£2.3 million to Keogh

[swaledale]

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

Well given you have the view that a white Uk national being derogatory about a group of white Uk nationals constitutes racism, I guess its not wise to set much store by your opinions!

However factually, I have represented both employers and employees many times on employment matters and spent a great deal of my professional life handling employment contracts and disputes, so I kinda guess that reinforces the fact that your judgement is somewhat lacking.

[ramAnag]

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.

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

[Andy_Faber]

Well given you have the view that a white Uk national being derogatory about a group of white Uk nationals constitutes racism, I guess its not wise to set much store by your opinions!

However factually, I have represented both employers and employees many times on employment matters and spent a great deal of my professional life handling employment contracts and disputes, so I kinda guess that reinforces the fact that your judgement is somewhat lacking.

Lighten up Swale, part of my post was a compliment, the rest was a bit of light-hearted joshing

[Trickytreesreds]

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

But I did RA. I'd have sacked all 3.
If my child had gone to that school, I'd have no doubt been among lots of parents demanding dismissal.
You can get the push for talking about cartoons remember.
Having 3 teachers involved in drink driving, from the same school goes against everything the job stands for.

[ramAnag]

But I did RA. I'd have sacked all 3.
If my child had gone to that school, I'd have no doubt been among lots of parents demanding dismissal.
You can get the push for talking about cartoons remember.
Having 3 teachers involved in drink driving, from the same school goes against everything the job stands for.

But you wouldn’t, Tricky...because you couldn’t.

What makes you think parents would have known...and even if they had been ‘demanding dismissal’ it may not have happened. Your demand for all three (fictional) teachers or all those involved in ‘Joinersgate’ to be sacked is just your emotional reaction...your opinion...same as you were so damning of me having over RK.

‘Get the push for talking about cartoons’...I doubt it. You might get attacked by certain extremists, but the media is full of nonsense about teachers not being allowed to do one thing or the other. Back in the ‘80’s we were told not to ever discuss homos exuality because certain Thatcherite extremists couldn’t differentiate between discussing and advocating. In reality none of us took much notice and just got on with it...s ex education includes a knowledge of terminology and an understanding of what things mean...end of.

Either way...my point was...the headteacher/head of department would, imo, have been very lucky - and very unlikely - to keep his job.
I can’t see the difference between my fictional scenario and RK.

[swaledale]

Actually I didn’t introduce teaching into the debate at all...Swale and your good self did.

It’s obviously a position of extreme trust while those concerned are working or in loco parentis. Beyond that...I don’t know. I certainly know a number of teachers, including myself, who’d fail your ‘whiter than white’ test.
Wasn’t Keogh in a position of trust as captain of Derby County? He was a club ‘ambassador’...lots of young people had their photograph taken with him and he always seemed to be an excellent role model.

No idea about the ‘police/prison service/medical’ contracts/code of ethics...and of course money came into things with Lawrence and Bennett...as it did with the two Liverpool players who got done for drink driving. If it was your money would you spend a fortune on signing someone and paying their wages only to ‘give them away’ because of a legal transgression? There’d be plenty who’d unhesitatingly have taken him off our hands for nowt, just as Preston seem to have with Ched Evans.

Keogh too was worth something - more than Bennett I’d imagine - but, for hopefully the final time, his actions made him unavailable for work. Lawrence and Bennett’s didn’t. That, along with the fact that they were actual law breakers, is the reason they were treated separately and punished differently.

Note you haven’t answered the hypothetical teacher conundrum. It’s a lot more relevant than your Van Hooijdonk example.

So you really do think that the punishment metered out should reflect whether or not the employee concerned is of "worth" to the organisation then? And you were talking about morality???

Not sure of your logic which suggests that the actual law breakers and perpetrators should receive a lesser sanction from the employer than the person who didn't stop it happening (assuming he could) but who was injured as a result of their actions.

In terms of the teacher analogy, surely its simple, the two convicted of criminal acts would have been sacked, the one injured as a result of those acts most likely wouldn't have been, or all would have been.

Anyway you clearly cannot see the issue about dealing with employees who misbehave in a consistent manner which is seen to be fair, appropriate and reflects their contract with the employer. An employer cannot simply decide something based on whether they think the employee still has a value to the company after the incident, though they can of course take that and previous behaviour into account when determining any sanction.

As the fact that Keogh won his case shows, so not sure why your arguing against this?

[swaledale]

But you wouldn’t, Tricky...because you couldn’t.

What makes you think parents would have known...and even if they had been ‘demanding dismissal’ it may not have happened. Your demand for all three (fictional) teachers or all those involved in ‘Joinersgate’ to be sacked is just your emotional reaction...your opinion...same as you were so damning of me having over RK.

‘Get the push for talking about cartoons’...I doubt it. You might get attacked by certain extremists, but the media is full of nonsense about teachers not being allowed to do one thing or the other. Back in the ‘80’s we were told not to ever discuss homos exuality because certain Thatcherite extremists couldn’t differentiate between discussing and advocating. In reality none of us took much notice and just got on with it...s ex education includes a knowledge of terminology and an understanding of what things mean...end of.

Either way...my point was...the headteacher/head of department would, imo, have been very lucky - and very unlikely - to keep his job.
I can’t see the difference between my fictional scenario and RK.

Your equating Head teacher with football captain? a captain of football club is a term given to such player as the manager chooses, it is isn't a contractual obligation and doesn't attract additional pay, indeed it is entirely likely that the captain isn't the highest paid player in a team, as such your assertion that he had additional responsibilities beyond the other players is incorrect. Again its down to the contractual relationship -

I didn't mention head teacher, I just asked you if you were 1 of 3 teachers who had a night out and as a result of the other two drink driving, you were injured and it was you that was sacked, would you think that fair?

[swaledale]

Lighten up Swale, part of my post was a compliment, the rest was a bit of light-hearted joshing

Okie dokey.

[ramAnag]

Your equating Head teacher with football captain? a captain of football club is a term given to such player as the manager chooses, it is isn't a contractual obligation and doesn't attract additional pay, indeed it is entirely likely that the captain isn't the highest paid player in a team, as such your assertion that he had additional responsibilities beyond the other players is incorrect. Again its down to the contractual relationship -

I didn't mention head teacher, I just asked you if you were 1 of 3 teachers who had a night out and as a result of the other two drink driving, you were injured and it was you that was sacked, would you think that fair?

You brought teachers into the equation...I simply ran with your example.
Keogh was club captain, he was also a good deal older than the other two participants as well as being the club’s senior pro...that was the parallel with the Headteacher/Head of Dept scenario...I don’t believe I mentioned pay.

My comment about the worth of the player was made in direct response to Tricky who has been banging on about it all being about money and Lawrence being worth too much to dismiss. I was simply making the point that Keogh wasn’t exactly worthless when we effectively cast him adrift/gave him away. I was not, as I suspect you know, suggesting that the ‘punishment should reflect the individual’s worth to the company’.

As regards the legality of the situation you are clearly right...as, given the outcome, I acknowledged yesterday morning.

It remains my opinion however that the ‘verdict’ is ‘flawed’...that, as eddy779h34 intimated much more succinctly last night, RK has profited from his disappointing behaviour and that Mel Morris has every reason to feel let down.

[swaledale]

You brought teachers into the equation...I simply ran with your example.
Keogh was club captain, he was also a good deal older than the other two participants as well as being the club’s senior pro...that was the parallel with the Headteacher/Head of Dept scenario...I don’t believe I mentioned pay.

My comment about the worth of the player was made in direct response to Tricky who has been banging on about it all being about money and Lawrence being worth too much to dismiss. I was simply making the point that Keogh wasn’t exactly worthless when we effectively cast him adrift/gave him away. I was not, as I suspect you know, suggesting that the ‘punishment should reflect the individual’s worth to the company’.

As regards the legality of the situation you are clearly right...as, given the outcome, I acknowledged yesterday morning.

It remains my opinion however that the ‘verdict’ is ‘flawed’...that, as eddy779h34 intimated much more succinctly last night, RK has profited from his disappointing behaviour and that Mel Morris has every reason to feel let down.

Yup let down by all 3 players and let down by his HR team and lawyers who should have been all over it! Unless of course it was mel who demanded he be sacked!

You do avoid answering the question as to whether if it had been you sacked, you would have thought it was fair but hey ho! I'm assuming that in those circumstances you would?


I don't get how you can appear to be the man of reason and fairness and think that Keogh has somehow profited from his error of judgement? The club made the error in unfairly dismissing him, they could have applied the same punishment to him as they applied to the other two, plus of course being injured he missed out on his appearance fees, clean sheet bonus, any bonus based on league position etc. All he got was his basic pay. (admittedly a good rate).

The fact that the other two were punished under the criminal justice system is separate surely? There is the criminal act and then there is the deviation from the expected behaviour as employees - in anybody's reasonable opinion, Keogh was clearly treated unfairly compared to the other two.