[Albion] Richard Keogh

[GT49er]

But that is spectacularly not the point. The man has a contract and has been treated totally differently from the other players involved in the incident. It's not "whataboutism" to say that they set precedent by fining Bennett and Lawrence, and have treated Keogh completely differently by sacking him. His case is obvious here - he's far less responsible for the accident than the other two and his punishment should not be more severe. Obviously, we all knew that Bennett and Lawrence (especially) were not going to be fired because they have enormous football value. Keogh is a player rated only by [MENTION=3385]crodonilson[/MENTION] and would likely have left the club at the expiration of his contract anyway, so we can all understand sacking him now that he's injured and cannot play again during the length of his contract.

But this isn't a footballing decision - they've treated him differently from the other two players, and they will definitely lose the appeal - OR they'll have to pay out a huge sum of money to prevent it getting to the verdict stage. On the face of it - he's been extremely unfairly dismissed, whatever you think about how much of a tosser he might be, what role he may have played in the apparent racing between the cars or anything else about the case - looking only at the facts, the club are treating him terribly and presumably unlawfully. I'm no contract law expert, but it's very clear that they're going to lose this case.

If people commit a sackable offence, the employer can still choose whether or not to apply that sanction.
Three people commit a sackable offence, the company can choose to sack all three, or two of them, or just one. If they keep any, they are lucky - the one(s) who actually get sacked are still sacked for committing a sackable offence.
It may not be fair, but it is a business/financial decision - when did fairness ever come into that?

 

[Ninja Elephant]

If people commit a sackable offence, the employer can still choose whether or not to apply that sanction.
Three people commit a sackable offence, the company can choose to sack all three, or two of them, or just one. If they keep any, they are lucky - the one(s) who actually get sacked are still sacked for committing a sackable offence.
It may not be fair, but it is a business/financial decision - when did fairness ever come into that?

Which is a reasonable argument and I'm sure they'll make the case that, as the captain and the most experienced player in the group, he should have set a better example. I'm sure they're as confident about their reasoning and justification as the Albion were when Gus got the bullet. But looking from the outside, it stinks.

It is consistent with "the Derby way" though, which must be some variation of, "make the most baffling decision possible at all times".

 

[Horses Arse]

If people commit a sackable offence, the employer can still choose whether or not to apply that sanction.
Three people commit a sackable offence, the company can choose to sack all three, or two of them, or just one. If they keep any, they are lucky - the one(s) who actually get sacked are still sacked for committing a sackable offence.
It may not be fair, but it is a business/financial decision - when did fairness ever come into that?

Wrong. They would have to fully justify and evidence whey they are treating Keogh differently and age/salary is no excuse. Unless he had very well defined obligations in his contract that did not apply to the others then they are stuffed on this one. Well and truly outside of any process at all. They will get truly shafted!

That is still ignoring of course the offer to keep him employed at a reduced salary, which is a hilarious goof to have made.

Quite spectacular incompetence from Derby.

 

[GT49er]

Which is a reasonable argument and I'm sure they'll make the case that, as the captain and the most experienced player in the group, he should have set a better example.

I don't think they need to. If he committed a sackable offence (and I'm saying 'if' because I don't know whether he did or not) - but if he did and they sacked him, that's it. What anybody does to anybody else just doesn't come into it.

And yes, I agree it doesn't cover Derby in any sort of moral glory. On the other hand, the reduced wages until the end of his contract might have been a very fair offer, bearing in mind that they did not (as it appears now) have to offer anything.

 

[WilburySeagull]

If people commit a sackable offence, the employer can still choose whether or not to apply that sanction.
Three people commit a sackable offence, the company can choose to sack all three, or two of them, or just one. If they keep any, they are lucky - the one(s) who actually get sacked are still sacked for committing a sackable offence.
It may not be fair, but it is a business/financial decision - when did fairness ever come into that?

Not entirely true. If they were all guilty of gross misconduct (and that may not be the case without knowing details) he could claim that there was precedent for not dismissing in similar cases. Dismissal is the assumed penalty for gross misconduct without any mitigating factors. The fact that he is injured and unable to play is irrelevant in a gross misconduct case either way

 

[GT49er]

Not entirely true. If they were all guilty of gross misconduct (and that may not be the case without knowing details) he could claim that there was precedent for not dismissing in similar cases. Dismissal is the assumed penalty for gross misconduct without any mitigating factors. The fact that he is injured and unable to play is irrelevant in a gross misconduct case either way

We'll see, in time. I daresay Derby County have got very good lawyers!

 

[The Optimist]

But that is spectacularly not the point. The man has a contract and has been treated totally differently from the other players involved in the incident. It's not "whataboutism" to say that they set precedent by fining Bennett and Lawrence, and have treated Keogh completely differently by sacking him. His case is obvious here - he's far less responsible for the accident than the other two and his punishment should not be more severe. Obviously, we all knew that Bennett and Lawrence (especially) were not going to be fired because they have enormous football value. Keogh is a player rated only by [MENTION=3385]crodonilson[/MENTION] and would likely have left the club at the expiration of his contract anyway, so we can all understand sacking him now that he's injured and cannot play again during the length of his contract.

But this isn't a footballing decision - they've treated him differently from the other two players, and they will definitely lose the appeal - OR they'll have to pay out a huge sum of money to prevent it getting to the verdict stage. On the face of it - he's been extremely unfairly dismissed, whatever you think about how much of a tosser he might be, what role he may have played in the apparent racing between the cars or anything else about the case - looking only at the facts, the club are treating him terribly and presumably unlawfully. I'm no contract law expert, but it's very clear that they're going to lose this case.

Whether fair or not I think Keogh not being able to play (work) is the point. If I can no longer work for an extended period of time (say over a year) for any reason from long term illness to injuring myself through doing something stupid and/or illegal I doubt my company will keep paying me my full salary. If I do something illegal but don't get a prison sentence I would probably get to keep my job. It's not necessarily fair but ultimately my company needs me to be worth the money they pay me. Keogh cannot fulfil his side of his contract (to play football) through actions unrelated to his work so therefore Derby feel they should no longer pay him. The other two can still fulfil their side of their contracts.

 

[Horses Arse]

Whether fair or not I think Keogh not being able to play (work) is the point. If I can no longer work for an extended period of time (say over a year) for any reason from long term illness to injuring myself through doing something stupid and/or illegal I doubt my company will keep paying me my full salary. If I do something illegal but don't get a prison sentence I would probably get to keep my job. It's not necessarily fair but ultimately my company needs me to be worth the money they pay me. Keogh cannot fulfil his side of his contract (to play football) through actions unrelated to his work so therefore Derby feel they should no longer pay him. The other two can still fulfil their side of their contracts.

Also interesting to see how they explain the injury being down to his actions rather than that of his teammate (still employed) that was driving whilst drunk.

A seemingly impossible case to win by Derby unless there's a very significant piece of information and evidence - such as if it was found and proven that Keogh was not the one sat in the back for example (not suggesting for a second that this was the case but it would take something that significant to find in Derby's favour I believe)

 

[darkwolf666]

I don't think they need to. If he committed a sackable offence (and I'm saying 'if' because I don't know whether he did or not) - but if he did and they sacked him, that's it. What anybody does to anybody else just doesn't come into it.

And yes, I agree it doesn't cover Derby in any sort of moral glory. On the other hand, the reduced wages until the end of his contract might have been a very fair offer, bearing in mind that they did not (as it appears now) have to offer anything.

I’m no legal Beagle, but are you sure about that. 3 people are involved in an incident. 2 commit an illegal act and yet only get a slap on the wrist. The one who happens to get injured gets sacked.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances that we are not aware of I am sure that stinks of victimisation, and would be a field day for a good employment lawyer.

 

[darkwolf666]

Whether fair or not I think Keogh not being able to play (work) is the point. If I can no longer work for an extended period of time (say over a year) for any reason from long term illness to injuring myself through doing something stupid and/or illegal I doubt my company will keep paying me my full salary. If I do something illegal but don't get a prison sentence I would probably get to keep my job. It's not necessarily fair but ultimately my company needs me to be worth the money they pay me. Keogh cannot fulfil his side of his contract (to play football) through actions unrelated to his work so therefore Derby feel they should no longer pay him. The other two can still fulfil their side of their contracts.

But the point here is Keogh is unable to work due to the actions of 2 of his employers employees - surely a very different case to someone not being able to work due to their own actions!

 

[GT49er]

I’m no legal Beagle, but are you sure about that. 3 people are involved in an incident. 2 commit an illegal act and yet only get a slap on the wrist. The one who happens to get injured gets sacked.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances that we are not aware of I am sure that stinks of victimisation, and would be a field day for a good employment lawyer.

See my post #166 - I'm no legal eagle either, but I rather expect that Derby County have got very good lawyers!

(And can I just add, before getting caught up in a useless argument, that I honestly couldn't care less either way!)

 

[darkwolf666]

See my post #166 - I'm no legal eagle either, but I rather expect that Derby County have got very good lawyers!

Or

A - are very arrogant
B - know something we don’t that Keogh won’t want to come out

 

[Ninja Elephant]

This is a great debate and will rumble on - but there's another angle I'm not sure has been discussed yet. Does Keogh not have ground to sue either Bennett or Lawrence or both?

 

[Change at Barnham]

How much do we speculate Keogh was being paid each week before the accident? Has it been mentioned?

 

[darkwolf666]

This is a great debate and will rumble on - but there's another angle I'm not sure has been discussed yet. Does Keogh not have ground to sue either Bennett or Lawrence or both?

Yep, I mentioned that in an earlier post. Could sue for loss of earnings.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

This is a great debate and will rumble on - but there's another angle I'm not sure has been discussed yet. Does Keogh not have ground to sue either Bennett or Lawrence or both?

I would imagine he climbed into Bennetts car off his own accord, he wasnt kidnapped.....I think he might lose that one.

 

[METALMICKY]

Or

A - are very arrogant
B - know something we don’t that Keogh won’t want to come out

I think it will be Option B as it's hard to imagine that there employment law layers are that rubbish.

 

[darkwolf666]

I think it will be Option B as it's hard to imagine that there employment law layers are that rubbish.

Agree, I think there's more to this. The telling point will be if Keogh fights it

 

[Justice]

How much do we speculate Keogh was being paid each week before the accident? Has it been mentioned?

£23k a week if you believe talk shite.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

How much do we speculate Keogh was being paid each week before the accident? Has it been mentioned?

£24K a week.-

Irish media suggesting Derby asked him to take a 90% pay cut