Jump to content

Long Keogh piece in the Guardian


ariotofmyown

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

Except we had to sign another player to replace him, and would have had to do so even if we hadn't sacked him. So I could easily argue that Keogh cost us between £0.75m -1.50m over the remainder of his contract in additional wages alone. 

That's a good point and obviously true but that bit is entirely Keogh's fault as he's the one that got himself injured by making silly choices. Even if we disagree with that aspect (i.e. accidents happen, etc), it's certainly not the clubs fault that he got injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2021 at 21:25, RoyMac5 said:

Read the stuff he says - and then think of ALL the things that aren't mentioned. "Then came the ill-fated decision. Keogh had missed his lift home..." ? Jack-a-bloody-nory.

No mention of taxis, seatbelts, him being captain - the player he doesn't name (a v young player!), etc etc

 

Am I right in thinking the young player was Buchanan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, angieram said:

For the umpteenth time, it wasn't a court of law. It was the EFL Players Related Dispute Commission,  where Keogh referred it after his appeal to the EFL had originally failed.

If he had taken it to an independent industrial tribunal, that would have failed too. 

 

Glad you said that Angie I am fed up of saying it to all i meet in person or on SM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

I funnily enough injured myself while playing football. I was informed by my employer that I wasn't eligible for company sick pay, as it was deemed a self inflicted injury, has per the terms of my contract of employment.

I'd give Gordon Taylor a bell mate. You'll be a multimillionaire within a couple of months. 

Ole Gordon wouldn't let small issues of morality, general good, or egregious greed get in the way of helping out a player of the beautiful game.... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

How was employment laws circumvented. If Keogh had been injured while fulfilling  the terms of his contract, then he would have expected to receive his wages. But he in all intents and purpose sustained an injury that was self inflicted, I funnily enough injured myself while playing football. I was informed by my employer that I wasn't eligible for company sick pay, as it was deemed a self inflicted injury, has per the terms of my contract of employment.

Your case seems a bit harsh, Keogh's case at the opposite end of the scale of generosity. I mean EFL were very very generous with Derby's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

Not sure if it’s been said or not but the pay out was just the money Keogh would have been paid if we hadn’t sacked him so not sure it’s quite as bad as some think.

That’s like paying on line for your groceries and then not getting any groceries ??‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ramarena said:

In the week that the club had to make a number of local people redundant, we need to spare a thought for poor Richard Keogh.

Poor guy goes to the pub after a club event, didn’t really drink anything, probably made a couple of huge donations to charity, also probably saved some drowning puppies and helped an old lady cross the road!

He then wakes up injured in a crashed car, through absolutely no fault of his own!

Then the club outrageously sacks him.……..Awful!

He’s the real victim here!

Jesus H Christ!  What is it with folk still trying to defend him, like he is some kind of saint!

It was one drowning puppy, for crying out loud!  JUST ONE!

... And a mongrel at that!  Not even a cute one!   Jeez!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Foreveram said:

That’s like paying on line for your groceries and then not getting any groceries ??‍♂️

You're not understanding me. If we hadn't have sacked Keogh then we'd have still been paying his wages anyway - i.e. we were already committed to it. The paying for groceries analogy does not apply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

You're not understanding me. If we hadn't have sacked Keogh then we'd have still been paying his wages anyway - i.e. we were already committed to it. The paying for groceries analogy does not apply. 

It's like paying £30 a month phone contract, vs paying £720 for the whole 2 year contract up front. Our cash flow is what's caused us our current disastrous situation, so it cost us dearly, I'd say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's like paying £30 a month phone contract, vs paying £720 for the whole 2 year contract up front. Our cash flow is what's caused us our current disastrous situation, so it cost us dearly, I'd say. 

Except if we had paid his wages since 2019 our cash flow would have been worse than if we had to pay him in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

It's like paying £30 a month phone contract, vs paying £720 for the whole 2 year contract up front. Our cash flow is what's caused us our current disastrous situation, so it cost us dearly, I'd say. 

You’re not getting it. We were already committed to paying his wages regardless of the accident. We sacked him so we did t have to do that but the tribunal said we needed to pay him the money as per his contract. Hence why I say, apart from having to finance a replacement, we’ve simply paid him the money he’s have earned had he not been injured. 
 

it really isn’t that complicated. Wish I hadn’t bothered. 
 

and cash flow wasn’t an issue then. If Mel hadn’t have paid it to Keogh he undoubtedlywould have spent it on something else. 

Edited by Raich Carter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

You’re not getting it. We were already committed to paying his wages regardless of the accident. We sacked him so we did t have to do that but the tribunal said we needed to pay him the money as per his contract. Hence why I say, apart from having to finance a replacement, we’ve simply paid him the money he’s have earned had he not been injured. 
 

it really isn’t that complicated. Wish I hadn’t bothered. 
 

and cash flow wasn’t an issue then. If Mel hadn’t have paid it to Keogh he undoubtedlywould have spent it on something else. 

Apologies for not realising we weren't being expected to pay him up in one go. Not sure why you're taking it so personally though. 

I don't agree cash flow wasn't an issue though. This hasn't suddenly started now. 

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...