Richard Keogh

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

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. 

Again, I'm not debating whether he had a legal right to the money or not, I don't care one way or another. I understand why he would do it. I just don't like him for it, and both things can simultaneously exist. 

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, Andicis said:

Again, I'm not debating whether he had a legal right to the money or not, I don't care one way or another. I understand why he would do it. I just don't like him for it, and both things can simultaneously exist. 

I understand that. Maybe save your hate for the person at the club who thought they could do what they like and run roughshod over UK Employment Law without any comeback. 

Naive at the best, crass at the worst. 

 

[jimtastic56]

I find it hard to be Keogh’s judge and jury. I think we only know 1/10 of what happened on the Joiners night. There are all sorts of rumours about players from other clubs and drinks being spiked. We will just have to wait for the book.

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes 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. 

No employment tribunal would have upheld Keogh's claim.Not only are players massivley overpaid they also have protections that us lesser mortals do not have.

 

But you may be right there are probably very few of us who would have not claimed £2m if we knew the players unions would support us. That doesn't make it right though.

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by PistoldPete

[Foreveram]

4 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

I find it hard to be Keogh’s judge and jury. I think we only know 1/10 of what happened on the Joiners night. There are all sorts of rumours about players from other clubs and drinks being spiked. We will just have to wait for the book.

Still waiting for the one that billy said would reveal all.

[Tyler Durden]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

No employment tribunal would have upheld Keogh's claim.Not only are players massivley overpaid they also have protections that us lesser mortals do not have.

 

But you may be right there are probably very few of us who would have not claimed £2m if we knew the players unions would support us. That doesn't make it right though.

 

Ummmm bold opening statement, am curious what makes you so certain of this?

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Ummmm bold opening statement, am curious what makes you so certain of this?

Many reasons. But the first question to ask is why was the reasoning for the judgment not published? Employmnet tribunal rulings always are. SO there is a lack of transparency.

Also there are limits on what normal employmnet tribunals can pay out, so maximum excluding discrimination claims is about £80k. Well it turns out that footballers tribunals do not apply those rules either. You get my drift.

 

 

[May Contain Nuts]

46 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.

Accept a lower wage while I was out of action because of my own lack of care for my own physical condition. Be thankful that my employer didn't take a far harsher route in dealing with me.

Work hard to to regain the trust of the people who'd employed be for many years despite me making high profile mistakes which cost my employer tens of millions.

Recognise that while I was unfortunate to only 1 of 5 injured in a completely unavoidable incident, it's tough luck, life isn't fair.

Same as most of us, unless we're entitled dheads with an inflated sense of self worth.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Chester40]

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Again, I'm not debating whether he had a legal right to the money or not, I don't care one way or another. I understand why he would do it. I just don't like him for it, and both things can simultaneously exist. 

I agree with your thinking. 

Also for me, eg if someone wasn't concentrating whilst driving and ran me over... I wouldn't necessarily think they were 'evil', but I reserve the right to intensely dislike them for it. Even if I havent concentrated whilst driving myself occasionally.

Intentions arent necessarily as important as the result of the action.  His stupidity resulted in him missing a season of football and thinking he should be rewarded by getting paid for doing nothing. Legally he may be right but morally I vigorously disagree he deserved £2million for nothing! The fact he squeezed it out of us whilst we are on our knees and then released some painful sob story to explain why he was mistreated means I'd happily boo to his face if given the opportunity. 

[Crewton]

I'll forgive him for not behaving like a Captain should (in my opinion) when he actually says sorry to the fans for his role in the events of that evening (which he hasn't, as far as I am aware).

I ain't booing him, but I wouldn't p*** on him if he was on fire.

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Many reasons. But the first question to ask is why was the reasoning for the judgment not published? Employmnet tribunal rulings always are. SO there is a lack of transparency.

Also there are limits on what normal employmnet tribunals can pay out, so maximum excluding discrimination claims is about £80k. Well it turns out that footballers tribunals do not apply those rules either. You get my drift.

 

 

There's a huge difference that you're not recognising - footballers are on fixed term contracts so if the contract wants to be terminated by the employer then they either have to have the agreement of the employee, pay off the remainder of the contract or prove that the employee breached the contract.

What Morris tried to do was illegally vary Keoghs fixed term contract by forcing him to take a pay cut which Keogh then refused and was subsequently sacked. 

Keogh won the unfair dismissal case as he wasn't guilty of an act of gross misconduct so there the termination of his fixed contract was unfair.

An employment tribunal for a standard employment case would have come to the same conclusion and the unfair dismissal upheld for exactly the same reasons - Keogh was not guilty of gross misconduct. 

[May Contain Nuts]

35 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

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. 

He sued the club for money's which only a brazenly arrogant nob would think he was entitled to.

35 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'm not condoning his behaviour

Yes, you are. Not for the incident itself but everything post incident.

35 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'm just illustrating that his sacking was dealt by the club in another cowboy manner and was correctly found to be unfair

Unfair according to some ******** procedure which takes nothing into account other than 'equality' but equally doesn't seem to recognise that when asked what equality means, the answer of "treating everyone the same" is schoolboy levels of wrong, and the correct answer is 'treating people according to their circumstances'

As always though bully for you, technically the club was in the wrong, so that's all that matters. duck morals.

It's OK to say 'tough poo' towards the club but Keeooooogh must never suffer the indignity of being responsive for his own actions otherwise he's just being picked on..

Edited December 10, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Tyler Durden]

3 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

He sued the club for money's which only a brazenly arrogant nob would think he was entitled to.

Yes, you are.

Unfair according to some ******** procedure which takes nothing into account other than 'equality' but equally doesn't seem to recognise that when asked what equality means, the answer of "treating everyone the same" is schoolboy levels of wrong, and the correct answer is 'treating people according to their circumstances'

As always though bully for you, technically the club was in the wrong, so that's all that matters. duck morals.

If he was unfairly dismissed why wouldn't he be entitled to the money or anyone else for that matter.

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

There's a huge difference that you're not recognising - footballers are on fixed term contracts so if the contract wants to be terminated by the employer then they either have to have the agreement of the employee, pay off the remainder of the contract or prove that the employee breached the contract.

What Morris tried to do was illegally vary Keoghs fixed term contract by forcing him to take a pay cut which Keogh then refused and was subsequently sacked. 

Keogh won the unfair dismissal case as he wasn't guilty of an act of gross misconduct so there the termination of his fixed contract was unfair.

An employment tribunal for a standard employment case would have come to the same conclusion and the unfair dismissal upheld for exactly the same reasons - Keogh was not guilty of gross misconduct. 

Maximum payout for breach of contract at emplyoment tribunal  is £25k.

A footballer gets £2m payout because it's a football tribunal. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Should a footballer who gets such rewards and protections not be subject to higher standards of care for his own health and safety? Not get pissed up , get into a car driven by someone he knew was drinking also , not wear a seat belt, and then get himself injured as a result? Is that too much to ask of a professional footballer? Leave alone a club captain?  

 

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Maximum payout for breach of contract at emplyoment tribunal  is £25k.

A footballer gets £2m payout because it's a football tribunal. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Should a footballer who gets such rewards and protections not be subject to higher standards of care for his own health and safety? Not get pissed up , get into a car driven by someone he knew was drinking also , not wear a seat belt, and then get himself injured as a result? Is that too much to ask of a professional footballer? Leave alone a club captain?  

 

Whether it's fair or not it immaterial. 

Getting pissed up isn't an act of gross misconduct. Neither is not wearing a seatbelt. And so on. 

Keogh could have been subjected to the club's internal disciplinary procedures for conduct unbecoming of a club captain absolutely. But not fired for gross misconduct. 

[May Contain Nuts]

22 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

If he was unfairly dismissed why wouldn't he be entitled to the money or anyone else for that matter.

Entitled. Entitled.

Legally you're correct.

Mel Morris is an idiot for following his heart rather than his head, but Keogh has capitalised on the situation.

We offered him him something that most people would kill for in that situation, if they were an inward thinking individual. Sacking him was the last resort but something HE forced.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Entitled. Entitled.

Legally you're correct.

Mel Morris is an idiot for following his heart rather than his head, but Keogh has capitalised on the situation

We obviously disagree so no sense in banging heads with you. 

[May Contain Nuts]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

We obviously disagree so no sense in banging heads with you. 

I think we disagree on almost everything tbh

No personal malice meant even if you do wind me up 

I'll save the personal malice for Richard Keogh.

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, Coconut's Beard said:

I think we disagree on almost everything tbh

I hadn't noticed tbf. If we do then it's nothing personal from my end.

[Chester40]

6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I hadn't noticed tbf. If we do then it's nothing personal from my end.

Be hard for you to keep track I imagine!

I just feel sorry for any fool furiously refreshing because it was promised we would have a named preferred bidder by the end of the week. How gullible was I...er I mean, are they.  

.