£2.3 million to Keogh

[ramAnag]

Rubbish footballers are sacked all the time.

Possibly so...but Keogh wasn’t a ‘rubbish footballer’.

Agreeing with eddy, but I’ve said more than enough already.

[swaledale]

I'm not surprised. If it's true that they offered him a reduced contract, risking a constructive dismissal, to then dismiss him on grounds of gross misconduct when he allegedly refuses it (so they've effectively dismissed him for refusing a lesser contract) appears from the outside some serious mis-management. Regardless if the act he may have committed (which none of us really know, speculation isn't fact), the motives for dismissal seemingly weren't aligned to the reason.

RA: 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.

Whatever the facts of the case, I'm pleased for Richard on a personal level.

You can persuade yourself thats true, but then ignorant people don't always know they are ignorant and you have spouted some untrue garbage on here so look at thyself first

[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?

[swaledale]

Keogh's Derby contract, prior to the sacking, ran until June 2021. He joined MK Dons in August 2020 and Huddersfield in January 2021. Both contracts coincide with the dates of his Derby contract.

I thought it was 2020, but it seems you are correct. In such cases the compensation is generally set at recouping the loss as a result of the unfair dismissal.

[Trickytreesreds]

Possibly so...but Keogh wasn’t a ‘rubbish footballer’.

Agreeing with eddy, but I’ve said more than enough already.

Rubbish(comma), footballers are sacked all the time. The detail is everything, so guilty. You could learn from that.

[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

[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.