Long Keogh piece in the Guardian

[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.

[atherstoneram]

On 03/10/2021 at 08:55, Unlucky Alf said:

1st Paragraph...spot on

2nd Paragraph i'll take issue with, We all know what happened so i'll not regurgitate it all again, MM sacked him for gross misconduct and rightly so imo...as an ex Senior Union Official for Unite, I've had dealings with people where lesser incidents have been dismissed...one for acctually being drunk in the workplace, Sacked for gross misconduct, It was taken to the outside officials who looked at the case, Paperwork sent to our Solicitors and on Solicitors advice it was...not to Procede with the case

For us mere motals if we are dismissed for Gross misconduct we seek legal advice and if we have a case it's taken on, Keogh sought to appeal to an authority that we are unable to use, I never knew of their existance and don't know who or how those who saw in Keoghs favour what legal qualifications they have.

The 24-year-old defender brought a breach of contract case against the club to the EFL’s Player Related Dispute Commission [PRDC] after his dismissal, and initially won a full payout.

But after Derby contested the decision, the League Appeals’ Committee [LAC] has upheld the verdict.

An EFL statement read: "The LAC has heard and dismissed an appeal under the regulations of the EFL by Derby against the decision of the PRDC in the case of Richard Keogh. The PDRC held that Mr Keogh had not committed gross misconduct, that he had not brought the club into serious disrepute and that he had been wrongly dismissed by the club."

The Players Union would be with him, He'd of had some very good legal representatives as would DCFC, I guess Lawrence should be thankfull that only a Lampost was killed and not a Person.

     FTFY

 

 

[Crewton]

Sacking Lawrence and Bennett would have been fine (though might well have led to additional tribunals and payouts) if there was going to be a moritorium on any other club signing them. Since there was no chance of that happening, I can understand the club taking the decision only to fine them up to the maximum allowed in their contracts.

One other thing that puzzles me : if the Tribunal decided that Keogh was unfairly dismissed (and that his contract, accordingly, was still valid and should be paid up in full) why wasn't the award reduced by a commensurate amount when he signed for MK Dons and started earning under a new Contract?

[GboroRam]

5 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

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. 


  

The school analogy doesn't work because we're not a school. We're not trying to instill morals into these people. They are adults and they can do what they want, but have to accept the results of their actions.

It's not fair to punish least involved the harshest. But sometimes, life isn't fair. Keogh got hurt for no other reason than he made a bad decision to get into that car, but that was his decision to make. 

If it was my decision, I would immediately have announced all 3 are available to leave the club. And welcomed offers for the lot of them. But commercially, it was decided to work on economic grounds first and foremost, which meant Keogh was in the crosshairs. I fully understand why, even if I might not have approved personally.

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

The school analogy doesn't work because we're not a school. We're not trying to instill morals into these people. They are adults and they can do what they want, but have to accept the results of their actions.

It's not fair to punish least involved the harshest. But sometimes, life isn't fair. Keogh got hurt for no other reason than he made a bad decision to get into that car, but that was his decision to make. 

If it was my decision, I would immediately have announced all 3 are available to leave the club. And welcomed offers for the lot of them. But commercially, it was decided to work on economic grounds first and foremost, which meant Keogh was in the crosshairs. I fully understand why, even if I might not have approved personally.

The school analogy was not meant to be a discussion on autonomy so much but rather the relationship between punishment and actions. It's difficult to argue that someone who committed a much less grievous offence than someone else deserves a much bigger punishment at best it's a paradoxical thought that doesn't sit well. 

I understand the fact he got injured therefore he put himself in the crosshairs of the club and the fact he had a lucrative contract made it much easier for the club to get rid of him. Personally, like you I'd have been happy to ship out all 3 of them and then no-one could have complained. 

[Leeds Ram]

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

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!

As I said this hinges on what he knew about lawrence. If he knew he was drunk then he bears a good bit of the responsibility. I agree with the point that no matter what I'd have been calling a cab though. 

[RoyMac5]

10 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

As I said this hinges on what he knew about lawrence. If he knew he was drunk then he bears a good bit of the responsibility. I agree with the point that no matter what I'd have been calling a cab though. 

Sorry but if he'd been in the pub with Lawrence all evening and watched the Bennett episode, then it would be better to have got a taxi. But as he got into the car he should have put his seatbelt on. I imagine he was 'bladdered' as he admitted to being drunk in the article. Else why else would he identify himself as Alfie to the paramedic?! 

[atherstoneram]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Sorry but if he'd been in the pub with Lawrence all evening and watched the Bennett episode, then it would be better to have got a taxi. But as he got into the car he should have put his seatbelt on. I imagine he was 'bladdered' as he admitted to being drunk in the article. Else why else would he identify himself as Alfie to the paramedic?! 

Because he couldn't say Richard, Alfie rolls off the tongue better.

[GboroRam]

21 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

The school analogy was not meant to be a discussion on autonomy so much but rather the relationship between punishment and actions. It's difficult to argue that someone who committed a much less grievous offence than someone else deserves a much bigger punishment at best it's a paradoxical thought that doesn't sit well. 

I understand the fact he got injured therefore he put himself in the crosshairs of the club and the fact he had a lucrative contract made it much easier for the club to get rid of him. Personally, like you I'd have been happy to ship out all 3 of them and then no-one could have complained. 

I'm arguing the opposite. In a classroom, it's important to show fairness, because we're trying to instil a moral code into young impressionable minds. Here, the world's not fair. I don't find it difficult to argue that the punishments aren't similar based on culpability. This is the real world and life ain't fair like that. 

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Because he couldn't say Richard, Alfie rolls off the tongue better.

He could have just shortened his own name...

[atherstoneram]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

He could have just shortened his own name...

Ernie (err knee) would have been better

[Leeds Ram]

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I'm arguing the opposite. In a classroom, it's important to show fairness, because we're trying to instil a moral code into young impressionable minds. Here, the world's not fair. I don't find it difficult to argue that the punishments aren't similar based on culpability. This is the real world and life ain't fair like that. 

Ahh right sorry my bad Gboro ? I guess we're looking at it from 2 differing perspectives. 

[Mostyn6]

[Crewton]

I saw this advert, and thought of Rich ?