Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I do not believe a single word that that weird little man Matt Hughes writes

Chief Sports Writer for a national paper and genuinely about half his stories are about Derby. Really odd.

Guess if you have a good source at a particular club and all that.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rev said:

£23k a week a week for Keogh, and we wonder where the money has gone?

It's really not that bad considering he was arguably our best player for the past decade, plus it incremented over time. We've done a lot worse, in fact I'd say that's probably the best money we've spent. 

Bryson, Martin and others after earning their 'big' contract went backwards rather than forwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eatonram said:

Good luck to him. He was a brilliant player for our club. Always amazed me how many couldn't see it.

The ones that couldn't see it were ironically the ones with their eyes open actually watching the game. The guy was a liability, at least with this move it guarantees us 3 points against Huddersfield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat not overly surprised by that news. Especially if he used the treatment of Lawrence and Bennett and the inconsistency there against us. He appeared to have done the least wrong, but got the most punishment. Some might suggest that’s because he was the one who couldn’t play anymore. Doesn’t seem a fair discipline treatment. Should have sacked all 3, as I said at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's true he's won the case, personally I'm absolutely delighted for him. Always seemed pretty obvious he'd win in the end to me given that Lawrence and Bennett committed much more serious misdemeanours and yet were treated far more leniently by the club. Made it difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that Keogh was sacked because unlike the other two, he was unlucky enough to get injured

His sacking was quite possibly just another FFP manoeuvre in the first place because now it's a 'just' a legal bill rather than being on the wage bill.

Personally the unfairness of way Keogh was treated led to me feeling less of a connection with the club. It just seemed like a totally ruthless way to treat a very good, dedicated player who'd been with us for years and always gave absolutely everything every time he wore the shirt. This outcome goes a long way towards redressing that historical sense of injustice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People still banging on about him being a liability (with his perhaps one or two mistakes every few months) are somehow forgetting that we're Derby effing County, not Real Madrid. What do you honestly expect?

 

Me personally, I want someone who wears his heart on their sleeve, always puts a shift in, and cares about the club as much as I do. Keogh was all that and more.

 

For him not to be considered an absolute legend by all Derby fans shows how unrealistic some of you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

The ones that couldn't see it were ironically the ones with their eyes open actually watching the game. The guy was a liability, at least with this move it guarantees us 3 points against Huddersfield.

Well done.

You've just guaranteed that Keogh nods home a last minute winner in said fixture!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Somewhat not overly surprised by that news. Especially if he used the treatment of Lawrence and Bennett and the inconsistency there against us. He appeared to have done the least wrong, but got the most punishment. Some might suggest that’s because he was the one who couldn’t play anymore. Doesn’t seem a fair discipline treatment. Should have sacked all 3, as I said at the time.

What inconsistency?

They could fulfil their contracted duties as professional footballers, Richard couldn't.

 

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

Actually hoping that Stoke can get a win now,weird world.

 

37 minutes ago, Coconut said:

He's already cost us about £90m, what's another 2?

(Joking before anyone starts)

He got himself injured, which prevented us from selling him. He should owe us £ 2m in lost transfer fees

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. 
there’s no doubt he was treated unfairly compared to the others who were welcomed back with open arms.
Never made any sense. 

so who will be sold to pay for yet another error at the top.

We might just have our answer as to what has stalled the deal.

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

If it's true he's won the case, personally I'm absolutely delighted for him. Always seemed pretty obvious he'd win in the end to me given that Lawrence and Bennett committed much more serious misdemeanours and yet were treated far more leniently by the club. Made it difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that Keogh was sacked because unlike the other two, he was unlucky enough to get injured

His sacking was quite possibly just another FFP manoeuvre in the first place because now it's a 'just' a legal bill rather than being on the wage bill.

Personally the unfairness of way Keogh was treated led to me feeling less of a connection with the club. It just seemed like a totally ruthless way to treat a very good, dedicated player who'd been with us for years and always gave absolutely everything every time he wore the shirt. This outcome goes a long way towards redressing that historical sense of injustice.

 

Well yes. Through his own negligence he couldn't do the job he was being paid for. We offered him reduced terms for the remainder of his contract in order to facilitate a replacement . More than generous .  No injustice at all unless you consider the final nail towards administration is paying a fortune to a bloke who couldn't play because he didn't order a taxi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Well yes. Through his own negligence he couldn't do the job he was being paid for. We offered him reduced terms for the remainder of his contract in order to facilitate a replacement . More than generous .  No injustice at all unless you consider the final nail towards administration is paying a fortune to a bloke who couldn't play because he didn't order a taxi.

If that was actually the case he wouldn't have won the tribunal case would he?

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

If that was actually the case he wouldn't have won the tribunal case would he?

Well that was the case. He didn't play for over a year.  

Any player on that salary will be insured against injury that ends there career or limits earnings.  Any club will insure the player due to injury re transfer cost at market value for replacement.

No insurer is going to pay out in this instance where there's been a clear dereliction of terms.  Why would the club lose out on a players. value, pay him a full wage and pay out for a replacement.   The fact they offered him any wage plus full use of state of the art medical facilities was an amazing offer.

The bloke caused his own downfall.  The only reason Lawrence and Bennett were retained by the club was they didn't get a custodial sentence.  Sure if someone had offered a few million for Lawrence he'd have been moved on at the earliest opportunity like Bennett.

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.