Keogh

[MadAmster]

Fozzy has looked good with the u23s. Wisdom less so. That is why I woould plump for Fozzy starting and Andre on the bench.

[ramAnag]

Fozzy has looked good with the u23s. Wisdom less so. That is why I woould plump for Fozzy starting and Andre on the bench.

Fair enough ‘Amster. You and mista have seen the two of them and I haven’t. Just hope one of them is up to the job so we don’t have to disrupt midfield.

[swaledale]

Which in turn is about what I suggested on the original Lawrence and Bennett thread exactly a month ago when I was told by he who knows everything - aka a delighted TTR - that I knew nothing and was ‘naive’ about contracts.

What’s that expression he likes to use...oh yeah...QED!

I see now Mel Morris has admitted that basically, they couldn't really sack Bennett and Lawrence, for a start there would be more than likely be expensive compensation for unpaid contracts and secondly, they could just go off and be taken on by another club, more than likely at higher wages.

Whereas Keogh hasn't got that option, is in the last year of his contract, unlikely to play for the club or indeed any other club (not at this evel anyway) and was therefore expendable!

IMO thats pure hypocrisy! Don't disagree with how Lawrence and Bennett were dealt with, but to treat Keogh differently because the club could, when they wouldn't have done that if he were an asset, is wrong and confirms my previous observations.

Not sure i can stomach such an attitude and Morris has gone down in my estimation.

[mistaram]

I see now Mel Morris has admitted that basically, they couldn't really sack Bennett and Lawrence, for
a start there would be more than likely be expensive compensation for unpaid contracts and secondly, they could just go off and be taken on by another club, more than likely at higher wages.

Whereas Keogh hasn't got that option, is in the last year of his contract, unlikely to play for the club or indeed any other club (not at this evel anyway) and was therefore expendable!

IMO thats pure hypocrisy! Don't disagree with how Lawrence and Bennett were dealt with, but to treat Keogh differently because the club could, when they wouldn't have done that if he were an asset, is wrong and confirms my previous observations.

Not sure i can stomach such an attitude and Morris has gone down in my estimation.

So an employee renders himself unable to the job is employed to do . By getting in a car with a driver he knows to have consumed alcohol, sustains an injury that's stops him from his paid employment .An injury that was probably exacerbated by not wearing a seat belt and you think the club are in the wrong Swales he was the club captain ,he should have had more sence . He was offered a good deal refused it ,which I personally think he was wrongly advised ,he should have snapped the club's hand off

[swaledale]

So an employee renders himself unable to the job is employed to do . By getting in a car with a driver he knows to have consumed alcohol, sustains an injury that's stops him from his paid employment .An injury that was probably exacerbated by not wearing a seat belt and you think the club are in the wrong Swales he was the club captain ,he should have had more sence . He was offered a good deal refused it ,which I personally think he was wrongly advised ,he should have snapped the club's hand off

Thats not the point though - the other two were treated differently, despite having committed serious drink driving offences, Keogh committed no criminal offence. If all three had been sacked I wouldn't disagree, but to treat the others differently because of their circumstances and the impact on the club is plainly wrong - there has to be a consistency in the way employees are treated, there plainly hasn't in this case and I would think that keogh has a very good case for unfair dismissal, purely because he was treated differently than the other two, for arguably a less serious offence.

I'm saying Keogh was blameless, but its clearly not fair or IMO morally acceptable to treat people differently in this situation purely because it was cheaper and easier to sack Keogh than the other two - in any event Keogh is the one who has suffered the greater damage, serious injury, most likely career ending.

Its the height of hypocrisy to state that the club does not tolerate players whose actions bring the club into disrepute, but then give a lesser sanction to the two main offenders purely because of the financial and practical implications of the club.

[mistaram]

Thats not the point though - the other two were treated differently, despite having committed serious drink driving offences, Keogh committed no criminal offence. If all three had been sacked I wouldn't disagree, but to treat the others differently because of their circumstances and the impact on the club is plainly wrong - there has to be a consistency in the way employees are treated, there plainly hasn't in this case and I would think that keogh has a very good case for unfair dismissal, purely because he was treated differently than the other two, for arguably a less serious offence.

I'm saying Keogh was blameless, but its clearly not fair or IMO morally acceptable to treat people differently in this situation purely because it was cheaper and easier to sack Keogh than the other two - in any event Keogh is the one who has suffered the greater damage, serious injury, most likely career ending.

Its the height of hypocrisy to state that the club does not tolerate players whose actions bring the club into disrepute, but then give a lesser sanction to the two main offenders purely because of the financial and practical implications of the club.

Swales firstly I agree it doesn't seem fair But that's not how employment laws work You can't just dismiss someone for being convicted of drink driving unless of course they drive for a living At the moment there are 27players in the FL andPrem who are serving drink driving bans. The club made a statement at the time saying Bennett and Lawrence are fined the max their contracts allowed . We had a similar problem at work ,one of the lads for a two year ban for drink driving He kept having time of because he couldn't get from Shepshed to Draycott without somebody bringing him We took legal advise and told don't dismiss him till you've explored all avenues with him ,We spoke to him and he agreed it was no good for us or him and he got a job in Loughborough and left

[ramAnag]

Appreciate that it looks hypocritical for us to have taken a ‘moral high ground’ stance over the players’ actions but at the end of the day only one player has been unable to continue to do his job as a result of the incident and that’s what matters.
He really should have accepted the reduced salary offer imo...bad mistake.

[AdiSalisbury]

Has he had his internal appeal yet, should be all wrapped up by now?

[Trickytreesreds]

Its been said before, all 3 of them breached the clubs rules and regulations.

quote-
"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.

So tell me again, who put who at risk?
Who drove, endangering colleagues and members of the public?
Who got sacked?

So is it really surprising that the PFA are backing him?

Swale is right. Sack all 3 and you can use that statement.
Sack, the least offender, whilst the other 2 keep their jobs?

DCFC will get slaughtered. It has nothing to do with football and what's best for the club.
It is about standards and equality. Do you really think an employment court, will give a flying **** that it would cost DCFC an arm and a leg to sack the other two?

[AdiSalisbury]

Not how it works my red friend. Fact of the matter is that he committed an act of gross misconduct, and has been duly dismissed. How others at the club have been treated, for a different action, is largely irrelevant. Unless DCFC have acted without proper procedure, or Keogh's lawyer has dug out some case law that might protect him, he's got nothing to claim, other than "please reconsider". If he has some dirt, they may pay him off to silence him, but I can't see from what we know on the outside, what case he has for unfair dismissal * nb this is a UK employment right not required by EU law