd wait to see what the company said about it, but fully expect that the most likely outcome is that I'm going to be sacked. I wouldn't be entitled to full sick play because I'd broken the terms of my contract, I'd be facing the prospect of a sacking on my CV, to have ruined my chance of a reference for another job, damaged my reputation and to receive no pay until I found myself another job.

You talk about people being treated decently?

If my employer came back to me and offered me the chance to keep my job, pay for the medical bills to help me get back in working condition and actually pay me a salary throughout it I'd snap their bloody hands off - not act like I was entitled to more than they've offered me.

I'd feel like the luckiest man alive, I'd feel like I'd been  treated very decently indeed.

..but then I'm not an arrogant, entitled rick who doesn't accept responsibility for his own actions.

Edited by Coconut
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olton Ram said:

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.

 

Obviously contracts vary but 6 months on full pay is common for 'Professional' jobs.  That's certainly been the case everywhere I've worked.

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

..except he wasn't sacked as a response to him taking part in the events of the night, the club's intentions were never to sack anyone but hand out a suitable punishment for the players' actions & the consequence of them. The club wanted to assist with the rehabilitation of all involved.  It's Keogh's pigheadedness and lack of ability to take any personal responsibility for what happened to him that got him sacked.

The bolded part is simply nonsense.

If I rendered myself unable to work for 6 months through my own stupidity I wouldn't 'resign on the spot' I'd wait to see what the company said about it, but fully expect that the most likely outcome is that I'm going to be sacked. I wouldn't be entitled to full sick play because I'd broken the terms of my contract, I'd be facing the prospect of a sacking on my CV, to have ruined my chance of a reference for another job, damaged my reputation and to receive no pay until I found myself another job.

You talk about people being treated decently?

If my employer came back to me and offered me the chance to keep my job, pay for the medical bills to help me get back in working condition and actually pay me a salary throughout it I'd snap their bloody hands off - not act like I was entitled to more than they've offered me.

I'd feel like the luckiest man alive, I'd feel like I'd been  treated very decently indeed.

..but then I'm not an arrogant, entitled rick who doesn't accept responsibility for his own actions.

Except it's quite simply not what happens. At least not in most 'professional' jobs. People get injured/incapicated doing all sorts of things outside work. Skiiing, rock climbing, playing sport, non work-related mental health issues and yes, sometimes as a result of drunken misdemeanours. Unless there are crimimal charges you don't get sacked for it and nor should you.

Where do you draw the line once you try and introduce the principle of stupidity/blame? You eat Pizza everyday and have a heart attack so you can't fulfill your contract. Your fault? Quite possibly but you may have a genetic predisposition - should you be sacked? Should smokers be sacked when they get cancer and end up being hospitalised for treatment? Should you be sacked if you take a chance on going to the pub during a pandemic and end up with Long Covid and are unable to work for several months?

It's an unsustainable argument which is precisely why it doesn't work like that. It would be institutionalising the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support. That's why his wife's instagram handle temporarily became "wife of professional scapegoat'.

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

Except it's quite simply not what happens. At least not in most 'professional' jobs. People get injured/incapicated doing all sorts of things outside work. Skiiing, rock climbing, playing sport, non work-related mental health issues and yes, sometimes as a result of drunken misdemeanours. Unless there are crimimal charges you don't get sacked for it and nor should you.

Where do you draw the line once you try and introduce the principle of stupidity/blame? You eat Pizza everyday and have a heart attack so you can't fulfill your contract. Your fault? Quite possibly but you may have a genetic predisposition - should you be sacked? Should smokers be sacked when they get cancer and end up being hospitalised for treatment? Should you be sacked if you take a chance on going to the pub during a pandemic and end up with Long Covid and are unable to work for several months?

It's an unsustainable argument which is precisely why it doesn't work like that. It would be institutionalising the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support. That's why his wife's instagram handle temporarily became "wife of professional scapegoat'.

You actually believe what footballers wives put on social media?

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

Except it's quite simply not what happens. At least not in most 'professional' jobs. People get injured/incapicated doing all sorts of things outside work. Skiiing, rock climbing, playing sport, non work-related mental health issues and yes, sometimes as a result of drunken misdemeanours. Unless there are crimimal charges you don't get sacked for it and nor should you.

Where do you draw the line once you try and introduce the principle of stupidity/blame? You eat Pizza everyday and have a heart attack so you can't fulfill your contract. Your fault? Quite possibly but you may have a genetic predisposition - should you be sacked? Should smokers be sacked when they get cancer and end up being hospitalised for treatment? Should you be sacked if you take a chance on going to the pub during a pandemic and end up with Long Covid and are unable to work for several months?

It's an unsustainable argument which is precisely why it doesn't work like that. It would be institutionalising the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support. That's why his wife's instagram handle temporarily became "wife of professional scapegoat'.

You're just being ridiculous now. The whataboutery doesn't wash.

Most 'professional' jobs are completely different to that of a sportsperson who has a contractual obligation to avoid situations where they're putting their physical health in danger. Keogh didn't act responsibly in any way, shape or form so reneged on that obligation.

He was offered above and beyond what the club were obliged to offer him. The boo hoo poor Keogh routine is a joke. The club didn't want to sack Keogh, he forced their hand.

You'd also be a massive hypocrite talking about "kicking people when they're down" if you'd happily have seen Lawrence sacked despite being at his lowest point following the death of his mum and receiving a conviction for drink driving (to be fair I can't remember if you have said you'd sack Lawrence or not).

The more I think about it the more this looks like profiteering by his agent.

He wants his cut, but if Keogh's wages are reduced so is the the amount of money he'll get.  Essentially they're taking the club's naivety in trying to offer everyone a suitable individual solution knowing that they can claim inconsistencies in the club's handling of the matter, snubbing the offer made to Keogh, never having Keogh apologise for any part he played in the events that unfolded and manipulating the situation to give themselves a big ol' pay day down the line.

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

Except it's quite simply not what happens. At least not in most 'professional' jobs. People get injured/incapicated doing all sorts of things outside work. Skiiing, rock climbing, playing sport, non work-related mental health issues and yes, sometimes as a result of drunken misdemeanours. Unless there are crimimal charges you don't get sacked for it and nor should you.

Where do you draw the line once you try and introduce the principle of stupidity/blame? You eat Pizza everyday and have a heart attack so you can't fulfill your contract. Your fault? Quite possibly but you may have a genetic predisposition - should you be sacked? Should smokers be sacked when they get cancer and end up being hospitalised for treatment? Should you be sacked if you take a chance on going to the pub during a pandemic and end up with Long Covid and are unable to work for several months?

It's an unsustainable argument which is precisely why it doesn't work like that. It would be institutionalising the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support. That's why his wife's instagram handle temporarily became "wife of professional scapegoat'.

So you're claiming it's 'common' that professionals can claim 6 months full sick pay after being negligently and actively involved in a drink drive accident, and that a professional footballer's drunken self-inflicted injury is comparable to a person who eats too much pizza!?

 

tenor-2.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Coconut said:

You're just being ridiculous now. The whataboutery doesn't wash.

Most 'professional' jobs are completely different to that of a sportsperson who has a contractual obligation to avoid situations where they're putting their physical health in danger. Keogh didn't act responsibly in any way, shape or form so reneged on that obligation.

He was offered above and beyond what the club were obliged to offer him. The boo hoo poor Keogh routine is a joke. The club didn't want to sack Keogh, he forced their hand.

You'd also be a massive hypocrite talking about "kicking people when they're down" if you'd happily have seen Lawrence sacked despite being at his lowest point following the death of his mum and receiving a conviction for drink driving (to be fair I can't remember if you have said you'd sack Lawrence or not).

The more I think about it the more this looks like profiteering by his agent.

He wants his cut, but if Keogh's wages are reduced so is the the amount of money he'll get.  Essentially they're taking the club's naivety in trying to offer everyone a suitable individual solution knowing that they can claim inconsistencies in the club's handling of the matter, snubbing the offer made to Keogh, never having Keogh apologise for any part he played in the events that unfolded and manipulating the situation to give themselves a big ol' pay day down the line.

I've never at any point argued that Lawrence should have been sacked - only that it cannot be right that he was treated more leniently for a much more serious offence than Keogh's. The sanction applied to Lawrence was probably about right. A similar but propotionately lower sanction should have been applied to Keogh to relfect the fact that his transgressions were less far serious.

Bennett on the other hand should have been fired on the spot. Nothing to do with the incident - just on the grounds of capability

😉

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole reaction to this debacle from certain Derby fans is absolutely laughable. The club screwed Keogh over there's no way two ways about it. Admitting it doesn't make you any less of a fan, it doesn't mean you now love Keogh or even think he's a half decent footballer, but the facts are as plain as day. Keogh was treated differently than the other players involved in the incident because Derby desperately wanted him off the wage bill whilst he was injured. It's a sensible move by the club, but stop pretending that Keogh is somehow out of line for fighting this. 

"But we only sacked him because he couldn't play", then why did the club release that statement about gross misconduct? Getting in a car with a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt is gross misconduct, but actually being the drunk driver isn't? Then there's the nonsense about him being captain. I don't know how you lot treat captains of any teams you've been in, but if any of mine ever tried to pull rank on me away from a football field I'd have laughed in their faces. Lawrence and Bennett were 25 and 23 respectively at the time. Both plenty old enough to understand how the law works without the intervention of their captain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anon said:

The whole reaction to this debacle from certain Derby fans is absolutely laughable. The club screwed Keogh over there's no way two ways about it. Admitting it doesn't make you any less of a fan, it doesn't mean you now love Keogh or even think he's a half decent footballer, but the facts are as plain as day. Keogh was treated differently than the other players involved in the incident because Derby desperately wanted him off the wage bill whilst he was injured. It's a sensible move by the club, but stop pretending that Keogh is somehow out of line for fighting this. 

"But we only sacked him because he couldn't play", then why did the club release that statement about gross misconduct? Getting in a car with a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt is gross misconduct, but actually being the drunk driver isn't? Then there's the nonsense about him being captain. I don't know how you lot treat captains of any teams you've been in, but if any of mine ever tried to pull rank on me away from a football field I'd have laughed in their faces. Lawrence and Bennett were 25 and 23 respectively at the time. Both plenty old enough to understand how the law works without the intervention of their captain.

I agree or can relate with most of this bar the captain bit.

I think being club captain is a lot more than just pulling rank in this instance. There's a huge amount of responsibility to be the leader of the playing staff, not just flipping a coin twice a week. The title could be; Captain, Team Leader, Manager, CEO... whatever - all these titles should be filled by people who lead by example and adhere to the values expected of their positions. Can Richard say he did on that night? Couldn't have been further from what was expected of him. He was the most senior ambassador for Derby County at that time, accountable for his squad and their actions. To say he shouldn't be treated any different is wrong in my opinion. 

I'm a huge fan, wish him all the best with his career. He's been one of our better players for years, despite the denial from a chunk of the fanbase and we'll miss him (currently are IMO) so theres no bad blood from me. I just feel like he let himself and the club down by letting events spiral into what they did. This compounded with sending his agent onto national radio despite not releasing any form of statement? Is he even sorry? Has he taken any sort of responsibility for it? Its just ended messy. 

Maybe the biggest factor behind sacking him was financial but the accountability and responsibilities he had as captain would have also played a part. Doesn't matter what profession you are in, if poo happens on your watch you'll be held accountable and rightly so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anon said:

The whole reaction to this debacle from certain Derby fans is absolutely laughable. The club screwed Keogh over there's no way two ways about it. Admitting it doesn't make you any less of a fan, it doesn't mean you now love Keogh or even think he's a half decent footballer, but the facts are as plain as day. Keogh was treated differently than the other players involved in the incident because Derby desperately wanted him off the wage bill whilst he was injured. It's a sensible move by the club, but stop pretending that Keogh is somehow out of line for fighting this. 

"But we only sacked him because he couldn't play", then why did the club release that statement about gross misconduct? Getting in a car with a drunk driver and not wearing a seat belt is gross misconduct, but actually being the drunk driver isn't? Then there's the nonsense about him being captain. I don't know how you lot treat captains of any teams you've been in, but if any of mine ever tried to pull rank on me away from a football field I'd have laughed in their faces. Lawrence and Bennett were 25 and 23 respectively at the time. Both plenty old enough to understand how the law works without the intervention of their captain.

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.

There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.

What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.

I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  

If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

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

The whole reaction to this debacle from certain Derby fans is absolutely laughable. The club screwed Keogh over there's no way two ways about it.

Nope. Wrong way around. He was not treated badly. It could be argued that the other three got away with very lenient punishment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.

There's more than enough on the face of it, to conclude that Keogh was guilty of gross misconduct and so too the others - you do not have to sack someone for GM but you can do.  Keogh was a senior player and club captain, in a position of responsibility; a younger player was in one of the cars; the two drivers had drunk during the evening (that much must have been obvious even to another drunk); he got into a drunk drivers' car and failed to put his seatbelt on; the lack of seatbelt contributed to his injury or the severity of it.

What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.

I suspect (not ITK) that Keogh refused the punishment because he felt he was not guilty of gross misconduct, that his role as captain meant he had no extra responsibility, that drinking beyond a curfew on a night out was nothing to do with the club, nor the fact that he didn't wear a seatbelt or endangered himself by climbing into a car being driven by someone likely to be over the limit, never mind anything else not in the public domain.  

If I'm right he's an idiot, whatever a tribunal may or may not say.

It was very convenient for the club's finances that the disciplinary panel decided on a set fine for Lawrence and Bennett, yet a permanent wage reduction for Keogh. I can't say I'm knowledgeable at all about employment law or football contracts in general, but demanding an employee agree to a wage reduction as part of a disciplinary procedure sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anon said:

It was very convenient for the club's finances that the disciplinary panel decided on a set fine for Lawrence and Bennett, yet a permanent wage reduction for Keogh. I can't say I'm knowledgeable at all about employment law or football contracts in general, but demanding an employee agree to a wage reduction as part of a disciplinary procedure sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Yep. If you need any brain surgery drop us a line I'm a landscape gardener, but I've seen pictures. 😄

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

It was very convenient for the club's finances that the disciplinary panel decided on a set fine for Lawrence and Bennett, yet a permanent wage reduction for Keogh. I can't say I'm knowledgeable at all about employment law or football contracts in general, but demanding an employee agree to a wage reduction as part of a disciplinary procedure sounds incredibly dodgy to me.

Well I did just that twice in my career - both in the public sector with trade unions involved (the people were represented). It was accepted on both occasions. Both of them felt they were lucky to still be in a job. Nothing dodgy about it at all.

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

No, he wasn't treated differently and he was not screwed over.  Lawrence and Bennett's behaviour was subject to internal investigation, so was Keogh.  There was an internal disciplinary procedure for all of them individually and punishments meted out.  Keogh refused to accept his punishment and the other two accepted theirs and that's why we ended up dismissing him.

So he should have accepted the outcome of an internal disciplinary process which, according to posters on your side of the argument, was found by the tribunal not to have been conducted according to due process?

50 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

What else was the disciplinary panel supposed to do - their punishment (reduced wages, no dismissal) was on the face of it, within the range of reasonable options for a gross misconduct decision.  It was turned down.  Should the panel at that stage have said 'oh well, that's OK then, we'll just forget it'? Keogh deliberately forced them into a position whereby sacking him was their only option.  The other two did not.

That only makes any sense if the only two choices available to the panel were to offer reduced wages for the remainder of Keogh's contract or to dismiss him. But by definition they weren't were they becuase that's not what happened to the other playes involved. The panel could have applied similar sanctions to those applied to Lawrence and Bennett (maximum possible fine and suspension from duty).

From what I remember the revised contract offered was a massive reduction in wages - little more than a retainer in relation to what he was on. Given that at that point he had no way of knowing whether he would ever play again he simply wasn't in a position to accept it.

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

...the principle of kicking people when they're down. That's what we did to Keogh - kicked him when he most needed support...

My understanding was that as he lay there, The club offered to pick him up, and try to make him a little more comfortable, by placing a cushion under his head.

He not only refused this offer of help, but apparently stuck his middle finger up in the air, and told Mel to shove it.

Absolutely, definitely, certainly, there was no kicking involved!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure the level/seriousness of the offence(s) are/were too much of a consideration to the club?
 

As an employer, surely they should have been concentrating on the consequences of said offences, and how they affected the ability of each employee to continue carrying out their work?

Surely the seriousness of the offences were for the courts to deal with.

That's what should happen (imo), and that's appears to have happened.

 

Did Keogh even get charged with an offence?  (Genuine question, as I honestly can't remember)

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

... Then there's the nonsense about him being captain. I don't know how you lot treat captains of any teams you've been in, but if any of mine ever tried to pull rank on me away from a football field I'd have laughed in their faces. Lawrence and Bennett were 25 and 23 respectively at the time. Both plenty old enough to understand how the law works without the intervention of their captain.

It was an official club event (or rather, an immediate and direct follow on from one).  It wasn't a private function, or a night out with the lads.

In any decade prior to 2000, they would have all been in club blazers.

Keogh was club captain... on an official club event.  Club captain should not be limited to the pitch, on a match day, for a mere 90 minutes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

It was an official club event (or rather, an immediate and direct follow on from one).  It wasn't a private function, or a night out with the lads.

In any decade prior to 2000, they would have all been in club blazers.

Keogh was club captain... on an official club event.  Club captain should not be limited to the pitch, on a match day, for a mere 90 minutes.

 

 

Was he Club captain or team captain because there have been times when both roles were taken by different players?

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.