Jump to content

Keogh


Sean

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

But I can’t see how, if that was the case, Keogh has won the case in an employment tribunal.

The employment tribunal isn't about the 'merit' of Keoghs case it is about the 'process' of whether he was unfairly dismissed. The two topics are separate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a good start for him at Huddersfield. 1 down in 5 minutes to a Scott Malone goal !

Playing in a back 3 which I'm not sure will suit him to be honest, especially if sides target the space in behind high full backs and get against him with trickery and pace. 

Regards

Gangway D from the terrace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The employment tribunal isn't about the 'merit' of Keoghs case it is about the 'process' of whether he was unfairly dismissed. The two topics are separate things.

That’s just making me more confused ? Can’t see how the merit of his case and being unfairly dismissed are any sort of different argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

That’s just making me more confused ? Can’t see how the merit of his case and being unfairly dismissed are any sort of different argument.

It's the equivalent of a criminal case being dismissed on a technicality. A case can be dismissed without ever getting to hear the actual evidence if the process is not followed correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

It's the equivalent of a criminal case being dismissed on a technicality. A case can be dismissed without ever getting to hear the actual evidence if the process is not followed correctly.

Ah right, so effectively they’re saying we didn’t follow the process correctly when we dismissed him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I’m not an expert on contract law, but if we dismissed him for misconduct, it doesn’t feel to me like we could bring the injury into things. Maybe I’m wrong, but I struggle to see how you can have 3 players involved in similar misdemeanours, and choose to only sack one because he was unlucky enough to get injured, while the other two were fine. That feels like inconsistent punishment to me. Maybe that sort of treatment is allowed within contract law, I don’t know, might be harsher than I’m imagining!

I mean, I could see the argument if it’s written in his contract that if he gets injured outside football and can’t play anymore, we’re entitled to dismiss him without compensation. But I can’t see how, if that was the case, Keogh has won the case in an employment tribunal. You wouldn’t think he’d have a leg to stand on, so I assume that isn’t the case. There must be a reason why he won the initial hearing, I’d be interested to hear what his defence was to be honest.

Who knows, honestly?

Maybe the fact his judgement was impaired through alcohol goes in his favour and lessens his culpability for his injury in the eyes of the law?

Maybe our offer to reduce his terms for the remainder of his contract weakened our case for dismissal?

One day, when everyone is far removed from the situation, we'll probably learn the truth, I'd wager Keogh's teammates involved will back him to the hilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rev said:

Who knows, honestly?

Maybe the fact his judgement was impaired through alcohol goes in his favour and lessens his culpability for his injury in the eyes of the law?

Maybe our offer to reduce his terms for the remainder of his contract weakened our case for dismissal?

One day, when everyone is far removed from the situation, we'll probably learn the truth, I'd wager Keogh's teammates involved will back him to the hilt.

Not so sure about the first point, but the second one definitely seems a possibility. Do wonder whether we’ll ever learn the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

I would imagine there will be some kind of non disclosure agreement the club will insist on as part of any settlement making it difficult for fans to get anywhere near finding out what really happened.

I can’t see us paying up. We can’t even afford to pay our own players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2021 at 23:53, 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

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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 

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. 

Link to comment
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...