Keogh

[ilkleyram]

43 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

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?

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.

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.

I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.

The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.

What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 

We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

[Mucker1884]

47 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

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

In all honesty, I'm not certain, and I must admit I did dither before posting that bit... for the very reasons you bring up... but decided to go ahead and risk it!  ?

I'll not be slow to hold my hands up though, If I was wrong.  ??

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Wolfie20 said:

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

You have to be disappointed in his behaviour. He's shown no remorse whatsoever to leaving the club without his services. Not happy that he has never apologised for his stupidity.

[May Contain Nuts]

2 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.

I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.

The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.

What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 

We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

If I could applaud a post five times...

[Finch]

On 22/01/2021 at 18:02, Mucker1884 said:

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)

No .

 

On 16/01/2021 at 17:05, SWRam said:

Rooney out!

 

 

[Spanish]

On 22/01/2021 at 19:18, Wolfie20 said:

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

Sorry Wolfie but that is very wimpy if you are looking for an escape route for him.  Senior professional, leader on the pitch showed no interest in the well being of the guys he led or the club in general.  Never apologized for his involvement which is unforgivable.  He does not deserve the support of Derby fans such as you.  If that wasn't the basis of your argument I withdraw my comments

[Gaspode]

9 hours ago, Spanish said:

Sorry Wolfie but that is very wimpy if you are looking for an escape route for him.  Senior professional, leader on the pitch showed no interest in the well being of the guys he led or the club in general.  Never apologized for his involvement which is unforgivable.  He does not deserve the support of Derby fans such as you.  If that wasn't the basis of your argument I withdraw my comments

I'm absolutely no fan of Keogh but to fair to him, he could hardly apologise while there was a legal case ongoing - and if the compensation hasn't been agreed, then that still applies. Perhaps he'll make a statement when everthing is finalised (if his wife will let him)

[Tyler Durden]

On 22/01/2021 at 15:54, 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.

It's not dodgy unfortunately have seen it happen myself and be party to it. Another slight variation is saying to someone will give you two choices, either you resign now and we pay you a severance package, good references etc or we will be holding a formal disciplinary for gross misconduct whereby one potential outcome is you lose your job no pay no nothing. I want your answer by close of play today. 

Keogh would have been given the same option, accept a drop in wages for x amount of time or he would be taken to a formal disciplinary whereby one outcome would be his instant dismissal. Keogh rolled the dice whether it be out of his own sense of injustice, he was totally pigheaded or badly advised or a combination of the three and ironically was totally vindicated in doing so (barring the appeal outcome).

Edited January 25, 2021 by Tyler Durden

[1of4]

Watching the EFL highlights on Quest, I noticed Keogh has still always got a mistake in him.

[Mostyn6]

11 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Watching the EFL highlights on Quest, I noticed Keogh has still always got a mistake in him.

Still always

[Brammie Steve]

50 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Still always

RU my twin?

[Mostyn6]

 

[Olton Ram]

14 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

 

They do seem to be a little angry with him

[Shipley Ram]

 

 

[Tyler Durden]

56 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

 

 

Is that him after another half pint of shandy. Needs to go on his Tiktok account now to round things off properly.

[Zag zig]

7 hours ago, Shipley Ram said:

 

 

Blimey I blame Mason and Harry, they must have poor taste in music and it rubbed off on those car shares.

[CBRammette]

9 hours ago, Zag zig said:

Blimey I blame Mason and Harry, they must have poor taste in music and it rubbed off on those car shares.

Probably another dig at us

[Coneheadjohn]

Christ almighty they’re taking a chance letting him stand on that chair.

[Day]

 

[Grumpy Git]

I hope he chokes on his compensation.