Long Keogh piece in the Guardian

[Ram-Alf]

8 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

WTF do entitled football players get a biassed kangaroo court?

Another rule for the rich.

Damn those Kangaroo Courts

[Comrade 86]

  

 

 

[ram59]

18 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

Sorry, just that it was meant as I 'it isn't all doom and gloom' post and then got people with daft analogies and missing the gist. I just meant it's not all bad but clearly not a situation anyone wanted.

Cash flow - who knows. The whole situation was ridiculous but FWIW I agree that Keogh should have been sacked. But then so should Lawrence and Mason as whilst they might have had perceived commercial value, in reality, they're both poo. 

You have to look at the whole incident financially, from the club's point of view, bearing in mind the club knew they were right on the limit at the time. Because of this, any morals had to go out the window in exchange for pure financial decisions.

First, you have Keogh, who we HAD to find a replacement for and pay their wages and who had no value. Remember, the club tried to negotiate a reduced contract while he was injured and as they suspected that the injury was career finishing, like we all did, they even offered him a contract for after his playing career was finished.

Then you have Bennett and Lawrence, who were able to play and did have value. Sacking them would have been financial madness. They would have had a much stronger case against the club than Keogh did. We would have let them go to a rival club for nothing and then have to pay the balance of their contracts. 

It is obvious that Bennett was made available for transfer maybe so was Lawrence, but maybe no other club shared Derby's valuation of him.

Personally, I don't see what else the club could/should have done in the circumstances.

[Raich Carter]

15 minutes ago, ram59 said:

You have to look at the whole incident financially, from the club's point of view, bearing in mind the club knew they were right on the limit at the time. Because of this, any morals had to go out the window in exchange for pure financial decisions.

First, you have Keogh, who we HAD to find a replacement for and pay their wages and who had no value. Remember, the club tried to negotiate a reduced contract while he was injured and as they suspected that the injury was career finishing, like we all did, they even offered him a contract for after his playing career was finished.

Then you have Bennett and Lawrence, who were able to play and did have value. Sacking them would have been financial madness. They would have had a much stronger case against the club than Keogh did. We would have let them go to a rival club for nothing and then have to pay the balance of their contracts. 

It is obvious that Bennett was made available for transfer maybe so was Lawrence, but maybe no other club shared Derby's valuation of him.

Personally, I don't see what else the club could/should have done in the circumstances.

I agree actually. But time has shown, IMO, that Bennett nor Lawrence (maybe) were worth losing the Keogh payment for. Plus their own wages of course...

Anyway, feels like we've done this one to death! He's gone. Shame it went a bit sour with Keogh and a bigger shame it cost us so much for something 'we' didn't do wrong but hey, that's the DCFC Soap Opera of the last 5+ years!

[Premier ram]

For Richard Keogh , the EFL, Mel Morris , Steve Gibson , Wycombe Wanderers , Simon Jordan the message is simple Just Duck off the lot of you

[Premier ram]

North America? Thats Keogh on Blackpool beach

[Leeds Ram]

I've not seen all the posts on this so am sorry if am repeating what has already been said. For me, the club firing Keogh but not Lawrence or Bennett was a cynical financial decision that couldn't be defended out of those parameters. All 3 did something extremely stupid and they should either have stuck by all 3 or gotten rid of all 3. You can't fire one person for doing exactly the same thing as the other 2 in my book. 

I liked Keogh as a player and he gave a lot. I don't think it was the right decision to sue the club over his contract and it's all but soured everyone's view of a player who played here for almost a decade. He probably did have a very difficult transition but am not sure what the real point of the piece is...  

[Sparkle]

5 hours ago, ram59 said:

You have to look at the whole incident financially, from the club's point of view, bearing in mind the club knew they were right on the limit at the time. Because of this, any morals had to go out the window in exchange for pure financial decisions.

First, you have Keogh, who we HAD to find a replacement for and pay their wages and who had no value. Remember, the club tried to negotiate a reduced contract while he was injured and as they suspected that the injury was career finishing, like we all did, they even offered him a contract for after his playing career was finished.

Then you have Bennett and Lawrence, who were able to play and did have value. Sacking them would have been financial madness. They would have had a much stronger case against the club than Keogh did. We would have let them go to a rival club for nothing and then have to pay the balance of their contracts. 

It is obvious that Bennett was made available for transfer maybe so was Lawrence, but maybe no other club shared Derby's valuation of him.

Personally, I don't see what else the club could/should have done in the circumstances.

I thought you could sack a player for gross misconduct and still retain the registration for the rest it’s contract so that another team would still have to pay a transfer fee? I may be wrong but isn’t that what happened with Chelsea and Adrian Mutu? Or did Chelsea just sue him for the remainder of his contract?

[Woodypecker]

24 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

All 3 did something extremely stupid and they should either have stuck by all 3 or gotten rid of all 3. You can't fire one person for doing exactly the same thing as the other 2 in my book. 

They didn't all do the same thing, in the law books.

Others were in charge of, and driving vehicles whilst over the drink-drive limit.

They subsequently had convictions, fines, bans, public service orders, so there were clear legal parameters on the record for those prosecutions.

In a sense, they 'paid' for their crimes - whilst (as others have said!) Derby ended up paying for Keogh's misdemeanours, lack of judgement, poor leadership, whatever -  in more ambiguous areas of judgement - and that the EFL process contrived to find in his favour.

Keogh was an average player, a loyal journeyman defender, who only ever held The Brian Clough Trophy in his hand as a Ram.

He's beyond contempt for the impact his neglectful, brainless behaviour caused the club, in financial and squad morale terms overall.

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Woodypecker

[alram]

I think we all see the way Mel operates behind the scenes properly in the dealing with this.

No class and just pure ruthless - the same reason he has run the club in the ground and we face admin or worse to come.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I've not seen all the posts on this so am sorry if am repeating what has already been said. For me, the club firing Keogh but not Lawrence or Bennett was a cynical financial decision that couldn't be defended out of those parameters. All 3 did something extremely stupid and they should either have stuck by all 3 or gotten rid of all 3. You can't fire one person for doing exactly the same thing as the other 2 in my book. 

I liked Keogh as a player and he gave a lot. I don't think it was the right decision to sue the club over his contract and it's all but soured everyone's view of a player who played here for almost a decade. He probably did have a very difficult transition but am not sure what the real point of the piece is...  

I’d say that being treated equally doesn’t mean equal outcomes. Players who were able to fulfil their contractual obligations and play were kept on. Players who were not able to fulfil their contractual obligations through no fault of the club were offered reduced terms but ultimately let go. Dressing up as gross misconduct muddies the water, but as this was only tested in a pretend EFL court, not a proper industrial tribunal, we still don’t know if it was a reasonable position for the club (and Mel) to take. 
 

Personally, I think he’s got his money and his beef is more with Mel than DCFC, so it’d be better if he went away rather than trying to stir up a national press pity party with his compo face and £2m in the week that twenty normal people got made redundant. 

[Raich Carter]

Eh? Are people forgetting that Keogh got himself injured? So they didn't 'all do the same' - Keogh made himself useless to DCFC. The others did a very silly thing but were still capable of playing. 

With regard to Mutu - yes, Chelsea successfully sued him for the £15m.

 

[May Contain Nuts]

36 minutes ago, alram said:

No class and just pure ruthless

Are you sure you're not talking about Keogh?

No class and pure ruthlessness would have been sacking them all (which would be 5 players, not just the main 3), not trying to find a solution to suit the circumstances. Offering someone a reduced wage, free rehabilitation and a chance to make amends to the club, the fans, their teammates etc isn't being classless and ruthless.

No class and ruthlessness is taking an offer (one which in reality was more generous than anyone should expect given their actions) -  playing the martyr about how you feel pressured into accepting it, laughingly complaining that it "didn't feel like a negotiation" (it bloody well shouldn't have been you entitled berk!)  - rejecting it and effectively suing the person who put it in front of you because you see an opportunity to make some money.

No class and ruthlessness is taking that money whilst the club you profess to love is in administration and people on a normal wage (still less than you would have been offered) are losing their jobs.

No class and ruthlessness is never accepting any culpability for your actions, never apologising to anyone.

Some call Rowett The Snake, but Keogh & his agent are lower than a snake's belly.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

I’d say that being treated equally doesn’t mean equal outcomes. Players who were able to fulfil their contractual obligations and play were kept on. Players who were not able to fulfil their contractual obligations through no fault of the club were offered reduced terms but ultimately let go. Dressing up as gross misconduct muddies the water, but as this was only tested in a pretend EFL court, not a proper industrial tribunal, we still don’t know if it was a reasonable position for the club (and Mel) to take. 
 

Personally, I think he’s got his money and his beef is more with Mel than DCFC, so it’d be better if he went away rather than trying to stir up a national press pity party with his compo face and £2m in the week that twenty normal people got made redundant. 

Exactly. If Lawrence had killed someone when he went off the road he would have gone to jail and lost his job. He would have suffered for the consequence sof his actions.  Keogh injured himself so suffered the consequences of his actions.. he cannot expect Derby to compensate him for that... although according to Percy he has been.

[Leeds Ram]

17 hours ago, Woodypecker said:

They didn't all do the same thing, in the law books.

Others were in charge of, and driving vehicles whilst over the drink-drive limit.

They subsequently had convictions, fines, bans, public service orders, so there were clear legal parameters on the record for those prosecutions.

In a sense, they 'paid' for their crimes - whilst (as others have said!) Derby ended up paying for Keogh's misdemeanours, lack of judgement, poor leadership, whatever -  in more ambiguous areas of judgement - and that the EFL process contrived to find in his favour.

Keogh was an average player, a loyal journeyman defender, who only ever held The Brian Clough Trophy in his hand as a Ram.

He's beyond contempt for the impact his neglectful, brainless behaviour caused the club, in financial and squad morale terms overall.

 

 

 

If you want to go down the route that they didn't do the same thing legally then Keogh has an even bigger right to feel he's been hard done by the club.  He was merely a passenger not the driver. Lawrence and Bennett may have shown contrition and received small punishments (no jail time for example) but they certainly had committed the worst behaviour out of the 3. The idea the club didn't terminate their contracts because they received a driving ban and did some community service is laughable. 

Keogh was a very good second division defender who came within 90 minutes of helping us get promoted twice and he's one of the best ball carrying cb's I've seen play for Derby in the last 20 years. I'm honestly unsure why because his happened suddenly he's a bog standard defender when he wasn't. 

Yes he made a mistake, I think one of the interesting things to come out of that article was that the incident happened a very short time after someone close to him passed away. Speaking from experience, he could have just been walking through a 'fog' and not really been noticing much. 

[Leeds Ram]

17 hours ago, Indy said:

I’d say that being treated equally doesn’t mean equal outcomes. Players who were able to fulfil their contractual obligations and play were kept on. Players who were not able to fulfil their contractual obligations through no fault of the club were offered reduced terms but ultimately let go. Dressing up as gross misconduct muddies the water, but as this was only tested in a pretend EFL court, not a proper industrial tribunal, we still don’t know if it was a reasonable position for the club (and Mel) to take. 
 

Personally, I think he’s got his money and his beef is more with Mel than DCFC, so it’d be better if he went away rather than trying to stir up a national press pity party with his compo face and £2m in the week that twenty normal people got made redundant. 

No a lot of the time it doesn't mean 'equal outcomes' but it's pretty hard justifying punishing someone more harshly when they've committed a lesser offence than the two you've essentially stood by. So for example, if a fight broke out at school the school might not punish everyone equally. They'd punish the two in the fight because they physically hurt each other so maybe they'd get suspended. If someone was a ringleader they'd get put in isolation and the watchers on would maybe get told off in an assembly. 

I understand the point about outcomes i.e., he was unable to fulfil his contract. The crux then comes down to intent and responsibility to determine punishment. So Keogh obviously had no intent to get in a car crash so we can dispense with that quite quickly. The question of responsibility is critical though. His responsibility isn't as high as Lawrence's or Bennett's who were driving drunk and thus caused the incident (and can arguably be held almost entirely responsible for Keogh's injury).

Keogh's responsibility hinges on getting into the car and not wearing a seat belt. On not wearing the seat belt, it's something we should do but often in the back seat from my experience people especially in taxi's or late night drives from the pub don't wear them. I'm not sure I'd be saying someone should be losing their contract because of a mistake of that nature that is quite common after-all. On the question of getting in, this hinges on what he knew about Lawrence and the alternatives available. None of us can really comment on that as we've been given conflicting stories. 

  

Edited October 5, 2021 by Leeds Ram

[RoyMac5]

42 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Keogh's responsibility hinges on getting into the car and not wearing a seat belt. On not wearing the seat belt, it's something we should do but often in the back seat from my experience people especially in taxi's or late night drives from the pub don't wear them. I'm not sure I'd be saying someone should be losing their contract because of a mistake of that nature that is quite common after-all. On the question of getting in, this hinges on what he knew about Lawrence and the alternatives available. None of us can really comment on that as we've been given conflicting stories. 

  

He's perfectly able to call for a taxi, or have one called for him, like the rest of us do after a long night in the pub with our mates!

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

If you want to go down the route that they didn't do the same thing legally then Keogh has an even bigger right to feel he's been hard done by the club.  He was merely a passenger not the driver. Lawrence and Bennett may have shown contrition and received small punishments (no jail time for example) but they certainly had committed the worst behaviour out of the 3. The idea the club didn't terminate their contracts because they received a driving ban and did some community service is laughable. 

Keogh was our Captain, Some one who should be concidered a leader of men, One who conducts himself with honesty and integrity on and off the pitch, He failed in the above off field, He was there at the Joiners, He contributed to the drinking, He got into a 4x4 knowing/not knowing that the driver was Tom Lawrence as he hadn't been with him, He failed to use his seatbelt, He alledgedly left the 4x4 hobbling then decided to go back, He was woken by the Paramedics and told he'd been in a RTA

Keogh was a very good second division defender who came within 90 minutes of helping us get promoted twice and he's one of the best ball carrying cb's I've seen play for Derby in the last 20 years. I'm honestly unsure why because his happened suddenly he's a bog standard defender when he wasn't.

Keogh was a decent CB, I've seen better, I've seen worse, What his failing was/is there is always a mistake in him that costs points or contributing to promotion, Being 90mins from promotion twice is just as bad as losing a raffle when only 2 tickets were sold, He lost twice, People scale mount Everest only to fail at the last hurdle, It shows at the end of the day Keogh was/is a nearly man...nowt else.

Yes he made a mistake, I think one of the interesting things to come out of that article was that the incident happened a very short time after someone close to him passed away. Speaking from experience, he could have just been walking through a 'fog' and not really been noticing much. 

His Nan passed, Just like Lawrences Mother passed and Lawrence took to drink, Maybe Keoghs emotions on the night warrented a few alcoholic drinks to help with his state of mind.

If i'd taken to drink after the death of My Father, Mother, 3 Sisters and a Brother this last 20 years my liver would be in the Royal London Hospital next to John Merricks remains.

 

[MuespachRam]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

If you want to go down the route that they didn't do the same thing legally then Keogh has an even bigger right to feel he's been hard done by the club.  He was merely a passenger not the driver. Lawrence and Bennett may have shown contrition and received small punishments (no jail time for example) but they certainly had committed the worst behaviour out of the 3. The idea the club didn't terminate their contracts because they received a driving ban and did some community service is laughable. 

Keogh was a very good second division defender who came within 90 minutes of helping us get promoted twice and he's one of the best ball carrying cb's I've seen play for Derby in the last 20 years. I'm honestly unsure why because his happened suddenly he's a bog standard defender when he wasn't. 

Yes he made a mistake, I think one of the interesting things to come out of that article was that the incident happened a very short time after someone close to him passed away. Speaking from experience, he could have just been walking through a 'fog' and not really been noticing much. 

Someone close to him…? But not someone that close that he doesn’t even go to see them as they are on their death bed, just smacks as yet another tasteless, classless lie.?

[Sparkle]

20 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

Eh? Are people forgetting that Keogh got himself injured? So they didn't 'all do the same' - Keogh made himself useless to DCFC. The others did a very silly thing but were still capable of playing. 

With regard to Mutu - yes, Chelsea successfully sued him for the £15m.

 

Somewhat surprising that MM hasn’t gone after Keogh for those wages paid whilst missing due to the incident in a court of law as I suspect he would win.