£2.3 million to Keogh

[ramAnag]

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.

[Trickytreesreds]

‘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

[ramAnag]

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?

[Trickytreesreds]

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.

[ramAnag]

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.

[swaledale]

‘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.

Forgive me for I agree with Tricky and I'm not sure how irrespective of whether you understand employment law or not, why you seem to think its fair that two employees who were convicted of a criminal offence should receive a lesser sanction than the one who was injured by their actions?

All the other stuff about being captain, moral responsibility or whatever is fine and I understand your view (although surely you would also think that irrespective of whether they can play for the club again or not, the other two should have received the same sanction?), but its peripheral to the fact that the club chose to dismiss Keogh and not the other two. As I said at the time, thats inconsistent and they will lose a tribunal unless there is a specific clause in Keogh's employment contract about his duties as captain, which is unlikely because being captain is fairy meaningless and any player can be named as such.

My point about 3 teachers was to try and boil it down to the basic principles, but it seems if you had been one of 3 teachers, and you had been injured and unable to work due to the criminal actions of the other two you would have been happy to lose your job and they keep theirs?

Keogh made an error of judgement which resulted in him being injured, the other two committed a criminal offence and your suggesting its Ok for the club to apply a lesser sanction to them, because they are still able to play? Really?

[ramAnag]

Forgive me for I agree with Tricky and I'm not sure how irrespective of whether you understand employment law or not, why you seem to think its fair that two employees who were convicted of a criminal offence should receive a lesser sanction than the one who was injured by their actions?

All the other stuff about being captain, moral responsibility or whatever is fine and I understand your view (although surely you would also think that irrespective of whether they can play for the club again or not, the other two should have received the same sanction?), but its peripheral to the fact that the club chose to dismiss Keogh and not the other two. As I said at the time, thats inconsistent and they will lose a tribunal unless there is a specific clause in Keogh's employment contract about his duties as captain, which is unlikely because being captain is fairy meaningless and any player can be named as such.

My point about 3 teachers was to try and boil it down to the basic principles, but it seems if you had been one of 3 teachers, and you had been injured and unable to work due to the criminal actions of the other two you would have been happy to lose your job and they keep theirs?

Keogh made an error of judgement which resulted in him being injured, the other two committed a criminal offence and your suggesting its Ok for the club to apply a lesser sanction to them, because they are still able to play? Really?

Okay Swale, if you insist on going down the teacher parallel I’ll run with it one last time into the ‘moral maze’.

In my former incarnation I was part of the decision making process regarding two incidents of drink driving. The first was a PE teacher who, unsurprisingly, was done for drinking and driving. He lived near the school and could still make it into work although he could no longer drive the school minibus which meant we had to rearrange teaching assistants etc so that, when taking pupils to use other facilities, he always had a driver for the two years of his ban. The result...he kept his job, fortunately imo.

The second related to a guy who had done nothing wrong but had had a ‘skinful’ at home one Friday night. The following morning he unthinkingly drove into Derby and was badly rear ended at Markeaton Island. Because of the busy location the police arrived and he was routinely breathalysed. He failed and lost his licence. Unfortunately, because he lived very remotely and needed to drive to make the twenty five mile journey into work, he could no longer work...the result? He lost his job.

The moral of the story...sh1t happens...life isn’t fair...and actions have consequences but they aren’t the same for everyone.

Now, sticking with your teacher scenario, imagine this hypothetical one.

There’s a staff Christmas party...a situation I’ve been in many times. Many get hammered including two young teachers and their Head/Head of Dept...whatever. With the irresponsibility of youth the two young teachers think they’ll be alright to drive home and are well over the limit. They stick around drinking long after everyone has gone and persuade their senior colleague to join them, promising to get him home safely.
The inevitable happens...maybe the two youngsters decide to show off and have a bit of a race which ends in a crash. The two drivers somehow escape unhurt but their passenger is seriously injured, requires hospital treatment and is unable to work for the next two terms.
Of course the two drivers are dealt with by the law...they’re fined, banned from driving etc...but, like the aforementioned PE teacher, they are able to make it to work and continue to do so.
The Head/Head of Department is, as I’ve said, sadly unable to work for the remaining two thirds of the school year.

So...a) Should the two drivers keep their jobs? My answer is I’m not sure...they’re teachers...a job which includes some sort of social responsibility...but their actions had nothing to do with their job which they were still perfectly able to do.

b) Should the Head/Head of Department keep his job? I suspect not...with power comes responsibility and all that. He knew the risks, made an error of judgement which involved being complicit in law breaking resulting in him being unfit for work.

Where do you, or anyone, stand on that...both legally and morally and is that very different from the RK scenario?

The fact that I differ from Tricky as far as morality is concerned comes as no surprise and is actually quite reassuring. The fact that you share his stance is a little more surprising.

[Trickytreesreds]

Sack them all. Code of conduct and criminal records in a privaleged position of trust.
QED

[ramAnag]

Sack them all. Code of conduct and criminal records in a privaleged position of trust.
QED

‘Privaleged’? Are you ‘H’ in disguise. Sorry... ‘Line of Duty’ joke.

‘Sack them all...code of conduct, privileged position of trust’, blah...

You seem to have just introduced morality into the debate, TTR. I fear you might just be guilty of over simplification on this one.

[Trickytreesreds]

‘Privaleged’? Are you ‘H’ in disguise. Sorry... ‘Line of Duty’ joke.

‘Sack them all...code of conduct, privileged position of trust’, blah...

You seem to have just introduced morality into the debate, TTR. I fear you might just be guilty of over simplification on this one.

Sorry, it's not morality.
You mentioned teaching. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a position of ectreme trust?
Parents, put their children in the hands of a group of whiter than white based on trust.
Perhaps you can enlighten me to a teachers contract and codes of ethics written in it.
Is the same as the police/prison service/ medical etc?

I assume there must be some wriggle room, as there are coppers with records in service. I don't agree with that on "moral" grounds, but how far does it stretch?

Back to the topic in hand. DCFC did themselves no favours, with their stance. They should have either punished all, or dished the same level of punishment Lawrence received. That's why Keogh won.

Here's an extreme for you, involving my shower.
Van Hooidjonk, goes on strikke.
Now the club should have done one of two things
1. Sacked him
2. Refused to play him again and held on to his registration.

2 Was my favourite, but was never going to happen, because he was worth millions.
So NFFC bowed down to someone bringing shame on the club, for money. The same as Lawrence.