It doesn't matter that it was the same incident, their actions and responsibilities were different. The question for me, isn't why Keogh was dismissed, it's why the other 2 weren't. Sadly, we all know the answer.
Printable View
It doesn't matter that it was the same incident, their actions and responsibilities were different. The question for me, isn't why Keogh was dismissed, it's why the other 2 weren't. Sadly, we all know the answer.
But that's what Swale and I have been saying Adi?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdiSalisbury
Either all go, or none of them go.
The statement given out, that no one brings the club into disrepute etc, says all 3 really should have gone.
So round it comes again.
Does Keogh have a case?
Yes he does.
No, because his act was different, you have to make judgement individually, the punishment given to the other 2 has no legal bearing on the fairness to dismiss Keogh.
Well, I'm going to have to agree, to disagree Adi.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdiSalisbury
The PFA, have backed him. They see something as well as his legal team.
But as said, it won't get to court. MM will pay him off.
Of course, they see the same pay off that Mel sees, just as Swale said, it'll be more than his offer, less than his contract, each claim their own victory.
Tricky...this is what you wrote about five weeks ago. You do seem to have changed your tune a little. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
FFS RA, you really are limited into understanding circumstances and fairness have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
NO I HAVE NO SYMPATHY
However, read the statement from the club again.
Then apply that to the other two.
ALL OF THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOBBERED.
Since MM isn't doing that, then I have to say Keogh is being treated unfairly.
He got the sack and the 2 drink drivers didn't.
Stadium on August 24, 2019 in Derby, England. (Photo by James Williamson - AMA/WBA FC via Getty Images)
Derby County have released a statement confirming the sacking of Irish defender Richard Keogh on the basis of gross misconduct.
Keogh was a passenger in team mate Tom Lawrence’s car when it crashed into a lamppost following a team night out on September 24th and suffered a serious knee injury in the accident.
The defender is expected to miss 12-14 months due to the injury in addition to Euro 2020 should Ireland make the tournament finals next year.
Keogh
His contract was set to expire next summer and according a report to The Guardian he had been told he could stay and see it out but the club then shocked Keogh by outlining that he would have to accept a massive pay-cut in order to remain at Derby.
The report also outlined that Keogh found the club’s stance to be unacceptable and they have since told him “that he is no longer in their employ,” with his lawyers and the PFA also getting involved.
The club confirmed the news of Keogh’s sacking via a statement which read: “Derby County Football Club has completed the disciplinary hearing regarding Richard Keogh in respect of his involvement in the events of Tuesday, September 24.
“As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
Richard Keogh
“As we have said from the outset, the club will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute.”
Now did they or did they not put general members of the public at risk?
So they acted correctly to sack Keogh but not the other two?
BTW, I detest drink drivers. It's selfish, irresponsible and akin to premeditated manslaughter in my eyes.
The law needs revising and jail terms
Tricky the club states " it will not tolerate " It does not state it will dismiss them . What part of we don't know all the facts don't you understand Fully with you in drink driving i hate it should be automatic jail sentence not only if you kill someoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
Lol...I’m ‘limited into understanding circumstances and fairness’. Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
Five weeks or so ago you wrote...’Derby are obviously pursuing the breach of contract route as would most companies. No sympathy’.
Since then, because it’s a DCFC matter and you like to **** stir, you’ve banged on and on about how unfair Derby have been to Keogh despite Adi, mista and I repeatedly trying to point out the difference between the actions committed by the three miscreants.
As mista and I have both said...DCFC didn’t ‘tolerate’ any actions. They fined the two drivers as much as was possible. They provided numerous public apologies on behalf of the club and they imposed some sort of community service order.
In addition the courts have provided further fines, banned the two from driving and - as I understand it - imposed further community service requirements.
In comparison Keogh, injury apart, had at that stage got away unpunished despite the fact that he was captain, was allegedly a) ‘off his head’, b) happy to be driven by someone who was drunk c) daft enough not to wear a seatbelt and d) party to a seven**** year old youth team player joining him in the vehicle.
Which bit of the above doesn’t deserve to be punished in your book?
Keogh was then told that, because of his role in the whole tawdry affair and because of the consequences of his actions he would have to take a pay cut because he had effectively made himself unavailable for work. Which bit of that is unfair? He was only sacked because he wouldn’t accept the pay cut which was brought about by his own irresponsibility.
Unlike you I don’t revel in this business. I’m genuinely saddened by the fact that a player I had great respect for has found himself in this situation, but he’s made some massive errors of judgements.
He’s captain of the club, that comes with responsibility...he’s, allegedly, stayed out late drinking during a ‘match’ week and declined the transport home, he’s accepted or asked for a lift from someone over the limit, he’s not worn a seat belt, he’s possibly been culpable in the involvement of a ****age employee of the club and that’s just what’s been made ‘public’. In addition when offered the opportunity of a reduced salary because he has effectively made himself unavailable for work he’s declined that, all of which has led to his sacking.
The other two have been dealt with differently because they are in a different situation. In my opinion it’s harsh but not unfair...can’t explain it any other way.
Let’s face it you’ve had nothing to say about all the other much higher profile footballers who’ve been done for d&d recently but because this is Derby you’re full of it...and please don’t play the moral high ground card about how much you ‘detest’ drunk drivers as if somehow I don’t. I do...but I also recognise that it is a much more complex matter than you suggest. If you want to get into that particular moral maze I’m happy to do so but I’d suggest that in this instance my understanding of ‘circumstance and fairness’ seems clearer than yours.
You want to drag others into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Wait till the drunken granny shagger arrives.
Oh yearh, you'll have the moral high ground then all right.