antsmithmk
Hates women.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,610
Blimey. Not exactly leading by example on that night was he.
Because he refused to take a pay cut. Now they have terminated his contract on grounds of gross misconduct, though it seemed like he was more of a victim in that incident.Wonder why they waited until now to sack him.
He's 33. You could argue this will end his career....Strange to do it a month after, he’s injured until around Christmas next year
Sorry to hear about your friend. It really is a joke that people get away with drink driving so frequently.Deserved.
hopefully the other two are sacked as well. Disgusting drinking and driving.
I had a friend killed by one such and they escaped justice
Sacked cos he’s no longer any use to them as opposed to the 2 younger uninjured lads that were driving
Yeah it is. They could have killed a member of the public because of their stupidity and they’ve been let off as usual because football.It's not fair to ask Derby to write off millions of pounds by sacking the other two or expect to keep paying him while he's made himself unavailable because of his stupidity.
I get both sides here.Don't think it's very fair if he's the only player sacked. Clearly been made a fall guy. I know he is the captain and should be doing better in that regard but he wasn't a driver and his career was pretty much over anyway. It's obvious that the other two haven't been sacked due to their age. Shite from Derby all round.
The judicial system does not punish on "what if's", but rather what actually happened. So does the clubs.Yeah it is. They could have killed a member of the public because of their stupidity and they’ve been let off as usual because football.
I’m just fed up of footballers being allowed to put peoples lives at risk and getting away with it because they’re a footballer.The judicial system does not punish on "what if's", but rather what actually happened. So does the clubs.
They are not getting away with it at all. They have both been punished by the judicial system and are going to work community service to serve their debt to society. Their employer has fined them 6 weeks wages.I’m just fed up of footballers being allowed to put peoples lives at risk and getting away with it because they’re a footballer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085Can someone post some background information on what this is about?
I think that everyone who drinks and drives should be sent to prison.They are not getting away with it at all. They have both been punished by the judicial system and are going to work community service to serve their debt to society. Their employer has fined them 6 weeks wages.
Is it your opinion that everyone who drinks and drives should lose their jobs?
Yep. Lose their job and be sent to prison. That would do as a start point. Happy to add to this list too.They are not getting away with it at all. They have both been punished by the judicial system and are going to work community service to serve their debt to society. Their employer has fined them 6 weeks wages.
Is it your opinion that everyone who drinks and drives should lose their jobs?
I agree. There should be no grounds for community service. They are absolutely right to sack him.I think that everyone who drinks and drives should be sent to prison.
Yes let's swell prisons, brilliant ideaYep. Lose their job and be sent to prison. That would do as a start point. Happy to add to this list too.
You?
Tell me worse crimes deserving our prisons.Yes let's swell prisons, brilliant idea
The fact is, if Keogh wasn’t 33 and was 26 he would still have his job, which is the hypocrisy of it all. They should of sacked all three of them, but because two of them are still useful to the club, they have been retained.I get both sides here.
He earns £24k a week according to the article. The injury puts him out of action for 12-14 months. If is rehab goes well, and let's assume the usual snags on the way, especially for a man into his 30's, that he's out a solid 14 months. That's a total wage bill while doing rehab of £1,344,000.
The issue Derby has with this is that it's a injury sustained when the player was doing something he was absolutely not supposed to do, get in the car with a drunk person. He knew the driver was drunk and he took the risk anyway. I'm not sure how it would work in practicality, but I assume that any insurance the club has, does not cover accidents/injuries from drunk driving.
Essentially, the player sustained a injury he had every opportunity to not sustain, and did so by the mere power of impossibly poor judgement, and now wants the club to honor the contract he signed, and pay him while he recovers. That is a LOT to ask from a club, asking them to hand you £1.34 million pounds because of your own negligence. No wonder they don't want any part of that.
Fining him 6 weeks wages wouldn't have ant deterrent on him, as he's already out way way beyond that. The other two are still serviceable and can contribute during their contracts.
The other side of the issue is of course that he DOES have a contract that stipulates Derby pay him this and this weekly. The important thing is what's in the fine print. I'm almost sure that the club has some type of contingency in the contract for these types of accidents, or behavior. And if not they absolutely should. It's almost comparable to the Muto situation with Chelsea a few years ago where the player was forced to pay Chelsea the transfer value of himself, since he manage to get himself suspended for doing cocaine. An action of his own doing.
The situations aren't identical by no means, what they have in common is that they both took actions that they could easily have avoided, and they got hammered for it.
You know, after writing this, I'm with Derby on this one.
Would like to hear the answer to this?Can he claim of the drivers insurance over loss of earnings?
I guess it's the hypocrisy that most people will struggle with?They are not getting away with it at all. They have both been punished by the judicial system and are going to work community service to serve their debt to society. Their employer has fined them 6 weeks wages.
Is it your opinion that everyone who drinks and drives should lose their jobs?
People are known to go to prison for not paying tv licencesYes let's swell prisons, brilliant idea
Depends on a lot of factorsYep. Lose their job and be sent to prison. That would do as a start point. Happy to add to this list too.
You?
Drinking and driving nulls insurance. Causing an accident under the influence of any prohibited substance, or over the legal alcohol limit, makes you personally liable for any and all damages.Would like to hear the answer to this?
Would drink driving null and void insurance?
I suppose it cant because if you crashed into a 3rd parties car, there would have to be a payout
I don't really feel that the club has tolerated the actions of the players. They have given the parties involved employer penalties. The UK legal system have given the parties criminal penalties. After their debt to society is paid, in this case in the form of community sentence, they should be allowed to return to work. They are lucky no innocent party was involved in the crash or put in harms way. Yes of course someone COULD have been hurt, or even killed. But you don't judge on what might have happened. You pass sentence based on the events that have taken place.I guess it's the hypocrisy that most people will struggle with?
"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".
They clearly won't tolerate Keogh's actions but they WILL tolerate the other two (who just happen to be younger, still worth a place in the team, etc)?
Er, Yeah?They are not getting away with it at all. They have both been punished by the judicial system and are going to work community service to serve their debt to society. Their employer has fined them 6 weeks wages.
Is it your opinion that everyone who drinks and drives should lose their jobs?
It's obvious that you're smarter/more legally aware than the rest of us, so I'm sure you can explain why Derby can terminate Keogh's contract for gross misconduct, but what the other two did ISN'T gross misconduct?I don't really feel that the club has tolerated the actions of the players. They have given the parties involved employer penalties. The UK legal system have given the parties criminal penalties. After their debt to society is paid, in this case in the form of community sentence, they should be allowed to return to work. They are lucky no innocent party was involved in the crash or put in harms way. Yes of course someone COULD have been hurt, or even killed. But you don't judge on what might have happened. You pass sentence based on the events that have taken place.
They've lost their right to drive for 2 years, they're serving community service, and have paid a fine. The players have been fined by their employer. The difference here is did someone innocent get hurt? No. | If someone HAD gotten hurt, the players would be criminally liable for up involuntary manslaughter if the worst happened. - For all intents and purposes, the legal system have passed a punishment they deemed fitting for the crime commited. As it should be in a legal state, when the sentence is served, their debt to society is repaid and they should be allowed to return to the workforce with a clean slate.
I notice that a lot of you don't see or care about this distinction. But it's this very difference that makes up the basis on which the court systems can pass an accurate judgement.
The factors are also that the two players who remain with the club have been punished financially, but they are able to execute their contracts and contribute on the pitch. The party who has been fired, was set to collect £1.3m in wages for a self sustained injury up to 14 months. Of course they want nothing to do with that. He was offered to see out his contract at a reduction, but chose not to, and was subsequently fired.
The interesting question is if the club has the right to terminate the contract on this basis or not.
Isnt that the whole point of working at a company. Its because you are useful enough to the company and they pay you for that. I was reading he doesnt have much of a contract left so by the time he is back from this injury he either doesnt play much or leaves on a free. What use does the company (Derby) have there?The fact is, if Keogh wasn’t 33 and was 26 he would still have his job, which is the hypocrisy of it all. They should of sacked all three of them, but because two of them are still useful to the club, they have been retained.