Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Well they have to pay Rooney somehow.
So? Fans are quick to jump on any player who tries to force a move "tough, he signed a contract!". If the general census is that football contracts should be respected, why should he take a cut in the pay the club contractually agreed to?
Maybe looking to get Clarke in permanently if he doesn't suit GPs style of play. With White to comeback maybe they have a chance
Don't you think Derby may have just checked the legality first
Not if that's the full story.
Of course, there may be other reasons (although they weren't mentioned in the report) but if a club says we're not pay a player full wages because he's injured that will have massive implications for football.
And employers do illegal things all the time, if they didn't, there'd be no need for employment tribunals
Double standards? Taking the opportunity to unload an old player, whilst drink/crash driver and adored younger asset Tom Lawrence stays.
This! Offload the older crocked player on the big wages and just do a fluffy PR job with the more valuable assets. Very well played by Derby if we assume their employment law chaps have done their homework.
Lawyers are going to have a field day with that - Derby haven't a leg to stand on (a bit like Keogh really)
For a professional sports player, there are possibly clauses in the contract that forbid reckless actions which endanger health - so knowingly getting into a car being driven by a drink driver could well be a contract breaker.Guess there is more to that story then meets the eye, no way could you sack someone for being injured by a fellow employee who has broken the law and yet been retained?
For a professional sports player, there are possibly clauses in the contract that forbid reckless actions which endanger health - so knowingly getting into a car being driven by a drink driver could well be a contract breaker.
For a professional sports player, there are possibly clauses in the contract that forbid reckless actions which endanger health - so knowingly getting into a car being driven by a drink driver could well be a contract breaker.
But actually being a drunk driver apparently isn't recklessly endangering their health by the other players.
But actually being a drunk driver apparently isn't recklessly endangering their health by the other players.
Lawyers are going to have a field day with that - Derby haven't a leg to stand on (a bit like Keogh really)
Is this the case though? Wouldn’t most people be relieved of their job if I they were unable to fullfill their duties for 18 months or so? There was a debate on this site about this situation with a hospital worker a few months back.
Is this the case though? Wouldn’t most people be relieved of their job if I they were unable to fullfill their duties for 18 months or so? There was a debate on this site about this situation with a hospital worker a few months back.