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

2 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

When I worked in HR people who drove company vehicles and lost their licence due to drunk driving were dismissed contractually. Keogh’s inability to stay sober and behave like the captain of a football team left him unable to do his job. Therefore I will forever dislike him for the legs action. Makes me really angry. 

Just out of interest what do you think of Lawrence who was driving while drunk and could have killed a family driving in the other direction do you stand applauding him still? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

The proper legal test would have been who caused the accident that resulted in Keoghs injuries.

Or would Keogh have been injured if he'd worn a seat-belt. There's a bit of shared culpability there. 

It also appears that Keogh got his full contractual entitlement from DCFC whilst also earning ££s from MK and Huddersfield, so he ended up financially better off than he would have been if he'd worn a seatbelt. 

It's a tough old life... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crewton said:

Or would Keogh have been injured if he'd worn a seat-belt. There's a bit of shared culpability there. 

It also appears that Keogh got his full contractual entitlement from DCFC whilst also earning ££s from MK and Huddersfield, so he ended up financially better off than he would have been if he'd worn a seatbelt. 

It's a tough old life... 

 

I don't remember reading anywhere that Keogh wasn't wearing a seatbelt or even charged with such an offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

The proper legal test would have been who caused the accident that resulted in Keoghs injuries.

It's not relevant to Keogh's case whether it was within the range of reasonable responses for Derby to sack Lawernce. I Think it was, but that doesnt help Keogh. If both players breached their contracts then it is entirely  up to their employer to decide what to do about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Lawrence could have been sacked. That was within the range of reasonable responses by his employer for his conduct. As it was for Keogh.

And he should have but our previous owner thought he knew better than other people decided not to because the club was in a bad financial situation of his own making and he was worth something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

It's not relevant to Keogh's case whether it was within the range of reasonable responses for Derby to sack Lawernce. I Think it was, but that doesnt help Keogh. If both players breached their contracts then it is entirely  up to their employer to decide what to do about that.

Of course it is, Keoghs defence was that he was not the driver that caused his injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mick Brolly said:

Just out of interest what do you think of Lawrence who was driving while drunk and could have killed a family driving in the other direction do you stand applauding him still? 

In the context of ‘can he still perform his duties’ then yes he could/can. 
I think at the time I had a little sympathy with him as losing a parent at a young age is incredibly tough, I went through that myself and it took many years and therapy to get my head straight. I still don’t feel ok with it many years on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

That may be because the reasons for the tribunal's findings were not published.  Unlike with proper employment tribunals.

I am sure Derbyshire police would have made it public knowledge that he had not been wearing a seatbelt and would have charged him,the police seem rather keen on people not wearing seatbelts either as a driver or passenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, atherstoneram said:

And he should have but our previous owner thought he knew better than other people decided not to because the club was in a bad financial situation of his own making and he was worth something.

Whether an employer is in a bad financial situation or not,  when an employee breaks his contract the employer may  be entitled to make a commercial decision whether it is in their interests to retain an employee or not, and to act accordingly. .I agree it could have adopted a moral position and decided that, whatever the financial situation, we should not retain someone who breaks the law as Lawrence did. But the employer does not have to do that ,  and there were extenuating circumstances in lawrence's case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Whether an employer is in a bad financial situation or not,  when an employee breaks his contract the employer may  be entitled to make a commercial decision whether it is in their interests to retain an employee or not, and to act accordingly. .I agree it could have adopted a moral position and decided that, whatever the financial situation, we should not retain someone who breaks the law as Lawrence did. But the employer does not have to do that ,  and there were extenuating circumstances in lawrence's case.  

No use talking about morals,it's the legal situation that matters not the financial situation and MM messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, atherstoneram said:

I am sure Derbyshire police would have made it public knowledge that he had not been wearing a seatbelt and would have charged him,the police seem rather keen on people not wearing seatbelts either as a driver or passenger.

You are sure Derbyshire police would have made it public knowledge despite not charging him? I am sure they wouldn't.

Keogh had a big interview with the Guardian in which he claimed (wrongly i Think as  photographic evidence shows) that he did not spend the evening with Tom Lawrence. He didn't mention that he was wearing a seatbelt depite many references to him not wearing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

That may be because the reasons for the tribunal's findings were not published.  Unlike with proper employment tribunals.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/11/richard-keogh-awarded-more-than-2m-in-breach-of-contract-case-against-Derby

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

No use talking about morals,it's the legal situation that matters not the financial situation and MM messed up.

I think you were the one who mentioned the financial situation of the club. Nobody at the club messed up except for all the players involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/11/richard-keogh-awarded-more-than-2m-in-breach-of-contract-case-against-Derby

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.”

Yeah right. "EFL statement". Says it all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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