£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!