£2.3 million to Keogh

Regretably I'm with Swale on this one, the law looks has no morals and this is in essence about paying up his contract, and remember (and I think this matters regarding DCFC's actions) he didn't commit any crime. Derby have been badly advised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Yup let down by all 3 players and let down by his HR team and lawyers who should have been all over it! Unless of course it was mel who demanded he be sacked!

You do avoid answering the question as to whether if it had been you sacked, you would have thought it was fair but hey ho! I'm assuming that in those circumstances you would?


I don't get how you can appear to be the man of reason and fairness and think that Keogh has somehow profited from his error of judgement? The club made the error in unfairly dismissing him, they could have applied the same punishment to him as they applied to the other two, plus of course being injured he missed out on his appearance fees, clean sheet bonus, any bonus based on league position etc. All he got was his basic pay. (admittedly a good rate).

The fact that the other two were punished under the criminal justice system is separate surely? There is the criminal act and then there is the deviation from the expected behaviour as employees - in anybody's reasonable opinion, Keogh was clearly treated unfairly compared to the other two.

---

I’m sorry I’m obviously not making myself clear.

First paragraph...completely agree.

Second paragraph...if I’d made myself unavailable for work by behaving in a way which was totally irresponsible and condoned law breaking...yes I’d expect to have been sacked.

Third paragraph...RK obviously suffered as a result of his injury. Beyond that he seems to have been paid in full, via compensation, by Derby while also earning from MKDons and Huddersfield...not a bad result financially.

Final paragraph...as I understand it, Lawrence and Bennett were fined by the courts, additionally fined six weeks wages by the club, lost their licences and had to do a not insignificant amount of community service. Their fault completely as was the ridicule and abuse that was heaped on them by fans as a result of their actions. In comparison RK has ended up with a £2.3m pay out after initially, again as I recall, suggesting that he felt responsible for the incident but still turning down half pay during his enforced absence. To me that can’t be right.

I’m sure you’re absolutely right as far as the law is concerned.
I’m also sure you’re absolutely right as far as legality and morality having little in common is concerned.
Unfortunately for me I think they should. There are too many current, and much more serious, examples of morality conflicting with legality imo.
As far as employment law is concerned I’m sure you, Adi, AF and RK’s solicitors are 100% correct. As far as morality is concerned, if I were in RK’s position I’d be struggling to sleep at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Final paragraph...as I understand it, Lawrence and Bennett were fined by the courts, additionally fined six weeks wages by the club, lost their licences and had to do a not insignificant amount of community service. Their fault completely as was the ridicule and abuse that was heaped on them by fans as a result of their actions. In comparison RK has ended up with a £2.3m pay out after initially, again as I recall, suggesting that he felt responsible for the incident but still turning down half pay during his enforced absence. To me that can’t be right.

---

My memory is telling me the Court didn't fine them. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, both were fined 6 weeks wages by the club. For Lawro that was £390K and £60K for Bennett. Both were asked by the magistrates what their wages were which is why I know the figures. The Court took those fines into account and decided not to fine them further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

My memory is telling me the Court didn't fine them. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, both were fined 6 weeks wages by the club. For Lawro that was £390K and £60K for Bennett. Both were asked by the magistrates what their wages were which is why I know the figures. The Court took those fines into account and decided not to fine them further.

---

Quite surprised at that but happy to stand corrected, MA. Either way...Lawrence and Bennett appear to have been punished in three or four different ways. RK not at all.
Seems like a perfect example of legality and morality in conflict to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Quite surprised at that but happy to stand corrected, MA. Either way...Lawrence and Bennett appear to have been punished in three or four different ways. RK not at all.
Seems like a perfect example of legality and morality in conflict to me.

---

"The League Appeals Committee has heard and dismissed an appeal under the Regulations of the EFL by Derby County (“the Club”) against the decision of the Player Related Dispute Commission (“the PRDC”) in the case of Richard Keogh," said the EFL in a statement.

"The case arose out of events on 24 September 2019 in which Mr Keogh was seriously injured in a road traffic accident and his subsequent dismissal by the Club.

"The PRDC held that Mr Keogh had not committed gross misconduct, that he had not brought the Club into serious disrepute, and that he had been wrongfully dismissed by the Club."

Derby County declined to comment on the matter.


Sacked for gross misconduct, but the other two were not?
The other two were convicted in a court of law?
Keogh was not.

Yet only one was sacked for gross misconduct.

I fail to understand which piece of this confuses you RA?

Yes morally he should have been sacked. but so should the other two, based purely on offence seriousness.

The fact his injury turned out to not to be season ending, also calls Derbys eagerness to get rid into question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

"The League Appeals Committee has heard and dismissed an appeal under the Regulations of the EFL by Derby County (“the Club”) against the decision of the Player Related Dispute Commission (“the PRDC”) in the case of Richard Keogh," said the EFL in a statement.

"The case arose out of events on 24 September 2019 in which Mr Keogh was seriously injured in a road traffic accident and his subsequent dismissal by the Club.

"The PRDC held that Mr Keogh had not committed gross misconduct, that he had not brought the Club into serious disrepute, and that he had been wrongfully dismissed by the Club."

Derby County declined to comment on the matter.


Sacked for gross misconduct, but the other two were not?
The other two were convicted in a court of law?
Keogh was not.

Yet only one was sacked for gross misconduct.

I fail to understand which piece of this confuses you RA?

Yes morally he should have been sacked. but so should the other two, based purely on offence seriousness.

The fact his injury turned out to not to be season ending, also calls Derbys eagerness to get rid into question.

---

None of it ‘confuses’ me Tricky...I just have a different take on the outcome and the morality involved. That’s my opinion, yours is different...we disagree but I can’t say it any other way.

To clarify...his ‘injuries’ were ‘season ending’...I don’t believe he made his debut for MK Dons until late September meaning that the injuries sustained in the drink driving incident effectively made him unavailable for selection for twelve months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

For unfair termination of contract obvs! Now IF they had sacked the two players actually responsible for the incident, those convicted of drink driving they might have had a case. Though again that would depend upon the terms in his employment contract, one can't just impose certain conditions if they are not actually in one employment contract!

You talk of "morality" but yours is clearly skewed if you condone the club treating one player who was not responsible for the incident differently because he couldn't play for the rest of the season, than the other two who were convicted of an offence because they could and had a value to the club.

So if 3 teachers went on a night out and two were convicted but able to teach but one was so injured he couldn't do his job for a year, you would deem it fair and legal to sack the injured one but merely discipline the other two and retain them?

If so then you understanding of fairness is I suggest somewhat off beam!

---

But if one is then incapable of performing their duties as a result its a completely separate issue in law!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattea

But if one is then incapable of performing their duties as a result its a completely separate issue in law!

---

I wouldn't bother, there's too many assumptions and inaccuracies that show up his lack of knowledge on the subject, it's not worth the effort.

At the end of the day, the Keogh saga has been through a thorough and diligent process, therefore we must trust that the correct outcome has been achieved. If people want to argue morals, then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

All the last 20 or so posts have persuaded me on is that no-one here has ever represented either side on an issue of employment or contract law, or if you have, God help whoever you represented. The only two comments I would put my name to are:

Swale's

'In such cases the compensation is generally set at recouping the loss as a result of the unfair dismissal'. Spot on, punitive damages are seldom awarded in such cases (although allowances are made for win (lol) bonuses etc)

And Adi's

'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'. That's pretty much a given but on the above occasion Swale is correct

---

No problem Andy.

You're correct that I haven't represented anyone, nor have I had to stand in a tribunal (the idea is to avoid doing so), and I'm afraid that I wouldn't offer to represent you either. However, like all genuine HR practitioners, I'd be there to facilitate and support a fair and impartial procedure for you to operate within B)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattea

But if one is then incapable of performing their duties as a result its a completely separate issue in law!

---

Thanks, Rats. Simon Jordan agrees too. Says he’d have sacked him and ‘paid him nothing’. Make of that what you will but I’d guess he knows more than any of us about running a football club.