Jump to content
arbitro

Championship season 2019-20

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

Any club would have done this, he’s a pillock for putting himself in that position. 

 There is no consistency here though. What about the other two who actually drove under the influence and caused the injury to him? They have actually played for the first team since the accident. There is something far deeper in this story and I'd be amazed if it not the monetary value of Lawrence and Bennett when they actually get shut of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, a person  wouldn't ordinarily be sacked from their day job for a drink driving offence (unless they drove for a living). In that respect I understand why the two players caught drink driving have kept their job.

Keogh  is a separate entity. He lost his job because he rendered himself useless to his employer through his own folly whereas the other two didn't . I believe his employer must consider it within their power to renegotiate his contract due to the circumstances. The fact that Keogh rejected this new offer is his prerogative and enables the club to cancel it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, arbitro said:

 There is no consistency here though. What about the other two who actually drove under the influence and caused the injury to him? They have actually played for the first team since the accident. There is something far deeper in this story and I'd be amazed if it not the monetary value of Lawrence and Bennett when they actually get shut of them.

There's nothing sinister to it at all. Maybe if all three were injured or all three were uninjured and were treated differently that would have been off.  However the other two can still play, Keogh unfortunately for him was injured and can't. Maybe in an ideal world all three should have been sacked but the Club have done nothing wrong and are entitled to continue to utilise them or cut them adrift as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

There's nothing sinister to it at all. Maybe if all three were injured or all three were uninjured and were treated differently that would have been off.  However the other two can still play, Keogh unfortunately for him was injured and can't. Maybe in an ideal world all three should have been sacked but the Club have done nothing wrong and are entitled to continue to utilise them or cut them adrift as they see fit.

I get that. My point was that Keogh has no value and is effectively sacked. The other two who caused the accident are suspended, fined and then free to play. The difference is that the two drink drivers will be worth some money if they are transferred and Derby are protecting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stuart said:

Keogh, an injured passenger, was sacked for ‘gross misconduct’.

Lawrence and Bennett both admitted, and were convicted for, drink driving.

The moral argument doesn’t stack up. The misconduct charge (which does appear to be a case of double standards) surely must point to a contract clause like ‘barring accident players will ensure they are fit to play at all times“. Either way, I agree with those suggesting Keogh had become an expensive problem (out for over a year and the wrong age). The other two still have value. Let’s not pretend this is any moral argument.

It is arguable whether what happened to Keogh was beyond his control. His lawyers will argue he wasn’t driving, the club will argue he got in the car. I expect him to get a big payout.

Not sure where any sympathy for Keogh comes from or indeed any suggestion he hasn't done anything wrong.

If you and your mates are all paralytic, and one of them suggests driving then you do all you can to dissuade them and if you can't then you say "I can't come with you and on your head be it if anything happens." If you climb in the car as a passenger then whilst you haven't technically committed an offence, really you are condoning and encouraging the act of drink driving and are complicit in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, arbitro said:

I get that. My point was that Keogh has no value and is effectively sacked. The other two who caused the accident are suspended, fined and then free to play. The difference is that the two drink drivers will be worth some money if they are transferred and Derby are protecting that.

I can't see what's wrong with that though. The Club are not at fault in the incident. What if this had happened and one of the uninjured players was worth £100m. Would you still expect the Club to sack the player without a bean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sack one, you need to sack them all.

It's a proper shady move sacking Keogh off as the passenger (yes, he's complicit as he was happy jumping in the car with someone he knew was hammered) and keeping the other two on, who are the real villains of the piece. Just because they're ten years younger and have re-sale value. 

It's almost condoning drink-driving in some ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

It's almost condoning drink-driving in some ways. 

Must just be me,  I don't see it that way at all.

The Club have done nothing wrong as regards this incident and  would technically be entitled to sack all three if they wanted. I assume they were all fined the maximum permissible by the Club and two of them have been sentenced by the Courts. The Court decided in their wisdom or otherwise  to only sentence them to unpaid work therefore they are available for selection.

Keogh, by virtue of his injury, is not. It's that simple. Had the other two been sentenced to a reasonably long term of imprisonment and therefore been unavailable, I'm sure they'd have been sacked as well. It's nothing to do with condoning drink driving which obviously Derby do not, it's a case of being pragmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

If you sack one, you need to sack them all.

It's a proper shady move sacking Keogh off as the passenger (yes, he's complicit as he was happy jumping in the car with someone he knew was hammered) and keeping the other two on, who are the real villains of the piece. Just because they're ten years younger and have re-sale value. 

It's almost condoning drink-driving in some ways. 

As Deby themselves said "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," 

Yeah, right.

Meanwhile, I would not play in a team with those 2 cowards who left a mate injured. If I was the mate concerned I would be paying them a visit when injuries permit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Meanwhile, I would not play in a team with those 2 cowards who left a mate injured. If I was the mate concerned I would be paying them a visit when injuries permit.

 

What are you on about, he got in the car voluntarily, they didn't force him or kidnap him or anything, he's as much to blame as the other 2. The only way in which I'd agree with you is if he'd passed out beforehand and they'd bundled him in the car without him knowing anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

What are you on about, he got in the car voluntarily, they didn't force him or kidnap him or anything, he's as much to blame as the other 2. The only way in which I'd agree with you is if he'd passed out beforehand and they'd bundled him in the car without him knowing anything about it.

They did leave him injured in the car without checking whether he was alive or dead, that's where the 'coward' remark stems from I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Must just be me,  I don't see it that way at all.

The Club have done nothing wrong as regards this incident and  would technically be entitled to sack all three if they wanted. I assume they were all fined the maximum permissible by the Club and two of them have been sentenced by the Courts. The Court decided in their wisdom or otherwise  to only sentence them to unpaid work therefore they are available for selection.

Keogh, by virtue of his injury, is not. It's that simple. Had the other two been sentenced to a reasonably long term of imprisonment and therefore been unavailable, I'm sure they'd have been sacked as well. It's nothing to do with condoning drink driving which obviously Derby do not, it's a case of being pragmatic.

I think it is, judging by the comments from others, but fair play, you're sticking to your guns! 

Which they should have, if they're sacking any of them. If Keogh was ten years younger, they wouldn't have sacked him, I think that's a fair assumption. 

They've thrown him under the bus, because he got injured whilst two other people that caused the injury get a fine and that's it. 

As a club captain and a long serving player, he's a right to feel aggrieved. 

I'm very confident he will take this case to court and be successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldjamfan1 said:

They did leave him injured in the car without checking whether he was alive or dead, that's where the 'coward' remark stems from I think.

Yeah, presumably they panicked on the spur of the moment given the state they were in made the ill advised decision to run off. They did however seemingly think better of it and return voluntarily 45 mins later and we don't know if they rang for assistance for Keogh in the meantime.

I agree to an extent that if you were a team mate of Keogh's you wouldn't be too impressed with the other 2 for initially running off but then again I wouldn't be impressed with any of them for leaving the rest of the team in the **** by their actions either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K-Hod said:

I'm very confident he will take this case to court and be successful. 

I really really hope not. Keogh is bang out of order himsel. His only defence is the other two have been dealt with more leniently but the reason for that is not because they don't like Keogh  or are dealing with him unfairly it's because he was equally at fault as the others for the incident and he can't play but the others can. Just because the other two haven't been sacked doesn't mean he shouldn't be either. Two wrongs and a right is better than three wrongs.

If he goes to Court and is successful it will set a terrible precedent. Players will think they can get up to all sorts and  Clubs will just have to carry on merrily stumping out until the end of their contracts for players who have incapacitated themselves through their own wrongdoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I think it is, judging by the comments from others, but fair play, you're sticking to your guns! 

Which they should have, if they're sacking any of them. If Keogh was ten years younger, they wouldn't have sacked him, I think that's a fair assumption. 

They've thrown him under the bus, because he got injured whilst two other people that caused the injury get a fine and that's it. 

As a club captain and a long serving player, he's a right to feel aggrieved. 

I'm very confident he will take this case to court and be successful. 

This is a workplace like any other in 2019. It will be interesting what official reason he was given and how that sets him aside from the other two scumbags.

It can't be his age.

It can't be breaking the law.

It can't be being drunk or bringing the club in to disrepute.

 

I agree he will have a strong case if the other two don't follow him.

 

I also wonder if he could follow a civil case against the driver for loss of earnings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure where any sympathy for Keogh comes from or indeed any suggestion he hasn't done anything wrong.

If you and your mates are all paralytic, and one of them suggests driving then you do all you can to dissuade them and if you can't then you say "I can't come with you and on your head be it if anything happens." If you climb in the car as a passenger then whilst you haven't technically committed an offence, really you are condoning and encouraging the act of drink driving and are complicit in it.

No sympathy at all. Not sure why you read it that way.

The issue is that the other two haven’t had their contracts cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What are you on about, he got in the car voluntarily, they didn't force him or kidnap him or anything, he's as much to blame as the other 2. The only way in which I'd agree with you is if he'd passed out beforehand and they'd bundled him in the car without him knowing anything about it.

In simple terms, just for you, they did a runner and left him injured in the car wreck. Unforgiveable cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stuart said:

No sympathy at all. Not sure why you read it that way.

eTh issue is that the other two haven’t had their contracts cancelled.

The club will be thinking that they may be able to, at some time in the future, recoup some money on the younger ones. As the club is totally blameless in this incident, I do not blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

This is a workplace like any other in 2019. It will be interesting what official reason he was given and how that sets him aside from the other two scumbags.

It can't be his age.

It can't be breaking the law.

It can't be being drunk or bringing the club in to disrepute.

 

I agree he will have a strong case if the other two don't follow him.

 

I also wonder if he could follow a civil case against the driver for loss of earnings?

He's willingly climbed in a car with two people who were extremely drunk and been injured as a result thereby rendering himself incapable of carrying out his duties required under his contract.

It's obviously gross misconduct imo. He hasn't got a leg to stand on. (Pun intended)

As regards the other two, in an ideal world maybe all 3 would have been sacked but it's easy to sit here and pontificate from a distance when it's not your money going down the tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rigger said:

The club will be thinking that they may be able to, at some time in the future, recoup some money on the younger ones. As the club is totally blameless in this incident, I do not blame them.

Which is why they are now accused of double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stuart said:

Which is why they are now accused of double standards.

No - one's answered my question from before.

What if one of the uninjured players had been worth £100m? Would the Club be similarly expected to just write £100m off for something that is in no way their fault?

It sounds fine in theory but it's an impossibly high moral bar to adhere to in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

No - one's answered my question from before.

What if one of the uninjured players had been worth £100m? Would the Club be similarly expected to just write £100m off for something that is in no way their fault?

It sounds fine in theory but it's an impossibly high moral bar to adhere to in the real world.

You don’t get to selectively apply morals. You either have them or you don’t.

The bottom line is that Keogh has been sacked because he has no value to Derby, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stuart said:

The bottom line is that Keogh has been sacked because he has no value to Derby, nothing else.

Exactly that and rightly so. Can't see why anyone is querying it.

The Club have done nothing wrong and should have the option of holding the other two to their contracts or cutting them adrift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Exactly that and rightly so. Can't see why anyone is querying it.

The Club have done nothing wrong and should have the option of holding the other two to their contracts or cutting them adrift.

By keeping the other two they are, in effect, condoning their behaviour. Evidently they are comfortable having drink drivers play for them.

What a crass club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stuart said:

By keeping the other two they are, in effect, condoning their behaviour. Evidently they are comfortable having drink drivers play for them.

What a crass club.

So should we have sacked Mokoena  when he got done for drink driving whilst playing for us?

Don't remember anyone clamouring for that to happen at the time tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.