Keogh

[ramAnag]

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?

Tricky...the club didn’t ‘tolerate’ the behaviour. They hit them with the biggest fine possible and insisted on them doing some sort of community service. They also offered an inordinate number of public apologies.

Morality aside...if you or I had been done for drinking and driving would we have lost our jobs? No.
If we’d been unable to fulfil the demands of our conditions of employment as a direct result of our own irresponsible behaviour would we have lost our job?
Probably...yes.

[swaledale]

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

So IF he hadn't have been injured and been able to play, he wouldn't have been sacked? Yet the fact he is unable to play is not solely down to his actions, sure he shouldn't have been in the car, but the facts that matter here is how he has been disciplined as against the other two.

I happen to have a lot of dealings with employment law and one of the factors that is considered in tribunals and legal cases is was the action taken by the employer proportionate to the offence and where there is more than one party involved has there been consistency in the application of the disciplinary process to all parties.

In this case, and by Morris's own admission there clearly hasn't been, IMO and from my own experience Keogh has a very strong case. You simply cannot deal with people differently unless there are very specific circumstances and I don't see any in this case, if Keogh was my client I'd be very optimistic of winning and looking forward to a nice fat fee!

Of course the normal course of events will be that there will be a negotiation to avoid the matter coming to court, its almost always cheaper than paying lawyers even if you think you have a strong case, and especially if you don't want bad publicity for the employer or if its 50/50 and if you lose you end up paying the employees legal costs as well!

[swaledale]

Tricky...the club didn’t ‘tolerate’ the behaviour. They hit them with the biggest fine possible and insisted on them doing some sort of community service. They also offered an inordinate number of public apologies.

Morality aside...if you or I had been done for drinking and driving would we have lost our jobs? No.
If we’d been unable to fulfil the demands of our conditions of employment as a direct result of our own irresponsible behaviour would we have lost our job?
Probably...yes.

Only if your contract of employment specified it, otherwise you'd be able to be sacked for any misjudgment which led to you being unable to work!

Your also missing the point that Morris has said, and i'm paraphrasing this as reported, that sacking the other two, would be expensive and then lead to them being able to play for say Leeds on higher wages!

So if Keogh had 2 years left on his contract and still able to play for the club, he wouldn't have been sacked, which is inconsistent with the punishment of the other players. Of course it could be a shrewd move in that Keogh (if it got to court, which I doubt) may win but then have a reduction in payment due to his actions contributing to the situation, so any payment Derby will have to make will be less than his full contract, saving dosh and of course getting him off their books as a player now, rather than at the end of the season.

But that still stinks of hypocrisy, because clearly no matter how you behave, if your a financial or playing asset to the club that trumps any moral stance the club say they take!

As for those who say Keogh should have taken the offer, no doubt he would have taken legal advice before turning it down! The likely result is he will end up with more than the original offer and perhaps less than his full contract, Derby will end up with the player off their books 6 months earlier and it all helps FFP and being able to recruit another player!

[AdiSalisbury]

I work with employment law every day and have done for the last 13 years. Different act, different responsibility. His conduct has left him unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his role, he could be dismissed on capability alone. As it is, his actions have brought the club into disrepute, that alone, regardless of injury, is a fair and reasonable reason for dismissal. Again, we still don't know the full details of his actions that night. Agree with your last paragraph to mista, that's exactly how I'd expect it to pan out

[mistaram]

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?

Tricky you are talking about something neither you nor me the the full facts of the case What we do know is that he refused the taxi the club laid on for him. He got in a car with someone who had been drinking He did not wear his seatbelt .He allowed a 17yr old player to sit beside him I'm confident there is a lot more that we are not partial to So best to leave it at that

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky you are talking about something neither you nor me the the full facts of the case What we do know is that he refused the taxi the club laid on for him. He got in a car with someone who had been drinking He did not wear his seatbelt .He allowed a 17yr old player to sit beside him I'm confident there is a lot more that we are not partial to So best to leave it at that

Of course I don't.
But I am trying to seperate the emotion of it being a football club everyone cares about and lay it on the table of equality.

All were guilty of line quoted.

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.

The punishments issued are by defination disproportionate.
This is purely a selfish act, to remove a player from the books, for financial and performance reasons in my opinion.
Sack all 3 and you are correct.
Internally punish all 3 and you are correct.

Spot on, that this will be sorted out of court.
It will cost Mad Mel money, he tried to scimp on. But may save him some embarressment, of a drawn out public case.
Keogh gone, in pocket and DCFC can move on.

It has to be settled quickly as the transfer window is about to open.

[Geoff Parkstone]

It's the what we don't know, and that the club do know, that makes this an inappropriate discussion.

For example, and I'm not saying for one minute that this is what did happen, if RK instructed TL, as his captain, to drive him home or he would make sure he didn't get to start the next weekend. How would that impact your assessments?

We have no clue what went on (and, judging by the apparent state of them, several of the players don't either) so it's all arguing about angels on a pinhead.

Yes, prima face, it's harsh on RK, but there may be reasons for the club stance beyond economics

[mistaram]

Of course I don't.
But I am trying to seperate the emotion of it being a football club everyone cares about and lay it on the table of equality.

All were guilty of line quoted.

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.

The punishments issued are by defination disproportionate.
This is purely a selfish act, to remove a player from the books, for financial and performance reasons in my opinion.
Sack all 3 and you are correct.
Internally punish all 3 and you are correct.

Spot on, that this will be sorted out of court.
It will cost Mad Mel money, he tried to scimp on. But may save him some embarressment, of a drawn out public case.
Keogh gone, in pocket and DCFC can move on.

It has to be settled quickly as the transfer window is about to open.

It may cost Mel money but it won't be anywhere near the £1.5 million . It would have cost to keep him I reiterate we don't know all the facts I will go with Adi who knows a lot more about employment law than we do

[ramAnag]

It may cost Mel money but it won't be anywhere near the £1.5 million . It would have cost to keep him I reiterate we don't know all the facts I will go with Adi who knows a lot more about employment law than we do

Agreed, always listen to those with professional insight...and sadly - because I still feel sorry that Keogh’s career ended this way - that means going with Adi on this one.

Also, while some are reaching for the ‘morality crutch’, we might do well to remember that it’s Mel’s money, not ours, that we’re so happy to spend on financing the income of a player who’s stupidity and irresponsibility has made him unavailable for selection/work for around eigh**** months.

[swaledale]

Agreed, always listen to those with professional insight...and sadly - because I still feel sorry that Keogh’s career ended this way - that means going with Adi on this one.

Also, while some are reaching for the ‘morality crutch’, we might do well to remember that it’s Mel’s money, not ours, that we’re so happy to spend on financing the income of a player who’s stupidity and irresponsibility has made him unavailable for selection/work for around eigh**** months.

Well listening to those with professional insight then you'd understand that what I've said is right. FFS Tricky has explained it clearly enough!

Not quite sure how you have reached the conclusion that Adi knows more than I do on employment law, hey ho I would make quite a bit of money in fees and compensation judging by whats been said on this thread!

I never thought I'd read a post of yours which seems to justify not acting in a fair and moral manner when running an organisation if there are financial or other benefits to be gained!

I hope you don't post any criticism of politicians or business that act in that manner as clearly you think its acceptable as long as the ends justify the means! That would make you a hypocrite!

My last comment is whatever the moral case, the club has handled it very badly. Its not hard to agree the amicable departure of an employee whose services are no longer required, without adverse publicity for the organisation. Yes it costs, but then so does mishandling the matter in both money and reputation.