[Albion] Richard Keogh

[Ernest]

Mason and Lawrence haven't frustrated their contract by not being able to play through their own stupidity but Keogh has which is the difference. Why should Derby pay Keogh £25k a week for the next year or so to sit on his backside watching Lose Women ?

He was a fool not to take the reduced contract offer and I'd wager Derby would have a water tight case for what they've done

 

[lost in london]

Mason and Lawrence haven't frustrated their contract by not being able to play through their own stupidity but Keogh has which is the difference. Why should Derby pay Keogh £25k a week for the next year or so to sit on his backside watching Lose Women ?

He was a fool not to take the reduced contract offer and I'd wager Derby would have a water tight case for what they've done

That’s the crux of it for me that I think some people aren’t taking into account - Keogh can’t play for the rest of his contract, the other two can.

 

[Grombleton]

It sounds like he has been involved in an accident that wasn't his fault.

He may be entitled to Compensation.

He should call the claim line on 0.....

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

That’s the crux of it for me that I think some people aren’t taking into account - Keogh can’t play for the rest of his contract, the other two can.

Also the other two younger players are future profit centres for Derby, whereas Keogh is a pure cost centre. Hence Derby's simplistic purely financial decision. Unless Keogh has been even more of a tvvat for reasons that haven't yet come to light, then taking Derby to the cleaners should be a simple tap-in for any competent employment law specialist.

 

[Gritt23]

Like I said this will be an employment lawyers dream case, it’s shocking from Derby.

Wouldn't bet on it.

They haven't done this in hurry, they've taken their time, during which they would have either:

1. Consulted their own legal team who with full details of the case (which we don't have) have been able to construct a solid Gross Misconduct charge that will not get easily ripped apart the moment the player has someone take a look at.
2. They have come to an agreement" with the player, in terms of what does and doesn't get paid to him, in exchange for him signing a disclaimer that he will not come back and challenge the Gross Misconduct decision.

Probably a combination of them both.

 

[Gritt23]

It sounds like he has been involved in an accident that wasn't his fault.

He may be entitled to Compensation.

He should call the claim line on 0.....

LOL, that's actually my standard response when I get those cold calls.

"Hello, we are ringing about an accident that you were in recently, that wasn't your fault."
"Nah, sorry, don't know the one you mean. I was in an accident recently, but ...."
"Yes sir, that's the one we are calling you about."
"But to claim it wasn't my fault. I was absolutely, and completely 5h1tfaced. Oh ,my GOD, so much blood. The whole bus queue. Eurgh.".

They can't hang up fast enough.

 

[drew]

Mason and Lawrence haven't frustrated their contract by not being able to play through their own stupidity but Keogh has which is the difference. Why should Derby pay Keogh £25k a week for the next year or so to sit on his backside watching Lose Women ?

He was a fool not to take the reduced contract offer and I'd wager Derby would have a water tight case for what they've done

And whilst he wasn't driving, I think we can presume that he got in the car knowing the driver had drunk too much. We also don't know whether he was egging the young player on!

Think Derby are wrong in their actions but no doubt a court case will sort it out. Think the very minimum he'll get is his contract paid up till next year. Haven't read the whole thread but would be interesting to see how much of a drop in pay they were expecting him to take.

 

[dazzer6666]

Should have sacked all three if it was anything to do with conduct, morals or behaviour. Economic decision, simple as that. Two assets retained and a drain on the books removed.

Sent from my H8314 using Tapatalk

 

[GT49er]

It could be that all three committed sackable offences - breach of contract, whatever.

As a result, Derby have sacked Keogh, which presumably they'd be within their rights to do so.
Perhaps they have also decided not to sack the other two on grounds of misconduct - they would have the right to, but it is not compulsory for them to do so if they don't want to.

Not saying it gives Derby the moral high ground, mind, but there is a lot of money involved - business is business and all that.

 

[METALMICKY]

Should have sacked all three if it was anything to do with conduct, morals or behaviour. Economic decision, simple as that. Two assets retained and a drain on the books removed.

Sent from my H8314 using Tapatalk

This in a nutshell! Morally corrupt but financially sound.

 

[Stat Brother]

Should have sacked all three if it was anything to do with conduct, morals or behaviour. Economic decision, simple as that. Two assets retained and a drain on the books removed.

Sent from my H8314 using Tapatalk

How does that compare with an incident in a Brighton hotel?

 

[crodonilson]

Leaves a sour taste in my mouth, Keogh was a Derby legend, captain fantastic and a mainstay in their defence for nearly 10 years, very poorly treated.

I can appreciate that Lawrence cost a lot of money and would command £12m+ and Bennett is a superstar of the future with a price tag of £20m+ but still doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[Mancgull]

So basically because Keogh is old and has less value he’s being treated far more harshly than a younger player who probably did worse, purely because they have more value? Don’t you see how wrong that is, if you are sacking Keogh for gross misconduct how the hell can you allow the other two idiots to go straight back into the team? Like I said this will be an employment lawyers dream case, it’s shocking from Derby.

Agree. Let's start with discrimination based on age. His employment lawyer will be gagging to get started.

 

[blue-shifted]

How does that compare with an incident in a Brighton hotel?

Absolutely no need to be dredging that back up

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

This is the statement issued by Derby when they said that they were sacking Keogh for 'gross misconduct'

"As 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,"

Which of the players put themselves at risk - Well Lawrence did by getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk - Bennett did by getting behind the wheel of another car while drunk - and you could claim with validity that Keogh put himself in danger by getting into a car being driven by a drunk driver.

Which of the players put their colleagues at risk - Well Lawrence and Bennett did by driving a car while drunk and crashing into one another causing severe injuries to Richard Keogh and leaving him unconscious. Keogh did not put either of his colleagues at risk because he wasn't driving.

Which of the players put members of the general public at risk - clearly Lawrence and Bennett did - they were both driving a car while drunk, both caused a crash and they also injured another passenger an 18 year old academy player.. Keogh did not put anyone at risk - he was sitting in the back seat.

Which of the players brought the club into disrepute - well both Lawrence and Bennett drove cars while drunk - both crashed their cars while drunk - both caused a serious injury to Richard Keogh because of their actions while drunk - both ran from the scene of the accident, leaving Keogh seriously injured and unconscious in the car, Keogh was lucky that paramedics happened to witness the accident and were able to attend to Keogh - both players were charged, pleaded guilty and were convicted of a serious offence. In contrast - what did Keogh do - well - he got drunk and got into the back of a car driven by another person who was drunk - he didn't drive a car while drunk, he didn't crash a car while drunk - he didn't leave the scene of an accident - he didn't leave an injured passenger unconscious in the back of the car - he wasn't charged with any criminal offence - he didn't plead guilty to any criminal offence - he wasn't convicted of any criminal offence.

Keogh was stupid - he got drunk and got into a car with a driver who was also drunk. Keogh has the look of a guy who likes a few pints - but drinking alcohol is not a crime and if getting drunk was a sacking offence then professional football would have very few players. If Keogh deserved to be sacked then so did the other two - if the other two were fined six weeks wages per their contract then that should have been Keogh's punishment too.

As others have said - Lawrence and Bennett are seen as assets - effectively pieces of meat with a price on their head - Keogh isn't worth anything so he was expendable and the club shafted him to the tune of £1million. It is a disgraceful move but demonstrates how clubs operate (not that they have done things any differently in the past).

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This is the statement issued by Derby when they said that they were sacking Keogh for 'gross misconduct'



Which of the players put themselves at risk - Well Lawrence did by getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk - Bennett did by getting behind the wheel of another car while drunk - and you could claim with validity that Keogh put himself in danger by getting into a car being driven by a drunk driver.

Which of the players put their colleagues at risk - Well Lawrence and Bennett did by driving a car while drunk and crashing into one another causing severe injuries to Richard Keogh and leaving him unconscious. Keogh did not put either of his colleagues at risk because he wasn't driving.

Which of the players put members of the general public at risk - clearly Lawrence and Bennett did - they were both driving a car while drunk, both caused a crash and they also injured another passenger an 18 year old academy player.. Keogh did not put anyone at risk - he was sitting in the back seat.

Which of the players brought the club into disrepute - well both Lawrence and Bennett drove cars while drunk - both crashed their cars while drunk - both caused a serious injury to Richard Keogh because of their actions while drunk - both ran from the scene of the accident, leaving Keogh seriously injured and unconscious in the car, Keogh was lucky that paramedics happened to witness the accident and were able to attend to Keogh - both players were charged, pleaded guilty and were convicted of a serious offence. In contrast - what did Keogh do - well - he got drunk and got into the back of a car driven by another person who was drunk - he didn't drive a car while drunk, he didn't crash a car while drunk - he didn't leave the scene of an accident - he didn't leave an injured passenger unconscious in the back of the car - he wasn't charged with any criminal offence - he didn't plead guilty to any criminal offence - he wasn't convicted of any criminal offence.

Keogh was stupid - he got drunk and got into a car with a driver who was also drunk. Keogh has the look of a guy who likes a few pints - but drinking alcohol is not a crime and if getting drunk was a sacking offence then professional football would have very few players. If Keogh deserved to be sacked then so did the other two - if the other two were fined six weeks wages per their contract then that should have been Keogh's punishment too.

As others have said - Lawrence and Bennett are seen as assets - effectively pieces of meat with a price on their head - Keogh isn't worth anything so he was expendable and the club shafted him to the tune of £1million. It is a disgraceful move but demonstrates how clubs operate (not that they have done things any differently in the past).

Yep - hard to argue with any of that.

 

[dazzer6666]

How does that compare with an incident in a Brighton hotel?

In the Derby incident two were found guilty ?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Leaves a sour taste in my mouth, Keogh was a Derby legend, captain fantastic and a mainstay in their defence for nearly 10 years, very poorly treated.

I can appreciate that Lawrence cost a lot of money and would command £12m+ and Bennett is a superstar of the future with a price tag of £20m+ but still doesn’t sit well with me.

Lawrence's value is questionable if as it appears he has alcohol dependency can't believe many that would touch him.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Mason and Lawrence haven't frustrated their contract by not being able to play through their own stupidity but Keogh has which is the difference. Why should Derby pay Keogh £25k a week for the next year or so to sit on his backside watching Lose Women ?

He was a fool not to take the reduced contract offer and I'd wager Derby would have a water tight case for what they've done

That’s the crux of it for me that I think some people aren’t taking into account - Keogh can’t play for the rest of his contract, the other two can.

But that is spectacularly not the point. The man has a contract and has been treated totally differently from the other players involved in the incident. It's not "whataboutism" to say that they set precedent by fining Bennett and Lawrence, and have treated Keogh completely differently by sacking him. His case is obvious here - he's far less responsible for the accident than the other two and his punishment should not be more severe. Obviously, we all knew that Bennett and Lawrence (especially) were not going to be fired because they have enormous football value. Keogh is a player rated only by [MENTION=3385]crodonilson[/MENTION] and would likely have left the club at the expiration of his contract anyway, so we can all understand sacking him now that he's injured and cannot play again during the length of his contract.

But this isn't a footballing decision - they've treated him differently from the other two players, and they will definitely lose the appeal - OR they'll have to pay out a huge sum of money to prevent it getting to the verdict stage. On the face of it - he's been extremely unfairly dismissed, whatever you think about how much of a tosser he might be, what role he may have played in the apparent racing between the cars or anything else about the case - looking only at the facts, the club are treating him terribly and presumably unlawfully. I'm no contract law expert, but it's very clear that they're going to lose this case.

 

[blue-shifted]

Lawrence's value is questionable if as it appears he has alcohol dependency can't believe many that would touch him.

But he is quite good. Certainly at that level. There's clubs out there willingness to overlook a lot worse than booze dependency