£2.3 million to Keogh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdiSalisbury

I'm not surprised. If it's true that they offered him a reduced contract, risking a constructive dismissal, to then dismiss him on grounds of gross misconduct when he allegedly refuses it (so they've effectively dismissed him for refusing a lesser contract) appears from the outside some serious mis-management. Regardless if the act he may have committed (which none of us really know, speculation isn't fact), the motives for dismissal seemingly weren't aligned to the reason.

RA: Swale doesn't know any more than you and is regularly factually wrong throughout his posts on the subject, I wouldn't waste your time to his ego boasting.

Whatever the facts of the case, I'm pleased for Richard on a personal level.

---

Most people know more about employment law than me, Adi...you certainly seem to and you called it correctly from the off.

I’d like to be ‘pleased for Richard’ too...I really rated his attitude and leadership as a player throughout his DCFC years. Perhaps that’s why I’m particularly disappointed in his behaviour...but morally I think he’s in the wrong and I agree with Andy’s comment about employee responsibility. As club captain/senior pro he was an ambassador for the club and if I was MM I’d have felt very let down.

Postscript...apparently Curtis Davies played on Saturday against medical advice and signed a ‘waiver’ so that no one at the club would be in trouble if things went wrong.
Compare and contrast with the Keogh saga. I know which of the two I admire the most and who I’d want at the club.
Maybe RK might consider donating some of his new found wealth to those who acquire life changing conditions via sport through no fault of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Just one little moral spin on this. I worked for a local 'blue chip' company for many years. One of the things drilled into me early on in my employment was that, whether I thought I was representing the company 24/7, I WAS, and any action I undertook (good or bad) reflected on the Company either directly or indirectly just as it did me personally. Made me take a step back from doing one or two really stupid things in my twenties, because I cared for my employers (as well, ultimately, for myself). Maybe Keogh didn't.

---

That is true of many professions.

The point still stands. If DCFC are taking a "moralistic" stance to satisfy RA, then all 3 should have been sacked for misconduct.
But money and club greed, dictated the outcome.
Sack all, or none was the correct answer. Not mess with someones contract, because they are injured.

Forget the football club, think of it as a factory etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

That is true of many professions.

The point still stands. If DCFC are taking a "moralistic" stance to satisfy RA, then all 3 should have been sacked for misconduct.
But money and club greed, dictated the outcome.
Sack all, or none was the correct answer. Not mess with someones contract, because they are injured.

Forget the football club, think of it as a factory etc.

---

‘To satisfy RA’...lol!

You’re such a child sometimes...all I’m doing is offering an opinion.

‘Think of it as a factory’. Why? The last time I looked factory workers weren’t paid a fortune because being a public role model comes with the territory...but seeing as you mention it...I suspect a factory worker who couldn’t work for a significant length of time because of an injury sustained as a result of participation in an illegal activity wouldn’t have been paid and would probably have been fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

‘To satisfy RA’...lol!

You’re such a child sometimes...all I’m doing is offering an opinion.

‘Think of it as a factory’. Why? The last time I looked factory workers weren’t paid a fortune because being a public role model comes with the territory...but seeing as you mention it...I suspect a factory worker who couldn’t work for a significant length of time because of an injury sustained as a result of participation in an illegal activity wouldn’t have been paid and would probably have been fired.

---

OMG, I'm a child. You are the one who goes off on one, if your name is used, or teachers get a mention.

Think about it, I'm talking about satisfying your analogy.
Again, your lack of knowledge does come forward, with that last statement.
Any worker in a factory, will have terms and conditions regarding sickness/pay/absenteeism/ codes and conduct built into the contract offered you.
You can't just change the rules to suit, a situation like DCFC did, whether satisfying your morals or not.
I told you, remove the emotion and stick to the legal bits.

But yes, in the outside world, they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay.
But that applies to the 2 your brushing to one side as well.
In fact, if morality and code of conduct came into it. Those 2 brought the club into much breech of conduct regarding DCFC's good name.
Take you blnkers off. It's gone through court, not your moral codes on a forum and he won.
QED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

OMG, I'm a child. You are the one who goes off on one, if your name is used, or teachers get a mention.

Think about it, I'm talking about satisfying your analogy.
Again, your lack of knowledge does come forward, with that last statement.
Any worker in a factory, will have terms and conditions regarding sickness/pay/absenteeism/ codes and conduct built into the contract offered you.
You can't just change the rules to suit, a situation like DCFC did, whether satisfying your morals or not.
I told you, remove the emotion and stick to the legal bits.

But yes, in the outside world, they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay.
But that applies to the 2 your brushing to one side as well.
In fact, if morality and code of conduct came into it. Those 2 brought the club into much breech of conduct regarding DCFC's good name.
Take you blnkers off. It's gone through court, not your moral codes on a forum and he won.
QED

---

1. I think I’ve reacted to the teacher jibes once...when you and the angry Brentford chap launched your ill fated campaign years ago. Other than that I genuinely don’t see the relevance...in the same way as I don’t mention what you do/used to do for a living.

2. Of course I recognise that people have terms and conditions of employment and I wasn’t aware that I was trying to change any rules.

3. You brought factory workers into it...and then go on to agree, ‘in the outside world they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay’. You seem to be making my point.

4. I’m not brushing the other two ‘to one side’ at all. Their case was handled by the courts...they paid their price, and maybe still are, according to the law of the land. The incident didn’t result in either of them being unable to work which is the difference.

5. Keogh’s case couldn’t be handled in the same way because, apparently, he hadn’t broken the law. He was however the one who could no longer work.

6. It’s a forum...we’re allowed to discuss morality and morality v legality even. You’ve already conceded that in the real world Keogh’s actions, which resulted in him being unable to work/represent the club he was captain of, would have led to him being fired or on reduced pay. Perhaps you’d be so good as to now explain why, in his situation, it is morally right for him now to receive huge compensation when he was initially in the wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

1. I think I’ve reacted to the teacher jibes once...when you and the angry Brentford chap launched your ill fated campaign years ago. Other than that I genuinely don’t see the relevance...in the same way as I don’t mention what you do/used to do for a living.

2. Of course I recognise that people have terms and conditions of employment and I wasn’t aware that I was trying to change any rules.

3. You brought factory workers into it...and then go on to agree, ‘in the outside world they would have been fired or on minimum/statutory sick pay’. You seem to be making my point.

4. I’m not brushing the other two ‘to one side’ at all. Their case was handled by the courts...they paid their price, and maybe still are, according to the law of the land. The incident didn’t result in either of them being unable to work which is the difference.

5. Keogh’s case couldn’t be handled in the same way because, apparently, he hadn’t broken the law. He was however the one who could no longer work.

6. It’s a forum...we’re allowed to discuss morality and morality v legality even. You’ve already conceded that in the real world Keogh’s actions, which resulted in him being unable to work/represent the club he was captain of, would have led to him being fired or on reduced pay. Perhaps you’d be so good as to now explain why, in his situation, it is morally right for him now to receive huge compensation when he was initially in the wrong?

---

Oh come RA please.

How or when was morality the deciding factor in a court of law?
I have just told you. Keogh, probably did break codes of conduct rules. So did the other two. But you seem to think that to punish them differently is perfectly ok?
The others were prosecuted for driving offences criminally. Keogh wasn't.
Yet Keogh was disciplined to an extreme by the club Internally, yet the other two were not.

That has been the argument in court. HE WON!
Can you seriously not see that?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED.
But 2 were of marketable value, the other wasn't.
Perhaps in light of the current financial threats books wise, you can understand why. To have wiped off 2 assets would have made the books even worse.

Morality had bugger all to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

Oh come RA please.

How or when was morality the deciding factor in a court of law?
I have just told you. Keogh, probably did break codes of conduct rules. So did the other two. But you seem to think that to punish them differently is perfectly ok?
The others were prosecuted for driving offences criminally. Keogh wasn't.
Yet Keogh was disciplined to an extreme by the club Internally, yet the other two were not.

That has been the argument in court. HE WON!
Can you seriously not see that?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED.
But 2 were of marketable value, the other wasn't.
Perhaps in light of the current financial threats books wise, you can understand why. To have wiped off 2 assets would have made the books even worse.

Morality had bugger all to do with it.

---

Christ on a bike, Tricky...where have I ever suggested ‘morality was the deciding factor in a court of law’?

I accepted first thing this morning, even though it now feels like about a week ago, that Swale knows more about employment law than me and my only real argument has been that - disappointingly - RK, who should have been a Derby hero, is morally in the wrong and that Mel Morris has every reason to feel let down.

You’re now shouting ‘THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN SACKED’. How the hell would that have worked? Can you sack someone for breaking the law if it doesn’t impact on their ability to do their job? In certain circumstances certainly, but generally speaking...I doubt it.

Should you be able to sack someone when, as a result of their inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour, they become unavailable for work? In my opinion...yes...but that’s all it is...my opinion. For those reasons I believe, objectively and morally...but not, I accept, legally, that DCFC have been hard done to.

I also believe, in the words of Mr. Bumble, that ‘the law is frequently an ass’ and that this is one of those occasions.

Rubbish footballers are sacked all the time.
If drink driving and crippling a team mate doesn't count, then I don't know what does.
All down to money.
Some clubs take a stance. others don't. ManU were always a classic for Cantonas kung fu episode.


https://whatculture.com/sport/10-cra...ub?rf=homepage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

If I was paranoid I'd say because we are Derby County and we seem to be gaining the same kind of NOLU that Millwall would claim a patent on.

The real answer will be that the courts have found that RK was illegally sacked by DCFC. £2.3M divided by his weekly wage of £24K comes to 96 weeks. Isn't that the amount of time he had left on his contract (Sept 2019 until June 30th 2021)? Derby have been found to have broken that contract and have been ordered to pay it off. It would seem logical to us to subtract what he's subsequently earned at MK and Hudders but I'm not sure how the Law on that works. It may be that those MK/H wages have been subtracted and that there is a punitive element to the award. We fans will never know.

---

I agree
How can he be paid up for his entire contract length and also earn money form from a new employer . its like he has been paid twice for something he did wrong and brought on himself

If he had stepped in front of a bus out shopping he should get his contract paid up if we sack him, but getting in a car drunk with another drunk driving, when the club laid on taxi's is surely reasonable to be sacked, as club captain he should set an example
Derby should take it to the Courts and sue him back