Derby sack captain Keogh

[antsmithmk]

Blimey. Not exactly leading by example on that night was he.

 

[duffer]

Wonder why they waited until now to sack him.

 

[paulscholes18]

Strange to do it a month after, he’s injured until around Christmas next year

 

[mu4c_20le]

Wonder why they waited until now to sack him.

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.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

 

[antsmithmk]

Strange to do it a month after, he’s injured until around Christmas next year

He's 33. You could argue this will end his career....

 

[Cutch]

Sacked cos he’s no longer any use to them as opposed to the 2 younger uninjured lads that were driving

 

[Giuliano Maiorana]

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

 

[sewey89]

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

Sorry to hear about your friend. It really is a joke that people get away with drink driving so frequently.

Absolutely no chance the other two will be sacked. I think they both missed one game and have been back in the team ever since.

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

Sacked cos he’s no longer any use to them as opposed to the 2 younger uninjured lads that were driving

I kinda agree to be honest. All of them should have been terminated the tossers, but Keogh was the only 'commodity' they cant currently (and probably ever) use so he's the scapegoat and the fall guy.

 

[Skills]

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.

 

[Giuliano Maiorana]

Thank you @sewey89

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Cato]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Cato]

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.

The judicial system does not punish on "what if's", but rather what actually happened. So does the clubs.

 

[Brophs]

If clubs will basically ignore allegations of rape against their players because they’re performing assets, there’s very little hope of them sacking players for drink driving because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do. They know that they’d no sooner have done it than a half dozen rival clubs would try to sign those players without a second thought.

 

[SilentWitness]

The judicial system does not punish on "what if's", but rather what actually happened. So does the clubs.

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.

 

[AlwaysRed66]

So Keogh gets sacked by the club, although only being in the car not driving it. Whilst his two teammates were only fined 6 weeks wages by club, despite being charged & found guilty of drink driving, which they both received a 1 year community order, banned from driving for 2 years & ordered to do 180 hours of unpaid work. Could it be to do for the fact the Keogh was 33 & out for 15 months. If I was him I would take it to an employment tribunal, where I think Derby County might be in trouble.

 

[galwayfa]

Can he claim of the drivers insurance over loss of earnings?

 

[adexkola]

Can someone post some background information on what this is about?

 

[Tom Cato]

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.

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?

 

[Rado_N]

Can someone post some background information on what this is about?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-50041085

 

[SilentWitness]

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 think that everyone who drinks and drives should be sent to prison.

Let me put it this way - if people have enough money to go out and get pissed then they have enough money to order an Uber or a Taxi back home after a night out and that’s when we are talking about an average person. These lads have absolutely no fecking excuse in terms of that. Yes, they didn’t kill someone on that night but they did seriously injure another person (doesn’t matter if he was part of their group, still happened) and were very lucky that they didn’t injure or kill innocent people.

There is no excuse for drink driving at all and it’s drilled into society now as to what the law is. If you risk it and get caught you absolutely deserve a prison sentence to think about your actions. Community service and a fine just doesn’t cut it.

 

[sammsky1]

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.

You?

 

[Lemansky]

I think that everyone who drinks and drives should be sent to prison.

I agree. There should be no grounds for community service. They are absolutely right to sack him.

 

[adexkola]

Yep. Lose their job and be sent to prison. That would do as a start point. Happy to add to this list too.

You?

Yes let's swell prisons, brilliant idea

 

[sammsky1]

Yes let's swell prisons, brilliant idea

Tell me worse crimes deserving our prisons.

 

[Baneofthegame]

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.

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.

Don’t think anyone has a problem with Keogh being terminated, it’s the clear and blatant nature of why he has and the other two haven’t.

 

[Still ill]

Shocking hypocrisy. Sack him and not the 2 drivers? How are they getting away with this?

 

[arnie_ni]

Can he claim of the drivers insurance over loss of earnings?

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

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

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 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)?

 

[SungSam7]

Yes let's swell prisons, brilliant idea

People are known to go to prison for not paying tv licences

 

[Tom Cato]

Yep. Lose their job and be sent to prison. That would do as a start point. Happy to add to this list too.

You?

Depends on a lot of factors

Where were they driving? residential street? highway? farmland? speed? passengers? Time of day? (busy streets v empty streets)

Mitigating factors?

First time offender? Repeat offender?

There are so many things to consider when you pass judgement on a case, that's why there's no "fill out punishment form" in criminal justice.

What your job is is also important. Do you work at the biscuit factory? Whats the point of losing your job and only mean of income? You've already been punished by the state. Is it up to employers to punish people on behalf of the state? Airline pilots are examples of people who needs to lose their job when they get caught drunk driving, taxi drivers, truck drivers, anyone who works in the transport industry. But a office worker? That would do nothing to safeguard anyone.

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

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.

 

[Tom Cato]

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)?

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.

 

[Tel074]

Unbelievable how the guy who was the Victim (if you can call him that ) out of the three gets sacked . The other two got pissed and drove and caused an accident plus his injury and get away with a slap on the wrists . I'm guessing his age had probably a lot to do with the decision plus the length of time he is out injured .

 

[Champagne Football]

He absolutely should have accepted the paycut.

He was out getting slaughtered when he was supposed to have been in bed.

He accepted a lift home from someone he knew was obliterated drunk.

It would seem upon legal advice he has refused a pay cut. A large drawn out court battle will probably be the next step. It's a risky move from Keogh.

 

[Castia]

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?

Er, Yeah?

feck em, there’s no excuse for it it’s purely a selfish act that can easily be avoided.

The fear of killing themselves or somebody else doesn’t stop them but if the selfish assholes job is on the line? maybe they’ll think twice

 

[galwayfa]

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.[/QUOTE]
As the two drivers were found guilty, he could sue them if the insurance doesn't pay out,
Works out at about 1.3m so he could look for both to look after it

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

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.

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?

Also, if Derby can sack him for gross misconduct, why ask him to take a pay cut? Why not just sack him?

Also (and excuse me for being thick), I still don't get how Derby say they won't tolerate a player getting injured but they will tolerate a player leaving a team night out, getting pissed, drinking, crashing and leaving the scene of a crime.... just because the criminal justice system has given them community service and a driving ban?

 

[shahzy]

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.

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?

People are looking at this with a bit too much emotion. Remove the emotion and if you number crunch, it saves them like 1mil pounds for something they get no use out of. Seems like a no brainer for a company doesnt it