Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

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.

No doubt...??

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bubbles said:

 

baalocks.

A couple of interesting things in this.

1. Keogh lost his first appeal with the EFL. I don't think that has been reported anywhere else before.

2. Keogh has won this appeal but the Employment Tribunal verdict is that club and Keogh should reach a settlement.

As I understand it, the Tribunal only have powers to award the plaintiff up to £25k. Hence the win for Keogh is kinda hollow. They are just telling both parties to have some common sense and make your own agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to hear the reasonings of the judgement if/when they're published. Whilst Keogh wasn't driving he also wasn't wearing a seat belt, which was something entirely in his control. The club could argue that although he wasn't responsible for being injured by someone else's driving (although he did get into a car being driven by someone who he knew had been drinking), the extent and severity of his injuries were linked to his own actions (not putting his seat belt on).

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately, although the drivers involved were idiots they didn't render themselves valueless to the club, i.e. they could still play and/or be transferred. They would have been sacked if they were imprisoned. Keogh however rendered himself valueless to the club by his own actions (allowing himself to be a passenger of a drink driver and not doing his seat belt up). The other two could still fulfil their contracts; Keogh couldn't. 

I think it would have been better if all three had been sacked, but if the other two had won appeals as well we'd now be facing a massive bill for back payments with nothing to show for it. What a mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So he breaks the law, and as a direct result, puts himself in a position where he cannot fulfil his side of the contract, and the ensuing costs to the club cannot be claimed on insurance (Due to him breaking the law, one would assume, and not due to DCFC failing to take out adequate cover!)
We offer to tend to his injuries and rehab, plus offer to keep him employed for the length of his contract, albeit at a reduced rate, which he subsequently refuses.

And yet he has the gall to sue the club, and render them "In the wrong"?  How does that even work?  And how can he even sleep at night?

I've always been a fan of his, and any comments I may have made in the past to the contrary (I'm sure there will be some!) were always intended (at least) to be tongue in cheek.  Just japes. 
A player (and captain) who always got a thumbs up from me.

But right now, he is fast losing my respect.   

I'm probably one of the few who has never booed Keogh before... but I'm booing him now!   

 

 

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

So he breaks the law, and as a direct result, puts himself in a position where he cannot fulfil his side of the contract, and the ensuing costs to the club cannot be claimed on insurance (Due to him breaking the law, one would assume, and not due to DCFC failing to take out adequate cover!)
We offer to tend to his injuries and rehab, plus offer to keep him employed for the length of his contract, albeit at a reduced rate, which he subsequently refuses.

And yet he has the gall to sue the club, and render them "In the wrong"?  How does that even work?  And how can he even sleep at night?

I've always been a fan of his, and any comments I may have made in the past to the contrary (I'm sure there will be some!) were always intended (at least) to be tongue in cheek.  Just japes. 
A player (and captain) who always got a thumbs up from me.

But right now, he is fast losing my respect.   

I'm probably one of the few who has never booed Keogh before... but I'm booing him now!   

 

 

Employment law rightly requires that employees are treated reasonably and fairly. You're focusing on what Keogh did but the point is the contrast between the way he was treated and the way Bennett and Lawrence were treated for significantly more serious offences. The 2010 Equalities act is also relevant here - you can't sack someone just because they have a (temporary) disability!

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

A final thought I had... the fact that Matt Shrimper got the exclusive on this does make me wonder who has been feeding him all the anti-Derby stories he has been writing over the last 18 months. Mmmmm 🤔

Sounds like a case for Wagatha Christie. Get on to it Coleen!

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

Employment law rightly requires that employees are treated reasonably and fairly. You're focusing on what Keogh did but the point is the contrast between the way he was treated and the way Bennett and Lawrence were treated for fast more serious offences. The 2010 Equalities act is also relevant here - you can't sack someone because they have a temporary disability!

In what way do you think those involved have treated their employer fairly? You speak about their rights; what about their responsibilities?

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

Employment law rightly requires that employees are treated reasonably and fairly. You're focusing on what Keogh did but the point is the contrast between the way he was treated and the way Bennett and Lawrence were treated for significantly more serious offences. The 2010 Equalities act is also relevant here - you can't sack someone just because they have a (temporary) disability!

Can't argue with that, as I know next to nothing about employment law.

Legally, yes, I'd fully agree that the other two acted worse than Keogh, but from an employers perspective... in how it affects their ability to do their job... I'm not so sure!

I'd also like to think that "he was sacked" because he couldn't do the job, not because he was "disabled".  A typist in a wheelchair is not the same as a typist without hands!  A footballer with "broken legs"?  Hmmm!

Either way, I'd like to think that morals alone would have played a bigger part in Keogh's reaction, under the circumstances.  Sadly, it appears not to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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.

 

I hold a completely different view.  He was the captain and the leader of men.  He carries  lot of the blame for that night.  He has shown not a tiny bit of remorse over his involvement.  Turns up the next day for free rehab and expects to earn his full salary despite being unfit for work due to his own behavior.  I expect Mel couldn't stand seeing him 

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

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.

 

Personally, the unfairness of the way the club was treated led to me feeling less of a connection with Keogh.  It just seemed like a totally ruthless way to treat a very good, honourable employer, who had treated him with rightful respect for years, renewing/improving his contract, promoting him to club captain etc, and putting their trust in him, not only as an individual, not only as a public face of the club, but also as "a leader of men". 
This outcome goes a long way towards my dislike of "the system", and "the man", and leaves me with a strong taste of injustice.

Edited by Mucker1884
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.xperthr.co.uk/legal-timetable/employment-tribunal-award-limits-increase/164993/

Employment tribunal award limits increase

Implementation date: 6 April 2020

The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2020 (SI 2020/205) increases the limits applying to various tribunal awards and other amounts payable under employment legislation, including the maximum amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating the basic award for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment, which increases to £538, and the maximum amount of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, which increases to £88,519.

The order applies where the event that gives rise to the entitlement to the payment occurs on or after 6 April 2020.

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

A couple of interesting things in this.

1. Keogh lost his first appeal with the EFL. I don't think that has been reported anywhere else before.

2. Keogh has won this appeal but the Employment Tribunal verdict is that club and Keogh should reach a settlement.

As I understand it, the Tribunal only have powers to award the plaintiff up to £25k. Hence the win for Keogh is kinda hollow. They are just telling both parties to have some common sense and make your own agreement.

So the stuff about (up to) £2m is actually £25k is indeed up to...?! 

The second appeal win could be based on 'process' rather than as everyone here seems to be arguing 'who is right/wrong'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So the stuff about (up to) £2m is actually £25k is indeed up to...?! 

The second appeal win could be based on 'process' rather than as everyone here seems to be arguing 'who is right/wrong'?

The compensation award for unfair dismissal might be limited to £25k but I doubt it would end there as I would think Keogh would then sue the club for breach of contract.

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.