If Keogh was specifically tasked with keeping players in line, watching their sobriety and sending they took the laid in taxis home one can understand there being a degree of culpability for him that could see action taken.
however the drunk drivers themselves have been treated very leniently by the club.
Very poorly handled all round by derby.
Would they try and negotiate you wages down first?
———————————
They actually might.
They could argue, we can’t pay you what your getting now, because you are no longer able to perform that duty. But we’ve another role, which isn’t has skilled and you are now able to do this
And am not defending anybody, think the two should be jailed and sacked.
But I can see the difference.
1 player can no longer carry out there contract due to neglect. Players contracts are normally water tight when it comes to injuries outside of football.
The other two can perform their duties.
Rancid club, Fat Frank created a fine culture at the club
If he appeals he will win easily imo. U cant sack him and let the other 2 stay especially when they were the ones driving
From top to bottom, don.
How they got away with selling ground to themselves is beyond me
Well at last this thread is taking all your Dirty minds your shiite form.
posted 31 seconds ago
If he appeals he will win easily imo. U cant sack him and let the other 2 stay especially when they were the ones driving
——————————-
You think the club hasn’t had legal advice.
And again, the other two can still perform their contract. There is the massive difference.
Am not saying he wouldn’t win, but he had a contract to play football. He no longer can, through his own neglect. Pretty clear to me, why they can legally sack him.
The only thing he can claim, is he is being treated differently to the other two.
But they can play football
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
But they can play football
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debatable in Bennet's case unfortunately.
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
posted 5 minutes ago
From top to bottom, don.
How they got away with selling ground to themselves is beyond me
"Sold" the ground to themselves.
If you look at Derby County FC's latest accounts they have debtors of £80m. Mel Morris might have "bought" the ground from the club but he hasn't actually paid for it. Wonder when he will actually pay the club the £80m he owes them.
He’ll never pay for it mate.
Just a way round fair play
A utter disgrace
I'm more interested in the ethics of sacking one player who was drunk in the back of a car and got badly injured versus the two boy racers who were drunk and basically got a slap on the wrist.
I think this will run and run, and it could affect Derby in more ways they can imagine. We had the same with Woody and Bowyer, with Dubes getting a really short end of the stick
Whilst Derby may have taken legal advice before dismissing Keogh, that doesn't mean that the legal advice is correct. I think the club have got this wrong and no matter what your thoughts are on the whole sorry incident, to differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
Derby will probably pay Keogh to the end of his contract. I assume this is to prevent any retainer contract after his contract runs out. This is all conjecture but would any club keep a 33 year old player whose contract ran out in year when they were going to be out for 18 months, especially when that player contributed to his own demise. Still seems unfair when you look at how Lawrence and Bennett were treated.
differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
————————-
But there is a difference
1 played can no longer play because of self inflicted injury
The other two can.
Don’t see why this is so hard to understand
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
posted 22 minutes ago
differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
————————-
But there is a difference
1 played can no longer play because of self inflicted injury
The other two can.
Don’t see why this is so hard to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I disagree. The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
comment by I'm not Spartacus, hope springs eternal (U4603)
posted 28 minutes ago
Derby will probably pay Keogh to the end of his contract. I assume this is to prevent any retainer contract after his contract runs out. This is all conjecture but would any club keep a 33 year old player whose contract ran out in year when they were going to be out for 18 months, especially when that player contributed to his own demise. Still seems unfair when you look at how Lawrence and Bennett were treated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I happen to agree with you, I don't think Keogh would have got another contract at the end of his current deal. That said, it is clearly discriminatory and any employment lawyer worth their salt will ensure Keogh's contract will be paid up.
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse no disrespect meant but as a former solicitor before I moved to the States I probably have a little more insight than uou.
It clearly isn’t
One person can no longer do their job (ie play football)
The other two can.
Now if the other two can’t play football ( ie injured or jailed) and didn’t get sack because they are worth something, yes I’d agree
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse no disrespect meant but as a former solicitor before I moved to the States I probably have a little more insight than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
.................. and after spending a fortnight on jury service a few years ago, I should have known better!
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 21 seconds ago
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse, I can't argue with the law being an ass, I have often thought it myself mate.
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 21 seconds ago
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse, I can't argue with the law being an ass, I have often thought it myself mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the law's an ass, what does it make lawyers?
No seriously, its only 99% that give the rest a bad reputation.
Sign in if you want to comment
Richard Keogh sacked by Derby
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 30/10/19
If Keogh was specifically tasked with keeping players in line, watching their sobriety and sending they took the laid in taxis home one can understand there being a degree of culpability for him that could see action taken.
however the drunk drivers themselves have been treated very leniently by the club.
Very poorly handled all round by derby.
posted on 30/10/19
Would they try and negotiate you wages down first?
———————————
They actually might.
They could argue, we can’t pay you what your getting now, because you are no longer able to perform that duty. But we’ve another role, which isn’t has skilled and you are now able to do this
posted on 30/10/19
And am not defending anybody, think the two should be jailed and sacked.
But I can see the difference.
1 player can no longer carry out there contract due to neglect. Players contracts are normally water tight when it comes to injuries outside of football.
The other two can perform their duties.
posted on 30/10/19
Rancid club, Fat Frank created a fine culture at the club
posted on 30/10/19
If he appeals he will win easily imo. U cant sack him and let the other 2 stay especially when they were the ones driving
posted on 30/10/19
From top to bottom, don.
How they got away with selling ground to themselves is beyond me
posted on 30/10/19
Well at last this thread is taking all your Dirty minds your shiite form.
posted on 30/10/19
posted 31 seconds ago
If he appeals he will win easily imo. U cant sack him and let the other 2 stay especially when they were the ones driving
——————————-
You think the club hasn’t had legal advice.
And again, the other two can still perform their contract. There is the massive difference.
Am not saying he wouldn’t win, but he had a contract to play football. He no longer can, through his own neglect. Pretty clear to me, why they can legally sack him.
The only thing he can claim, is he is being treated differently to the other two.
But they can play football
posted on 30/10/19
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
But they can play football
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debatable in Bennet's case unfortunately.
posted on 30/10/19
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
posted 5 minutes ago
From top to bottom, don.
How they got away with selling ground to themselves is beyond me
"Sold" the ground to themselves.
If you look at Derby County FC's latest accounts they have debtors of £80m. Mel Morris might have "bought" the ground from the club but he hasn't actually paid for it. Wonder when he will actually pay the club the £80m he owes them.
posted on 30/10/19
He’ll never pay for it mate.
Just a way round fair play
A utter disgrace
posted on 30/10/19
I'm more interested in the ethics of sacking one player who was drunk in the back of a car and got badly injured versus the two boy racers who were drunk and basically got a slap on the wrist.
I think this will run and run, and it could affect Derby in more ways they can imagine. We had the same with Woody and Bowyer, with Dubes getting a really short end of the stick
posted on 30/10/19
Whilst Derby may have taken legal advice before dismissing Keogh, that doesn't mean that the legal advice is correct. I think the club have got this wrong and no matter what your thoughts are on the whole sorry incident, to differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
posted on 30/10/19
Derby will probably pay Keogh to the end of his contract. I assume this is to prevent any retainer contract after his contract runs out. This is all conjecture but would any club keep a 33 year old player whose contract ran out in year when they were going to be out for 18 months, especially when that player contributed to his own demise. Still seems unfair when you look at how Lawrence and Bennett were treated.
posted on 30/10/19
differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
————————-
But there is a difference
1 played can no longer play because of self inflicted injury
The other two can.
Don’t see why this is so hard to understand
posted on 30/10/19
comment by LIW Radchancer (U8453)
posted 22 minutes ago
differentiate by giving 6 weeks fines to two of the players and dismissing the other is discriminatory and I think Derby will end up paying Keogh.
————————-
But there is a difference
1 played can no longer play because of self inflicted injury
The other two can.
Don’t see why this is so hard to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I disagree. The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
posted on 30/10/19
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
posted on 30/10/19
comment by I'm not Spartacus, hope springs eternal (U4603)
posted 28 minutes ago
Derby will probably pay Keogh to the end of his contract. I assume this is to prevent any retainer contract after his contract runs out. This is all conjecture but would any club keep a 33 year old player whose contract ran out in year when they were going to be out for 18 months, especially when that player contributed to his own demise. Still seems unfair when you look at how Lawrence and Bennett were treated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I happen to agree with you, I don't think Keogh would have got another contract at the end of his current deal. That said, it is clearly discriminatory and any employment lawyer worth their salt will ensure Keogh's contract will be paid up.
posted on 30/10/19
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse no disrespect meant but as a former solicitor before I moved to the States I probably have a little more insight than uou.
posted on 30/10/19
It clearly isn’t
One person can no longer do their job (ie play football)
The other two can.
Now if the other two can’t play football ( ie injured or jailed) and didn’t get sack because they are worth something, yes I’d agree
posted on 30/10/19
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
The fact that Keogh cannot play football is besides the point. It is clearly discriminatory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pint of what Kentucky's on please barman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse no disrespect meant but as a former solicitor before I moved to the States I probably have a little more insight than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 30/10/19
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
posted on 30/10/19
.................. and after spending a fortnight on jury service a few years ago, I should have known better!
posted on 30/10/19
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 21 seconds ago
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse, I can't argue with the law being an ass, I have often thought it myself mate.
posted on 30/10/19
comment by KentuckyRam (U7775)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Scouse (U9675)
posted 21 seconds ago
Always thought the law was an ass Kentucky. If what you say is true (and I respect your insight), then you have confirmed my suspicion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scouse, I can't argue with the law being an ass, I have often thought it myself mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the law's an ass, what does it make lawyers?
No seriously, its only 99% that give the rest a bad reputation.
Page 2 of 7
6 | 7