G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: Well i certainly hold it against him sacking Keogh, so did others otherwise he wouldn't have been ordered to pay up his contract in full. This is not Victorian times were you can just simply get rid of someone because they are no longer of use to you. It is if because the reason that they are no longer of use to you is gross misconduct. How would you like having to pay someone £1.5m to do something but they were unable to do because they went and out and did something stupid because they were pissed up? And as far as I am aware, the body that ruled in Keoghs favour are not specilalists in employment law. Edited September 11, 2021 by G STAR RAM GB SPORTS and Oldben 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 58 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: For P&S purposes, once delivered to the EFL? Are you sure ? No, sorry, I meant at Companies House. If we filed our accounts at Companies House and they have been signed off by an Independent Auditor, then I am not sure how The EFL could keep that on our charge sheet. If they wanted to take issue with the accounts or the auditors then they should raise with an appropriate body. Oldben 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 Just now, G STAR RAM said: It is if because the reason that they are no longer of use to you is gross misconduct. How would you like having to pay someone £1.5m to do something but they were unable to do because they went and out and did something stupid because they were pissed up? I don't believe misconduct was proved, that's why players have the PFA behind them He has got a good track record where dismissals are concerned, not. The person who caused the accident should have been dismissed for gross misconduct as well then but because he was still of use to the club he got a slap on the wrist. MM left himself wide open. Dean (hick) Saunders and Deej 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: It is if because the reason that they are no longer of use to you is gross misconduct. How would you like having to pay someone £1.5m to do something but they were unable to do because they went and out and did something stupid because they were pissed up? And as far as I am aware, the body that ruled in Keoghs favour are not specilalists in employment law. Correct - although going through full process should have occurred, before he was sacked but then all of a sudden we find out something else exists where the EFL can decide that they have a totally different appeal system to players getting dismissed from the general population designed to reward stupid footballers. GB SPORTS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Sparkle said: Correct - although going through full process should have occurred, before he was sacked but then all of a sudden we find out something else exists where the EFL can decide that they have a totally different appeal system to players getting dismissed from the general population designed to reward stupid footballers. I am sure that if MM had a solid case for his dismissal the EFL would have found in his favour. It is noticeable that MM didn't contest the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 51 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: I don't believe misconduct was proved, that's why players have the PFA behind them He has got a good track record where dismissals are concerned, not. The person who caused the accident should have been dismissed for gross misconduct as well then but because he was still of use to the club he got a slap on the wrist. MM left himself wide open. The person who caused the accident was still able to fulfil his contract of employment, the other person wasnt and refused to accept amended terms to his contract in line with the duties he would be carrying out. Anyone defending a millionaire footballer in this instance is clearly just anti MM. I notice you didn't answer if you would be happy to pay someone to carry out duties for you that they were unable to fulfil due to their own drunken stupidness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 45 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: I am sure that if MM had a solid case for his dismissal the EFL would have found in his favour. It is noticeable that MM didn't contest the ruling. I mean yeah when the EFL has disagreed with experts before it's always gone really well for them hasnt it? There is the stadium valuation, the amortisation policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: I mean yeah when the EFL has disagreed with experts before it's always gone really well for them hasnt it? There is the stadium valuation, the amortisation policy... Next you will be saying there is a conspiracy against MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: The person who caused the accident was still able to fulfil his contract of employment, the other person wasnt and refused to accept amended terms to his contract in line with the duties he would be carrying out. Anyone defending a millionaire footballer in this instance is clearly just anti MM. I notice you didn't answer if you would be happy to pay someone to carry out duties for you that they were unable to fulfil due to their own drunken stupidness. Why should someone who wasn't responsible for the accident but got injured accept reduced terms of employment when the person who did carried on as normal. Anti MM , i am anti anyone who behaves in such a manner and also more for the fact the way he has managed to almost ruin the club. If you were in someone elses car,had a crash,got injured through no fault of your own then got sacked from work would you not expect to try and get your money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: Next you will be saying there is a conspiracy against MM So no response to the points I raise then? Why would you choose to follow the EFLs word when they have proven that they tend to make poor calls in areas where they have no expertise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: Why should someone who wasn't responsible for the accident but got injured accept reduced terms of employment when the person who did carried on as normal. Anti MM , i am anti anyone who behaves in such a manner and also more for the fact the way he has managed to almost ruin the club. If you were in someone elses car,had a crash,got injured through no fault of your own then got sacked from work would you not expect to try and get your money He was the club captain, on a team bonding day and got in the car of a player that was drunk. Not sure about where you work but in the places where I have worked, employees in positions of responsibility are expected to act as such. If I couldn't work I would get paid SSP, so on this basis I assume you would agree that this is all Keogh should have been paid whilst unable to work? GB SPORTS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: If I couldn't work I would get paid SSP, so on this basis I assume you would agree that this is all Keogh should have been paid whilst unable to work? I think you are aware that comparing footballers fixed term contracts to standard employment rights are two totally different kettles of fishes. By your implications which I know you are aware don't follow then Bielik would have only been paid SSP when he is currently injured as he's also unable to work. The difference with the Keogh case is that Derby tried to impose a variation in Keogh's fixed term contract which he didn't agree to therefore was sacked, and this sacking was later found to be unfair. atherstoneram and Deej 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: I think you are aware that comparing footballers fixed term contracts to standard employment rights are two totally different kettles of fishes. By your implications which I know you are aware don't follow then Bielik would have only been paid SSP when he is currently injured as he's also unable to work. The difference with the Keogh case is that Derby tried to impose a variation in Keogh's fixed term contract which he didn't agree to therefore was sacked, and this sacking was later found to be unfair. And I'm sure you're aware that Bielik picked up his injury carrying out his role as opposed to getting in a drunk persons car. The sacking was later found to be unfair by the EFL...I'm not aware of them having expertise in the employment related field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: And I'm sure you're aware that Bielik picked up his injury carrying out his role as opposed to getting in a drunk persons car. The sacking was later found to be unfair by the EFL...I'm not aware of them having expertise in the employment related field. I don't want to rake over the Keogh case again and am aware that I did bring a comment up regards this on this thread so take responsibility for that.... hindsight being a wonderful thing in retrospect it would have been better for Derby to sack Keogh outright first which they didn't do and instead tried to vary his contract of employment which legally Keogh did not have to accept so then they sacked him. I havent poured over the findings of the EFL as I'm no employment expert either my understanding was that the club didn't follow due protocol in the case but happy to be corrected. Edited September 11, 2021 by Tyler Durden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean (hick) Saunders Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 Tyler Durden, Comrade 86, i-Ram and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: It is if because the reason that they are no longer of use to you is gross misconduct. How would you like having to pay someone £1.5m to do something but they were unable to do because they went and out and did something stupid because they were pissed up? And as far as I am aware, the body that ruled in Keoghs favour are not specilalists in employment law. Keogh was an utter twit for doing what he did but Morris didn’t sack him because of ‘gross misconduct’; he did only went down that route after Keogh refused a much reduced contract. Regardless of the circumstances Morris tried to circumvent established employment norms and ended up costing the club 2.5 million. Another example of his piss poor decision making. atherstoneram, Angry Ram, Tyler Durden and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: And I'm sure you're aware that Bielik picked up his injury carrying out his role as opposed to getting in a drunk persons car. The sacking was later found to be unfair by the EFL...I'm not aware of them having expertise in the employment related field. It would appear MM or his legal team don't either otherwise Keogh wouldn't have received his payoff. Angry Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 11 minutes ago, atherstoneram said: It would appear MM or his legal team don't either otherwise Keogh wouldn't have received his payoff. Has he actually even received a payoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said: Has he actually even received a payoff? Nobody knows it will be hidden behind MM's favourite NDA but for the clubs sake i hope MM has at least entered into some sort of payment plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 6 hours ago, atherstoneram said: I am sure he would, if the EFL can't make any sense of our accounts i don't know how prospective buyers would. I’m sure a prospective buyer will be able to read a P&L and Balance Sheet properly-or seek guidance from advisors that can. ? Maybe it’s the possible lack of clarity surrounding the EFL’s position on Amortisation that is muddying the waters- but that’s only from what we hear. Who knows, maybe this has been made abundantly clear to our Board and we’re looking at ways to “deal” with it?? All the time we hear nothing from MM, it’s all frustrating conjecture! Anyway, anyone for tennis?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now