Jump to content

Richard Keogh


DarkFruitsRam7

Richard Keogh - How Will You React?  

215 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, nottingram said:

May have had some more sympathy for his position until his fabricated woe is me story came out the week 20 people lost their jobs at the football club, no doubt in part because he was insistent on getting his cash that he obviously so badly needed.

Indeed.

The death of Lawrence's mum was a key factor in the habits he developed and the actions he took. He accepted his punishment as did Bennett (although I don't really have any time for that scrote). It was a valid reason why sacking him may have been unjust. 

I suppose the people who would have happily seen them all sacked (3 senior players plus two youth players)  because it was 'even punishment for all' would also have happily sacked Jake Livermore for developing a drug problem following the death of his young daughter.

In Keogh's sob story it just felt like he'd seen this and been told to mention his grandma passing away in order to gain some sympathy. Maybe that's just me being cynical, but that's how it felt when combined with his absolute lack of contrition.

Edited by Coconut's Beard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom still had a value to the club Keogh did not with the length of his contract and the nature of his injury, Tom could still play however i would have sold him.

How Keogh could have won that claim who knows, if it had happened on the field of play he would have been looked after, for which Derby did offering him a reduction in wage for a self inflicted injury.

Russell Hoult goalkeeper was sacked by Derby will not mention what he was accused of, WBA took him on and he also won a England  cap so sacking him on principal cost the club a decent transfer fee.

Keogh boo him for 90 mins a total disgrace to the club, if you wish to be nasty sing Grandma, however doubt he would register what its about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SirBrian said:

Russell Hoult goalkeeper was sacked by Derby will not mention what he was accused of, WBA took him on and he also won a England  cap so sacking him on principal cost the club a decent transfer fee.

Keogh boo him for 90 mins a total disgrace to the club, if you wish to be nasty sing Grandma, however doubt he would register what its about

The same as Micheal Dunford ?

Edited by Unlucky Alf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eric the half a ram said:

I think it would be brilliant if when his name was read out prior to the game and for his every touch there was complete silence from the fans! I think he would feed off either the anger of applause of the home fans, so frosty silence is best and would probably confuse him!! 

No one likes to be ignored, so ignore him!! ?

Ignore who??‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rampant said:

 He didn't commit a criminal offence and was clearly entitled to pursue a claim for unfair dismissal after we retained the services of those who did break the law.

 

With me being an Ex Union Official I fully agree, Then i'd tell him to move on and start again, But no! he or someone wanted to tell his story...it's this that sticks in many peoples throats

Edited by Unlucky Alf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SouthStandDan said:

If the fans can forgive and cheer Tom Lawrence for being a massive idiot, I'm not sure why Keogh deserves to be universally booed.

It's very obvious isn't it? Keogh sued our already financially troubled club for a large amount of money. Why on earth would any Derby fan not boo him for that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's very obvious isn't it? Keogh sued our already financially troubled club for a large amount of money. Why on earth would any Derby fan not boo him for that? 

What would you do in his position? Why would you blame him for being wrongly sacked? The financial troubles aren't Keogh's fault. If you're booing him for the Joiners incident then fine, but he was found wrongly sacked at a tribunal. The club (Mel) should be booed for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SirBrian said:

Tom still had a value to the club Keogh did not with the length of his contract and the nature of his injury, Tom could still play however i would have sold him.

How Keogh could have won that claim who knows, if it had happened on the field of play he would have been looked after, for which Derby did offering him a reduction in wage for a self inflicted injury.

Russell Hoult goalkeeper was sacked by Derby will not mention what he was accused of, WBA took him on and he also won a England  cap so sacking him on principal cost the club a decent transfer fee.

Keogh boo him for 90 mins a total disgrace to the club, if you wish to be nasty sing Grandma, however doubt he would register what its about

Because he was found by the PRDC not to have been guilty of committing gross misconduct and also not bringing the club into serious disrepute. This judgement was subsequently upheld by the LAC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

What would you do in his position? Why would you blame him for being wrongly sacked? The financial troubles aren't Keogh's fault. If you're booing him for the Joiners incident then fine, but he was found wrongly sacked at a tribunal. The club (Mel) should be booed for that.

Don't conflate the issues, Keogh is more than entitled to claim his money. Why would any Derby fan support him for doing that though? 

He's entitled to do it, I'm entitled to think he's a banker for doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

What would you do in his position? Why would you blame him for being wrongly sacked? The financial troubles aren't Keogh's fault. If you're booing him for the Joiners incident then fine, but he was found wrongly sacked at a tribunal. The club (Mel) should be booed for that.

Boo him for not wearing a seatbelt - a criminal offence? But anyway it led to him being unable to play for the club paying his wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Boo him for not wearing a seatbelt - a criminal offence? But anyway it led to him being unable to play for the club paying his wages.

Boo him for not wearing a seatbelt, that's fine. But I don't understand why anyone would boo him for being unfairly sacked. I think it's obvious he didn't deserve to be sacked and Mel probably knew this as well. It was a desperate attempt to reduce costs which backfired. Plus we would have got half a season of Keogh playing as he came back from injury early, if Mel hadn't sacked him. People have an idealistic view of footballers "representing" clubs, but in reality it's no different from any other employer/employee situation, and Keogh had a contract which Mel broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's very obvious isn't it? Keogh sued our already financially troubled club for a large amount of money. Why on earth would any Derby fan not boo him for that? 

Because our poohouse of a former owner enabled him to sue us by not following employment norms and thinking he could act how the hell he liked. If you had been Keogh and had been treated in that manner you would have done exactly the same as he did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It's very obvious isn't it? Keogh sued our already financially troubled club for a large amount of money. Why on earth would any Derby fan not boo him for that? 

He sued the club for monies that were incorrectly withheld from him as he was unfairly sacked. If the club had followed due process then the whole issue wouldn't have arisen at all which is again down to the stewardship at the club. 

I'm not condoning his behaviour for avoidance of doubt I'm just illustrating that his sacking was dealt by the club in another cowboy manner and was correctly found to be unfair - how on earth you can think you can sack a player for not committing a criminal offence so therefore not gross misconduct but then retain the services of two players who did commit criminal offences is mind bogglingly crass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jayram said:

Because our poohouse of a former owner enabled him to sue us by not following employment norms and thinking he could act how the hell he liked. If you had been Keogh and had been treated in that manner you would have done exactly the same as he did. 

Yes, I would have done the same as Keogh. That isn't really the point, if I had been in Keogh's situation and had done the same as he had done, I would also accept that most fans would hate me for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...