£2.3 million to Keogh

[swaledale]

Hmmm...club captain knowingly asks for or accepts (?) - we’ll never know - lift home from over the limit driver. The journey ends in a car crash and as a result the club captain cannot play (work) for the following nine months...aka the rest of the season.
Justifiably annoyed owner, and wage payer, suggests player/senior employee accepts reduced wage (alleged to be a mere £12k per week) during the period he is unable to play.
Player doesn’t accept this and declines the offer before leaving the club and eventually gaining alternative employment and is then declared eligible for £2.3m in compensation.

Must be the difference between legality and morality. Perhaps someone could explain what our former hero is being ‘compensated’ for.

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!

[ramAnag]

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!

I suspect you may know more about employment law than me so I won’t argue that point further.

On the more moral aspect you talk of my morality being ‘skewed’ because I am treating people differently.
My answer is...as an employer I have to treat people differently because their actions and the repercussions of those actions were different.

The facts as I understand them are, and I don’t think these are debatable...two young players were over the limit after a staff function.
As a result they were subsequently involved in a car crash which resulted in them being dealt with by the law...licences withdrawn, fines enforced, community service orders if I remember rightly etc. That was the price they rightly paid, along with some internal club sanctions that I don’t remember or know the details of.

At the same time the club captain/senior leader decided, a long with a te enage player, to accept a lift from a driver he knew to be breaking the law.

That action doesn’t appear to be against the law, but morally RK’s actions are, imo, reprehensible. He should have been setting a good example, he shouldn’t have been complicit in an activity that was against the law knowing that the action of the two drivers was likely to jeopardise the safety of others. To compound matters, it was his own stupidity, imo, that led to him being unable to play/work for the rest of the season, much to the detriment of the club and his employer.

Given those circumstances, especially as DCFC were prepared to continue to pay half his wages at a time when he was unavailable to play as a direct consequence of his own actions, I can’t see how one is, morally, meant to feel anything but sympathy for the employer.

I don’t think the outcome of this matter is fair to MM and DCFC and I don’t see how that makes my concept of fairness ‘off beam’.
As regards your teacher point...I’m not entirely sure what your point is, but if I hadn’t been able to do my job because of an ‘accident’ involving illegal activity and drunkenness I wouldn’t expect to have kept my job let alone be compensated.