My initial recollection was that he was convicted of driving with excess alcohol because I remember posting on here about why one earth he couldn't afford a driver with the money he must be on. You might be more or less right though in that it could have been driving whilst disqualified having been previously banned for not having a valid licence. I can't see much distinction between the offences, my point was that no-one back then (myself included) wanted him sacked and I wondered if we were being a bit hypocritical when it came to our own players.

It is patronising when you go "Really?" thereby implying the poster has said something absurd. And you do it quite a bit.

Ha very good! Lies damn lies and statistics. That stat doesn't mean anything if you're keeping a clean sheet one game then shipping three or four the next. Here's some more stats: We've conceded 21 goals from fourteen games so far this season. Exactly 1.5 goals per game. Last season we conceded 69 goals from 46 games, again exactly 1.5 goals per game. Only four Clubs have conceded more than our 21 goals so far this season and we've conceded 2 goals or more in seven or half of our fourteen games. By way of contrast Brentford with Raya in the nets have conceded nine less on 12 - the fourth best in the division. You can manipulate stats to prove almost anything you want. I don't need to dig up some fluke statistic to tell me Walton is crap, I can see that with my own eyes. He's like a more error strewn version of Jason Steele - neither stop anything of note and Walton chucks in more glaring errors.

How does signing Rooney enable them to bypass the rules on advertising betting companies?

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.

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.

Beat me to it.

Very good. ? I agree btw.

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.

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.

No chance. He's a virtual laughing stock up in Scotland after his spell at Celtic.

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.

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.

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.

It was a strange game to assess the mood amongst the fans on Saturday. Firstly I'm sure there's a large proportion of the away support that only go to away games for the day out, to get beered and coked up and have the crack and a good sing song and banter with the opposition fans and for whom the result of that particular game is only a secondary consideration on the day. With it only being a local Derby I'm sure there were more of those sort of guys than usual who made the short trip on Saturday. For the more discerning fan if I can put it like that it was also a weird game. Even if you were staunchly anti Mowbray there was nothing to moan about for most of the game, we were one up inside a minute, two up inside ten and everything looked rosy up until half time. We didn't go behind until relatively late on in the game and even then of course there was technically the chance to get back in the game so until that hope is extinguished by going two or three behind it's a bit churlish chanting for the manager's head as opposed to trying to cheer the team on to an equaliser. I suspect the acid test would be if the side went 1-0 down in the first minute or two at Ewood and went in at half time say 0-2 down. I daresay Simon Smith would get a very different reaction to a straw poll at half time then.

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 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?

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.

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.

What a load of garbage. People complaining after "one poor game"? What is it now, 47 points from 42 games? He also just dismisses 11m (When I was at school 7 + 5 actually equalled 12) as if it doesn't matter. Sadly most of the comments below are more concerned with dissing the resident Dingle troll on the site.than acknowledging our own problems. One of the posters however had it right by daubing it the worst article ever written. As if you could send the manager off for a two week jolly mid season. Another had it right in pointing out we need to make a change now to give a new man the chance to give us the once over in advance of the January transfer window.

Not at all, those players are all under contract to Derby. Keogh has rendered himself completely useless to his employers by his own stupidity and by virtue of his age will have little or no value to them by the time he recovers. By an accident of fate and birth the other two weren't injured and are younger therefore Derby had the option to continue using them in the short term and/or sell them at a later date if anyone is daft enough to take them. Maybe slightly unfortunate for Keogh but that's just the way it is. In fact the more I think about it the more it is making me mad. How he has the gall to turn down a reduced contract offer when he should have been sacked is beyond me. I suppose Derby will be lumbered with the medical bills for his rehabilitation as well. If he takes it to a Tribunal I hope it gets laughed out of court. Edit: misread it slightly, didn't realise he'd now been sacked. The point still stands though, he could have accepted a reduced wage when he shouldn't by rights be entitled to anything. You can argue the moral pros and cons of whether all three should have been sacked but the other 2 can still play and he can't so his situation is completely different from the other two.

Don't disagree about the other two, but let's not forget, the Club are absolutely not at fault here, the players are. The Club didn't tell them all to get paralytic then climb into a car so why should the Club also lose out on the possibility of recovering some money back on the other two idiots at a later date? They should have the option between cutting them loose entirely to set a good example, or using them on the pitch in the short term to avoid getting into a relegation battle, or selling them at a later date to recoup some of their investment on them.

Must be me being old fashioned but I don't have any sympathy for Keogh whatsover. He's obviously been out on the lash with the others and got in a state he shouldn't as a professional sportsman, then got in a car with the other two knowing full well they were rat arsed. To me if you get in a car with someone who's drunk then that's entirely your prerogative, but don't complain if it all ends badly. To me, all three are extremely fortunate they weren't sacked immediately and I really don't know how in the circumstances Keogh can complain about being offered a reduced deal other than the fact the others were dealt with more leniently. Why should the Club have to stump up full wages whilst he recuperates when he's done what he's done? Typically of today's victim mentality. Always someone else's fault.

2) but with the right manager which Mowbray most clearly is not. Doesn't give the youngsters, a proper chance, hangs them out to dry in public, and his big money forays into the transfer market have proved disastrous.

Yes, but if the debts keep mounting there might come a point in the future whereby the owners run out of liquid assets to secure the debt against or they decide enough is enough.