Keogh sacked

[AdiSalisbury]

From experience companies often make mistakes and lawyers don't always give correct advice, often a personal view influence actions when in these cases a dispassionate evaluation of the facts is required.

As for double standards - two players convicted of driving whilst drunk, remain employed, yet the club statement says "We have said from the outset, the Club will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute. "

So on the one hand we retain as employed two players whose actions are in contradiction to the club statement, but sack the one who was actually only a passenger. I don't suppose the fact that the other two players are assets that can be sold and are able to continue playing when the club are short on players has anything to do with that double standard then?

The club IMO have shot themselves in the foot here, the message is, if you commit a crime but are still useful, we will fine you and let you play, if you don't commit a crime but get injured due to others crimes and cant play and are of no financial benefit to the club we will sack you!

I understand the reality of the decision, but in that case don't spout such holier than thou hogwash as the club statement is!

Ive read somewhere the loophole is because he wasn't wearing his seat belt. OK the guy didn't act in the most intelligent way, but the other two could have killed someone. It stinks and does not show the club in a good light IMO.

In my experience you shouldn't make a decision without conducting a full and independent investigation. The issue here is that you've decided you know the full details of the event, do you? If not, then like most fans, it's just jumping to conclusions. How do we know that Keogh didn't encourage the behaviour, convince them that it'll be alright, wind them up etc after being specifically instructed to ensure they got home safely? We don't, and there may have been other extenuating circumstances.

I agree the club doesn't look good, but we don't have the Intel to assume that the dismissal was wrong or some random cost / insurance deal.

Maybe Richard will write a book and we'll all find out, but I expect it to be buried asap and people will have other club concerns

[swaledale]

In my experience you shouldn't make a decision without conducting a full and independent investigation. The issue here is that you've decided you know the full details of the event, do you? If not, then like most fans, it's just jumping to conclusions. How do we know that Keogh didn't encourage the behaviour, convince them that it'll be alright, wind them up etc after being specifically instructed to ensure they got home safely? We don't, and there may have been other extenuating circumstances.

I agree the club doesn't look good, but we don't have the Intel to assume that the dismissal was wrong or some random cost / insurance deal.

Maybe Richard will write a book and we'll all find out, but I expect it to be buried asap and people will have other club concerns

I'm not actually assuming anything, i'm taking at face value what the club has said and its statement is clearly at odds with the difference in the way it has dealt with Bennet and Lawrence and the way it has dealt with keogh, nothing more than that. I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I've said that there may be matters we are unaware of, or Keogh's contract may have a clause about his responsibilities that can be used, but I also know that organisations and the hierarchy within those organisations will treat people differently based on what they feel is expedient - IMO the reason for the inconsistency in dealing with Keogh as against the other two, and there can be no doubt that there has been an inconsistency - the other two have been convicted of a crime FFS! Keogh hasn't - is down to Keogh being a cost to the club, isnt a saleable asset and can't play.

Dealing with the other two in the same way would cost the club potential transfer fees and deprive them of two players, yet if one takes the club statement at face value, they should have been sacked under a no tolerance policy which the club claims to operate.

The fact that they haven't is sheer hypocrisy IMO, they only mean that if it isn't detrimental to the club! My main objection is to the clubs statement as to why Keogh was sacked, seeing as he wasn't the person who drove whilst drunk and crashed the car he was in.

If the club are going to take a moral stance, then they have to apply that irrespective of whether it has a negative effect upon the club, otherwise it just looks as if they have found a convenient way to get keogh off the books and if he hadn't have been injured he would still be playing.

Thats the perception the club has given based on what we know and what they have said and the action taken. Poor PR and frankly an appalling way in which to handle this situation.

[MadAmster]

Best to stick to the known facts which means that, at this moment, we have no idea why they saw fit to give RK a choice between a 50% drop in wages or the sack. We also do't know why the other 4 involved are still involved or even still at the club. It may come out in the future, it may not. We shall have to wait and see.

January may prove to be a month in which a lot becomes crystal clear.

[swaledale]

Best to stick to the known facts which means that, at this moment, we have no idea why they saw fit to give RK a choice between a 50% drop in wages or the sack. We also do't know why the other 4 involved are still involved or even still at the club. It may come out in the future, it may not. We shall have to wait and see.

January may prove to be a month in which a lot becomes crystal clear.

Thats the issue though, the clubs statement as to why doesn't actually make sense, other than the other two players are fincial and playing assets and it would disadvantage the club to apply the same approach to them as they have with keogh, much better if they had not put that statement out in relation to sacking Keogh.

It also does not make sense to offer half his salary, either you sack someone for gross misconduct or you apply another sanction. Anyway I'm sure Keogh will respond legally and if that ends in "an agreed settlement" (these things hardly ever get to court for various reasons, we will still be none the wiser.

[ramAnag]

In the mean time...what is all this doing for team spirit?

Bielik, Clarke and Shinnie must be wondering what sort of ‘circus’ they’ve joined.

[mistaram]

In the mean time...what is all this doing for team spirit?

Bielik, Clarke and Shinnie must be wondering what sort of ‘circus’ they’ve joined.

Yes and Cocu and his staff If this was team bonding what was Bradley Johnson doing there

[MadAmster]

Yes and Cocu and his staff If this was team bonding what was Bradley Johnson doing there

Doesn't he still live not all that far from the Joiner's? By 8 o'clock the official part of the evening over and then he joins in for a drink with his former teammates?

[ramAnag]

Doesn't he still live not all that far from the Joiner's? By 8 o'clock the official part of the evening over and then he joins in for a drink with his former teammates?

He does MA. Still lives in Quarndon and The Joiners is very definitely his ‘local’.

[AdiSalisbury]

Its a good point RA, and whilst on the face of it this appears a one off event, there could be an underlying culture or issue at the club. We can all shout about double standards, but for all we know Keogh might already have been on a final warning for a previous event and already have had his 2nd chance.

Either way, we've got a mardy game against boro coming up, so plenty more controversy!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Gibson will probably sign keogh today on a one week contract!