Can't see the dressing room taking this very well.
Derby sack captain Keogh
- Thread starter antsmithmk
- Start date
He was offered a contract at a reduced rate. He turned that down. Instead, he wanted to be paid his full £1.3m a year salary while being completely unable to fulfill his job role in any way. And you want to speak of fairness and loyalty?
If anything you can say his teammates have been fortunate, not that's he has been treated unfairly. To be offered a salary when he's made himself incapable of doing his job because of his own negligence, is more than he deserves. No one forced him to decline the taxi he was offered. No one forced him to get in the car of someone he knew had been drinking. He's unfortunate in the sense that he was the one seriously injured, but the fact of the matter is the other two can still contribute and earn the money they're paid by performing on the pitch. Keogh cant. That's no one's fault but his own.
I think the issue you and a large chunk of (specifically our) fanbase fail to understand is that football players aren't just 'employees'. They're actual real assets, who cost a feck load of money to acquire & and can make the club money when they sell them. You're not just asking Derby to write off Lawrence and Bennet's transfer value, but also then spend an equivalent amount to replace them with equally good players. This is stupid and no business can reasonably expected to work that way.
Keogh is a negative asset because he hasn't got a transfer value anymore & he's going to be eating up a wage while not being available for a very long time.
Our fans have a big problem understanding this, which is why you hear dumb calls for squad culls every 6 months asking the club to get rid of players like at a charity shop.
Sacking Keogh and not Bennett and Lawrence makes a mockery of Derby's moral statement. This is about money and this statement is a poor smokescreen. Keogh is most likely a busted flush playing wise whereas Bennett and Lawrence are in their mid 20's. To retain the moral ground all three should have been booted out. The one who wasn't driving and didn't pose a threat to the public gets sacked which makes a mockery of their statement. Keogh should pursue an unfair dismissals and I hope he nails Derby for the hypocrites that the club is.
Whether the sacking was justified or not, the fact that they tried to blackmail him first before terminating him with just cause seems pretty classless.
Why are you questioning the morals of the club? They've done absolutely nothing wrong. Keogh has been an enormous prick and is paying the penalty for it, and you think he deserves some recompense? They offered him a contract at a reduced rate, which is far more than he deserves. His own stupid actions have ended his career but he expects the club to continue paying his £1.6m pa salary? The other two players still have something to offer, Keogh doesn't. But you think they should take an enormous financial hit to keep a player who has acted like a moron happy?
“As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
“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.”
Based on that statement Bennett and Lawrence should be goners too.
Of course they’ve said that. They need a basis to terminate his contract. It doesn’t mean they are some how morally bankrupt in all this. Terminating the contracts of the two other players will likely cost them in excess of £15mil and seriously harm their chances of gaining promotion, which will then adversely affect countless other people associated with the club. But you’re outraged with the club because they’re being unfair to a player who got in a car with drivers he knew were a danger to others and did nothing to stop them, despite being their captain, and then still wanted the club to paid him over £2m in wages for the privilege? How anyone can question the integrity of the club is beyond me.“As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
“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.”
Based on that statement Bennett and Lawrence should be goners too.
I don’t think any of us argue against that. What we are arguing about is the hypocrisy of Derby’s statement regarding Keogh and the others. They should have either been honest and said it’s because it’s the money or not said anything. By issuing a statement that says it is due to gross misconduct they’ve given Keogh an avenue to appeal on the grounds of unfair dismissal (ageism etc.) and also looked like massive hypocrites because the other two haven’t been sacked due to their “gross misconduct” which is arguably much worse than Keogh.
On a personal level this is sad. Keogh did not break the law, maybe even a victim. However, if I was running a business and an employee broke the rules leaving me liable for over £1million in wages I would be cheesed off. If he then refused to take responsibility and accept a cut in wages I would also sack the prick.
If Tom Lawrence and Mason Bennett were injured for 15 months, then Derby would have sacked them also.
Derby will be thinking had this night not happened, their chances of having an extra 70 million come into the club within a year, due to promotion, were high.
Derby are well within their rights not to bear the full financial brunt of this, due to bad behaviour from players who broke the terms of their contract, that will hit the Derby coffers hard.
Derby will be thinking had this night not happened, their chances of having an extra 70 million come into the club within a year, due to promotion, were high.
Derby are well within their rights not to bear the full financial brunt of this, due to bad behaviour from players who broke the terms of their contract, that will hit the Derby coffers hard.
You and Mutley have always been a pair of feckers though.
I was just about to post this. Or something similar anyway. Sack the only one that didn’t drive at any stage. Feck me.
Doubtful he would have a case. I assume there is a morale clause saying he can have his contract terminated if this or that. And even if he didn't drive - getting into the car with 2 guys he knew were drunk probably triggers the clause.
But of course the main reason Derby sacks him and not the others has to do with value and age....but he still probably hasn't got a case.
I’m no lawyer but surely there is a case for unlawful dismissal here. Few things don’t seem right to me...
1. Keogh, as far as I am aware, didn’t actually commit a criminal offence/wasn’t arrested. The two lads who were arrested and charged haven’t been sacked.
2. Keogh is the oldest and least valuable of the players involved. The other two are worth several million in today’s market. Surely a person’s perceived worth can’t come into a sacking for gross misconduct?
3. They asked him to take a pay cut which again doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s either gross misconduct or it’s not? By suggesting a pay cut, surely Derby have opened themselves up to counter suing on the basis its not actually gross misconduct - otherwise why not just sack him outright?
1. Keogh, as far as I am aware, didn’t actually commit a criminal offence/wasn’t arrested. The two lads who were arrested and charged haven’t been sacked.
2. Keogh is the oldest and least valuable of the players involved. The other two are worth several million in today’s market. Surely a person’s perceived worth can’t come into a sacking for gross misconduct?
3. They asked him to take a pay cut which again doesn’t sit right. Surely it’s either gross misconduct or it’s not? By suggesting a pay cut, surely Derby have opened themselves up to counter suing on the basis its not actually gross misconduct - otherwise why not just sack him outright?
Exactly, it doesn't become gross misconduct just because you're old and injured. If this was an isolated incident with no other player involvement then they'd probably get away with it.
I can't see this holding up in court, given his treatment is disproportionate to that of the two players who were convicted of a crime. He'll get some kind of out of court settlement payment, I'd say.
They clearly don't care about the morality of the situation when the two lads were back playing once their hangovers wore off. This is about money, pure and simple, which you've pretty much outlined in your post.
He got his contract terminated because he refuse to take a pay cut while he was injured.
Didn't they find a bag of coke at the scene? I wonder if that may have something to do with it, and they just aren't releasing that info. Whether Keogh appeals or not will be telling.
I’m an employment law HR advisor. I haven’t read too much about the case, but if he is sacked and the other two get away with it he will easily win by taking this case to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal based on age discrimination. Employers must consider other similar cases when deciding a disciplinary outcome, ensuring they are consistent.
There is normally a £86k cap but with discrimination, there is no upper limit. It will likely get settled out of court.
There is normally a £86k cap but with discrimination, there is no upper limit. It will likely get settled out of court.
Good luck with that one
Wont be difficult football is the same as any other place of employment . You cant treat people differently because of age or health
It really isn’t
Their lawyers have done their homework, Keogh should do his and move on before he becomes unemployable in football. He’s a young man with more than 30 years left to find another goal in life if he chooses. This will make him a pariah in football if he goes down that route. Football is also a close knit family among chairmen/women. Clubs that he think will offer him a position simply won’t, well not at the rate he clearly sees himself. He’s deluded if he thinks he’s getting close to 24k a week when many public service employees get that a year and there are others on zero hours contracts etc
Hope he takes them to the cleaners.
That's utter bollocks and you've no idea if what you're saying is true or not. The fact it's the whole basis of your argument, means it's worth nothing.
What if the other 2 players took paycut's also?
I think there's a lot of variables with this considering Keogh's contract runs out before he will be back playing. Furthermore, I remember reading that it was gross conduct and against club rules to be out at that time and drunk.
It’s a good question, they are very complicated fixed terms contracts and I don’t know the ins and outs, but a pay cut is a very unusual disciplinary sanction. It would usually be a demotion which would reduce an employees pay to be in line with that job title. But you can’t really demote a footballer to a lower job title... kit guy?
He has refused the amended contract they have then dismissed, so maybe he will try and claim constructive dismissal. All guesswork though and I am sure Derby have been getting legal advise from their employment lawyers.
Probably true but if this ever goes to court, there's no way they'll say this.
Sure you will be saying that if those pricks had hit and killed a child or something like that
If/When it goes to court, they'll state that while the others were punished they were fit to play and carry on work duties as normal.
Keogh is badly injured and can't perform his contracted duties - this is where it gets difficult.
They've given Keogh a compromise, but he rightly is upset being asked to take a paycut. He's taking a pretty harsh punishment from the crash itself, but is that the clubs fault? not really.
Keogh unfortunately should have taken the cut, the club are well within his right to cut him due to gross negligence (terms in his contract), maybe his advisors think he will win in court and told him to stick to his guns.
We shall see how it plays out, but it's a pretty horrible situation all around.
I have to agree with @Tom Cato 's take on this.
also,
You seem to be missing that fact that because of his decision to take a ride with those he knew were intoxicated, he put himself into a position to get himself injured, and he did get himself injured, in such a way that he could not provide services for payment rendered. That contract is for footballing, not for anything off the pitch. If he'd sustained a career-ending injury on the pitch, this would be a different discussion. Even if he'd broken his leg walking across the street, and only out for a few weeks, they wouldn't have done this. But that's not the case. He's a player already at the end of his career, and he did something stupid off the clock that cost him his health for an extended period of time.
Too many here seem to believe the club owes him something for nothing. He put himself and them in this position. Yes, there's a contract. He broke it. It's up to the club to do as they please at that point.
On the other hand, the other two were not injured in spite of their bad choices. Those choices still cost them in the judicial system, but they are still capable of rendering service to the club. Yes, there's a contract. They broke it. It's up to the club to do as they please at that point.
You can call it hypocrisy if you want, but the two situations are not the same because of the results of the incident in which they were all involved, and the point in the careers of all involved.
also,
You seem to be missing that fact that because of his decision to take a ride with those he knew were intoxicated, he put himself into a position to get himself injured, and he did get himself injured, in such a way that he could not provide services for payment rendered. That contract is for footballing, not for anything off the pitch. If he'd sustained a career-ending injury on the pitch, this would be a different discussion. Even if he'd broken his leg walking across the street, and only out for a few weeks, they wouldn't have done this. But that's not the case. He's a player already at the end of his career, and he did something stupid off the clock that cost him his health for an extended period of time.
Too many here seem to believe the club owes him something for nothing. He put himself and them in this position. Yes, there's a contract. He broke it. It's up to the club to do as they please at that point.
On the other hand, the other two were not injured in spite of their bad choices. Those choices still cost them in the judicial system, but they are still capable of rendering service to the club. Yes, there's a contract. They broke it. It's up to the club to do as they please at that point.
You can call it hypocrisy if you want, but the two situations are not the same because of the results of the incident in which they were all involved, and the point in the careers of all involved.
That didn't happen though so the mention of it is irrelevant.
Do not think that Derby are in the wrong here. Stupid actions by Keogh.
If they hit and killed a child then there are legal consequences for that. But they didn't. That's all that matters in a court of law.
So you're saying it isn't gross misconduct to break the law, and as a consequence putting the lives of innocent people at risk and actually causing an injury to a teammate which will keep him out of the game for 18 months but it is gross misconduct for Keogh to unwisely get in the car of a drunk driver purely because he ended up with said injury?
As others have said the club have set their own precedent with their treatment of the other two, and have disproportionately punished one player due to his age and injury. It won't fly in court and I'd be shocked if there wasn't an out of court settlement.
They didn't though. They were fined 6 week's wages.
I said, directly, that once they broke contract it was up to the club to do as they please. As far as putting innocent lives at risk, normal behavior does that, just at a lower risk. As soon as you get in your car, you up the ante, sober or not. Drunk, the odds are much higher. Speeding? Same deal. You aren't punished for anything that doesn't happen. That said, they were punished for breaking the law, and as Tom Cato pointed out, there are a lot of mitigating circumstances involved in penalties for drunk driving. Just like speeding. And that's actually a good thing.
As for the club setting precedent, not really. This is just today's news. And it's not disproportionate - he got himself injured by his actions, they did not. Lucky for them? Sure, but to equate the two is not logical.
I bet this does fly in court, too, or the team's legal counsel would not have let them do it.