No idea. My point is more that surely most of us would lose our job if we couldn’t do it for a long period due to bad health irrespective of what caused that bad health. After all, this is the basis of critical illness insurance. Just guessing.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Richard Keogh
- Thread starter crodonilson
- Start date
No idea. My point is more that surely most of us would lose our job if we couldn’t do it for a long period due to bad health irrespective of what caused that bad health. After all, this is the basis of critical illness insurance. Just guessing.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I was off work many years ago for a considerable period....first six months full pay...thereafter 50% of salary ..seems a tad better than what is being talked about in Keoghs case
Was the gross misconduct that Derby have sacked him for, not as bad before he refused to take a pay cut?
They were willing to employ him, admittedly at a vastly reduced wage,before he knocked back their offer, what has he done since then to justify sacking him?
They were willing to employ him, admittedly at a vastly reduced wage,before he knocked back their offer, what has he done since then to justify sacking him?
If it's true that he was offered a pay cut that he refused, the gross misconduct excuse doesn't stack up. If it's gross misconduct, you sack someone - not offere a pay cut.
And, if the gross misconduct is getting into a car with a drunk driver, then the other passenger and the driver will also be equally culpable. If they don't get the same punishment, then Keogh has a case for constructive dismissal.
I'm fully aware that we're not getting the whole story here but, if it's anything like it's been reported, Keogh has a very good case.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,351
There's a lot of speculation going on here on all sides. I am aware of the case but haven't followed it closely, but:
1. The new contract question and the disciplinary hearing stuff could have been running side by side and totally unconnected.
2. he might have encouraged or even bullied the younger players in to driving when they were thinking better of it.
3. He might have lied about something, hit someone, both of which could be grounds for instant dismissal.
But if they have dismissed him for gross misconduct because he is unfit to play for a number of months, I would suggest that Derby County check whether their lawyers are properly covered with Professional Indemnity Insurance, because they could end up suing them for professional negligence.
There has to be more to this than anybody knows, and probably will ever know, just like the BHAFC vs Poyet case.
1. The new contract question and the disciplinary hearing stuff could have been running side by side and totally unconnected.
2. he might have encouraged or even bullied the younger players in to driving when they were thinking better of it.
3. He might have lied about something, hit someone, both of which could be grounds for instant dismissal.
But if they have dismissed him for gross misconduct because he is unfit to play for a number of months, I would suggest that Derby County check whether their lawyers are properly covered with Professional Indemnity Insurance, because they could end up suing them for professional negligence.
There has to be more to this than anybody knows, and probably will ever know, just like the BHAFC vs Poyet case.
Yes, they would be grounds for instant dismissal but, as I pointed out earlier, not grounds for a cut in salary. And, yes, the contract discussions could have been going on separately but why, if they were unconnected to the accident were they asking him to take a 90% cut?
Either the press have got hold of the wrong end of the stick (which is entirely possible) or Derby have cocked this up.
WilburySeagull
New member
We need to get our terms right to understand what is and is not happening. He may have grounds to claim unfair dismissal if a tribunal thinks his employer wrongly interpreted its own rules on gross misconduct. It is not up to a tribunal to decide if it was or was not gross misconduct this depends on the employers own disciplinary rules. Constructive dismissal does not come into it; that is only in play when an employee resigns and then claims he did so because the employer had broken the contract and left him no choice. In this case Derby have dismissed him so no dispute about that.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,922
I’m with [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] on this. It comes across in the reports as if he was offered a reduced contract, and then after refusing, was sacked for gross misconduct. The announcement talks about not tolerating actions that being the club into disrepute etc.
And yet, that is overlooked if he signed a reduced contract? It’s overlooked by the other two players who committed a far worse offence. It’s a paper-thin explanation in my eyes. They have blatantly sacked him because they don’t want to pay his salary. Companies simply are not allowed to do that. We aren’t living in America.
All that said, perhaps they have a clause about non-football related injuries, through lack of due care and attention. In which case, it’s probably acceptable. However in my opinion they should have said something like that I the announcement, because their current wording makes them come across like absolute knobs, given the other two are still employed.
And yet, that is overlooked if he signed a reduced contract? It’s overlooked by the other two players who committed a far worse offence. It’s a paper-thin explanation in my eyes. They have blatantly sacked him because they don’t want to pay his salary. Companies simply are not allowed to do that. We aren’t living in America.
All that said, perhaps they have a clause about non-football related injuries, through lack of due care and attention. In which case, it’s probably acceptable. However in my opinion they should have said something like that I the announcement, because their current wording makes them come across like absolute knobs, given the other two are still employed.
herecomesaregular
We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Maybe the other two admitted everything straight away whike Keuogh lied to try and get out of it - thus giving Derby grounds to sack him?
Wouldn't be the first time a company uses what it can to get rid of someone less useful while keeping others, equally guilty, because they have more worth.
Wouldn't be the first time a company uses what it can to get rid of someone less useful while keeping others, equally guilty, because they have more worth.
blockhseagull
Well-known member
I’d imagine it’s all in the wording, and the timeline of events.
It’s very possible the ‘pay cut’ was in fact an offer to pay up his contract on reduced terms, no disciplinary etc and everyone moves on. This obviously refused by Keogh and then the process continued with him being sacked for gross misconduct.
I’m not going to blame Derby quite yet without more facts than have been given as there is clearly more to what’s been reported.
It’s very possible the ‘pay cut’ was in fact an offer to pay up his contract on reduced terms, no disciplinary etc and everyone moves on. This obviously refused by Keogh and then the process continued with him being sacked for gross misconduct.
I’m not going to blame Derby quite yet without more facts than have been given as there is clearly more to what’s been reported.
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
Whichever way you look at it, Mel Morris comes across as a classless ****.
Dodgy stadium deal, players behaving like idiots and terrible management of the aftermath.
We don’t know all the facts but the fact the club have put themselves in this position is pretty rubbish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dodgy stadium deal, players behaving like idiots and terrible management of the aftermath.
We don’t know all the facts but the fact the club have put themselves in this position is pretty rubbish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Admit everything straight away - they ****ing ran away and left an injured colleague in a crashed car in an attempt to save their own skins!!!
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
Hmmmm, club captain, role model for the kids at Derby? Whilst Derby may have dug themselves a hole, they have come up with the right decision.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,972
By continueing to play the two players who broke the law by drink driving and fleeing the accident but sacking the one who didn't break the law but can't play for A year or two?
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
And the others - who could have actually killed someone by drink-driving - who haven't been sacked?
Keogh is an arse, but I hope he takes Derby to the cleaners.
How about being the very senior man in a trio that decided the best plan when pissed up was to hop in a car and drive fast (him slumped in the back)? I have absolutely no synpathy, and can perfectly well understand why the younger players have been let off with a wrist slap.
Anyone recall the Lee Steele story (night of the centenary dinner) ?
my thoughts too. Skin crawling hypocrisy.
blue-shifted
Banned
I think Derby have taken legal advice and then taken a pragmatic (but completely immoral) decision solely based on finances .....
They can't sack the two young players . That's obvious they are worth millions
They know Keogh has a strong legal case against them for the rest of his contract to be paid to him. However they also know that due to the publicity (and possibly that he'll want to try to find another club after his injury has ended) there's a good chance Keogh will settle out of court for may half of the value of the contract. This will also save Derby the costs of 18 months of rehabbing the guy
They can't sack the two young players . That's obvious they are worth millions
They know Keogh has a strong legal case against them for the rest of his contract to be paid to him. However they also know that due to the publicity (and possibly that he'll want to try to find another club after his injury has ended) there's a good chance Keogh will settle out of court for may half of the value of the contract. This will also save Derby the costs of 18 months of rehabbing the guy
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
Derby are a laughing stock, enjoy the employment tribunal 
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,351
How about being the very senior man in a trio that decided the best plan when pissed up was to hop in a car and drive fast (him slumped in the back)? I have absolutely no synpathy, and can perfectly well understand why the younger players have been let off with a wrist slap.
Anyone recall the Lee Steele story (night of the centenary dinner) ?
I have some sympathy with that view.