Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Well they have to pay Rooney somehow.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Richard Keogh
- Thread starter crodonilson
- Start date
Blues Rock DJ
New member
So ?
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Clarke was a Potter signing, be odd to bin him off already.
Don't you think Derby may have just checked the legality first
Not if that's the full story.
Of course, there may be other reasons (although they weren't mentioned in the report) but if a club says we're not pay a player full wages because he's injured that will have massive implications for football.
And employers do illegal things all the time, if they didn't, there'd be no need for employment tribunals
Double standards? Taking the opportunity to unload an old player, whilst drink/crash driver and adored younger asset Tom Lawrence stays.
This could be Derby's initial stance with a view of agreeing an out of court settlement at a cost below paying his full wages for the rest of the contract, and get him out of their sight.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
Derby jumping the gun, a bit.
Johnson’s bill hasn’t wrecked worker’s rights just yet, they should have waited till after Brexit.
Johnson’s bill hasn’t wrecked worker’s rights just yet, they should have waited till after Brexit.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,081
This! Offload the older crocked player on the big wages and just do a fluffy PR job with the more valuable assets. Very well played by Derby if we assume their employment law chaps have done their homework.
I saw this coming the moment the incident was publicised. The club were never in a month of Sunday’s going to get rid of golden boy Tom Lawrence. After all the Chelsea/Liverpool loanees left, he’s the only player who puts bums on seats.
Can he lawfully be sacked for being injured and therefore unable to work? The difference with most football injuries is that he did not sustain it doing his job.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,597
IF they sacked him because he refuses to take a paycut and or sign a new contract, then Derby are being somewhat daft. BUT there has to be more to it than that.
For a professional sports player, there are possibly clauses in the contract that forbid reckless actions which endanger health - so knowingly getting into a car being driven by a drink driver could well be a contract breaker.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,081
This. I would imagine most players will have clauses relating to negligence. For example didn't that idiot Bendtner at Arsenal bemoan to the fans that his high wages were justified as he was never allowed to go on skiing holidays.
But actually being a drunk driver apparently isn't recklessly endangering their health by the other players.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Yep, passenger sacked, drivers playing for first team still - doesn’t make sense!
Comparing it an ordinary job, I assume that if I get done for drink driving and avoid injury and prison that I’d keep my job. However if I was a passenger in a car driven by a drink driver and got injured to the extent that I couldn’t work for 18 months I doubt my company would keep me on.
Is this the case though? Wouldn’t most people be relieved of their job if I they were unable to fullfill their duties for 18 months or so? There was a debate on this site about this situation with a hospital worker a few months back.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Pretty damming on the face of it re Derby’s treatment of Keogh....but the worst bit in that article is the other two making a dash for it and leaving Keogh unconscious 
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Was the hospital worker incapacitated by his workmates? If so I think he would have good grounds for wrongful dismissal, as has Keogh - unless there is something that’s not being said...!
WIll Keogh be able to sue one or both of the drivers under their insurance for loss of earnings?