Derby sack captain Keogh

[Gazza]

He basically participated in behavior that has led to him being unable to fulfill the duties of his profession, most likely for the remainder of his contract. If he’d been injured on the job then it’s a different matter, but he ultimately made a choice to get into a car driven by his wasted teammates rather than call a taxi.

 

[Dargonk]

If I was him, I would be looking at an unfair dismissal cause based on age discrimination. The fact that they haven't sacked the two others involved, despite one of them being the driver, which is worse, clearly points to the fact that he has been sacked purely because he is older/injuries are worse.

For me if he actually did that, I feel Derby would be on very shaky grounds.

 

[Snow]

He should get a harsher sentence. He's the club captain and one of its seniors.

 

[Needham]

He should get a harsher sentence. He's the club captain and one of its seniors.

Agreed. Sacking players should be a standard part of the game. I've seen colleagues sacked for nothing more than not meeting their quota in two consecutive quarters or being a little racist during funerals. Football has to change.

 

[mariachi-19]

Agreed. Sacking players should be a standard part of the game. I've seen colleagues sacked for nothing more than not meeting their quota in two consecutive quarters or being a little racist during funerals. Football has to change.

Wait what?

 

[Needham]

Wait what?

Sorry I meant racy.

 

[Baneofthegame]

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

I know why they have done it, from a business perspective it makes complete sense.

The issue is that they have not terminated two other employees, both of them actually committed worse offences and have kept there jobs without pay cuts as far as I’m aware, which is discrimination in my opinion.

 

[padzilla]

It is another sickening example of how money rules football. Derby are not covering themselves in glory here, if they genuinely are sacking him for gross misconduct they absolutely should sack the other two whose actions were significantly worse on the night in question. But that's not what they are sacking Keogh for, is it? They are sacking him because he is of no value to them anymore and they are hiding behind the excuse of gross misconduct. The fact they offered him a pay cut before this action suggests as much and I don't think Keogh would be unreasonable at looking at taking a case on the grounds of age discrimination. He might not win but there is certainly a reasonable argument this is what has happened here.

 

[SilentWitness]

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.

You keep saying nobody got hurt. Keogh did. It doesn’t matter if he was part of their group. He still got hurt and he wasn’t driving.

I don’t understand why you’re also ignoring the statement that it was gross misconduct which is why Keogh was fired. If that’s their stance then the other two should absolutely be fired as what they’ve done is much worse considering they were driving.

I’m not having the “Yeah but Keogh should have known better as he was the captain” - they’re all grown men, it’s not on the football field. They need to take responsibility for what they all did. If one person is being sacked for the reasoning they’ve given of gross misconduct then all of them need to be sacked otherwise it just isn’t ‘fair’ and it’s ageist/based on his long term injury. If they’d have came out and said it was because of his long term injury then fine, that’s more understandable.

Also, regarding prison sentencing - as I’ve mentioned in a previous post there is no excuse as an adult to be drink driving. If you can pay multiple amounts on alcohol you can pay a tenner on an Uber or a taxi. The driving ban means nothing to a footballer either, it’s simple for them to find a driver or the club to arrange a driver or something for them in a case like this, that’s just how football works now. A prison sentence atones for the seriousness of this crime. I don’t think it’s a crime that should be taken lightly. There are a few that have a prison sentence and don’t warrant it but this definitely does. But that’s for another thread regarding the whole justice system in the UK.

 

[Kostur]

Sorry I meant racy.

If your friend got sacked for being a bit racy, does it mean that the sacking ones were actually racyst?

 

[Sandikan]

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

They should get banged up shouldn't they? Is there not a court case to come?

 

[McGrathsipan]

does anyone actually know the Ts and Cs of his contract? If not then its all pure speculation.

This is not cut and dried that Derby are allowed to do it. If they were supplying alcohol on a "company" night out and the damages result from poor decisions after too much drink then there is an argument that they are themselves having to think about contributory negligence.

This isnt over unless there is strict terms in his contract about injuries or damages suffered under the influence of alcohol

But he will never play for Derby again - he will just get a financial settlement.

His career is effectively over

 

[Number4.]

I would imagine Derby are well within their rights to sack him & personally I have zero sympathy for him (Keogh)

I do think he has a strong case though - they hypocrisy of Derby is absolutely sickening, keeping the younger lads as they are assets and sacking Keogh because he useless to them now. Surely age based discrimination in play here.

 

[TheReligion]

Not sure what I think about this really. Can see both sides. I'm assuming things have happened behind the scenes which is why he's been found guilty of gross misconduct and the other two haven't. The two drink drivers have been fined 6 weeks wages (the maximum Derby are able to in the terms of their contracts) and have been given, in drink driving terms, a decent sentence for what appear to be first time offenders. Anyone expecting a custodial sentence for anything less than causing death is out of touch with the modern justice system.

With Keogh it seems he's refused to acknowledge any wrong doing on his part and accept a punishment of wage reduction. As such they have held a hearing and found him guilty of gross misconduct which has resulted in his dismissal. Without knowing the facts of what happened and the nature of what he's accused of its hard to say too much. Publicly it does look poor though that Bennett and Lawrence remain at the club whilst the older, injured and less valuable Keogh has lost his job.

As said though there's likely more to it.

 

[Jonty]

It's a test case for when Rooney joins them and inevitably makes a similar feck up

 

[stepic]

Tell me worse crimes deserving our prisons.

Huh? There are tons of worse crimes. Killing someone being one of them.

 

[Still ill]

What sort off bullshit is this. He made a serious error of judgement by getting in the car and paid for it with public humiliation and a probable career ending injury. The other 2 got behind the wheel while drunk. They are actually playing ball again on the same wages. In what world does this make sense. He has been an incredible servant to the club and they're binning him now while offering redemption to the other two. Parity of treatment is the least he is due.

 

[Zlatattack]

They should sack the other two as well. The club offered them all taxi's home, they refused and instead chose to drive.

 

[Still ill]

How are the Derby fans feeling about this?

 

[Sandikan]

Agreed. Sacking players should be a standard part of the game. I've seen colleagues sacked for nothing more than not meeting their quota in two consecutive quarters or being a little racist during funerals. Football has to change.

Being a little racist in funerals?!?

The mind boggles.

 

[Sandikan]

What sort off bullshit is this. He made a serious error of judgement by getting in the car and paid for it with public humiliation and a probable career ending injury. The other 2 got behind the wheel while drunk. They are actually playing ball again on the same wages. In what world does this make sense. He has been an incredible servant to the club and they're binning him now while offering redemption to the other two. Parity of treatment is the least he is due.

Exactly this.

Are we missing something?

He's being penalised much harsher than the other two as he got severely injured, even though he wasn't driving.

Unless there's something else going on, it looks like scandalous opportunism from Derby to save a lot of wages, on an asset that has zero value now.

 

[Needham]

How are the Derby fans feeling about this?

Sheepish

 

[Sandikan]

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.

I'm as anti booze as it gets. I'd ban it totally, not just reduce the drive "Limit" to zero.

However, they allow a certain limit, therefore they have to have a scale of how serious the offence is.

Amount over the limit, and damage caused have to be the criteria.

The problem with this arbitrary limit, is a non drinker like me would be dangerous well under the legal limit, whilst a big drinker is probably safe beyond it.
Therefore, in the case of the latter, someone who may have slipped a miniscule amount over, but who hasn't caused anyone or thing any damage, a fine/short ban may be enough of a punishment.

Then add in longer bans etc.
Jail needs to be where it has actually impacted someone's life, or property, or if they are a repeat offender.

The bans can be a joke though. Especially when the person is in jail anyway at the time!

 

[Adam-Utd]

Think people are missing a bit of the story here;

Derby asked to reduce his wages while he was injured and not playing. Keogh refused (perhaps rightly) and Derby decided if he wouldn't play ball (literally) then they should cancel his contract.

I imagine Keogh will take them to court and win his full contract plus damages.

 

[Still ill]

Yeah, I saw that. That is a similarly opportunistic and unfair move by Derby. Why should he accept that if something similar hasn't been foisted on his 2 clubmates? It's cynical and underhand, knowing that Keogh is in a difficult position, public opinion against him. He's human, he'll regret that night for the rest of his life but he's been at that club for a long time and whatever his limitations as a footballer, he's a genuine guy who gives his heart and soul on the pitch. Cocu talked about supporting the 3 of them when it happened. I think it's a pretty shameful way to deal with Keogh.

 

[SungSam7]

Anyone know the ins and outs of the Darren Gibson sacking? I'm sure he didnt get a settlement with Sunderland surely since they were on their knees when it came to money. However in this case, Keogh could argue he wasn't driving and the other two were and yet they kept their jobs.

 

[The Cat]

Sounds like he will have a strong case if he takes them to court.

 

[Red00012]

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

You’re getting confused Keogh wasn’t driving but drinking and got sacked.The other 2 were driving and didn’t get sacked.

 

[Seaman]

You’re getting confused Keogh wasn’t driving but drinking and got sacked.The other 2 were driving and didn’t get sacked.

How old is he compared to them? He isn't worth to the club close to what they are. If he was 23 year old star player for them it would be completely different

 

[Red00012]

How old is he compared to them? He isn't worth to the club close to what they are. If he was 23 year old star player for them it would be completely different

So it’s ok to drink drive and finish their club captains career because they are a lot more valuable as an asset to the club?

 

[pacifictheme]

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

I doubt they will come the appeal. Respective salaries and values are irrelevant legally. Hes been singled out and i would be amazed if derby don't have to pay his salary.

 

[Devil81]

Hardly a surprise, the other two still have a market value. Keogh is the 33 and out for 12 months plus, he's hardly going to pull in a fee once he's back fit.

I bet the other two players are feeling guilty.

 

[Tom Cato]

You keep saying nobody got hurt. Keogh did. It doesn’t matter if he was part of their group. He still got hurt and he wasn’t driving.

I don’t understand why you’re also ignoring the statement that it was gross misconduct which is why Keogh was fired. If that’s their stance then the other two should absolutely be fired as what they’ve done is much worse considering they were driving.

I’m not having the “Yeah but Keogh should have known better as he was the captain” - they’re all grown men, it’s not on the football field. They need to take responsibility for what they all did. If one person is being sacked for the reasoning they’ve given of gross misconduct then all of them need to be sacked otherwise it just isn’t ‘fair’ and it’s ageist/based on his long term injury. If they’d have came out and said it was because of his long term injury then fine, that’s more understandable.

Also, regarding prison sentencing - as I’ve mentioned in a previous post there is no excuse as an adult to be drink driving. If you can pay multiple amounts on alcohol you can pay a tenner on an Uber or a taxi. The driving ban means nothing to a footballer either, it’s simple for them to find a driver or the club to arrange a driver or something for them in a case like this, that’s just how football works now. A prison sentence atones for the seriousness of this crime. I don’t think it’s a crime that should be taken lightly. There are a few that have a prison sentence and don’t warrant it but this definitely does. But that’s for another thread regarding the whole justice system in the UK.

You're putting words in my mouth, that is not what I said. What I said that no one innocent got hurt. Big difference. Criminal law takes a hard stance between guilty parties and innocent ones. Keogh was a passenger, he was not innocent. Getting into a car with a drunk driver when you know he is drink, makes you just as liable as if you had been driving yourself.

Also, I'm not ignoring anything. My last sentence literally says that the interesting question in all of this is: Can Derby fire him? We don't know that because we don't know what the contract says. It's also not as simple as you make it out to be. There is a comparative difference between the parties situations.

The two players in question, CAN execute the terms of their contracts. They are fit and can play.
The injured player, CAN'T execute the terms of his contract, due to an injury sustained by his own making. The club fires him citing gross negligence. The gross negligence that will be argued in the courts is NOT the drinking and 'passengering' - The club was ready to forgive that after the player meets the club somewhere in a financial settlement. What the club WILL argue in court, is that the player can not execute his contract due to injuries sustained while committing what's technically a crime, the alcohol is second nature in this claim, he could have been stealing an apple, fled the scene and crashed, and the argument would have been the same. Gross negligence for getting himself injured. The club is not interested in paying the bill for his own mistakes, and so they fired him.

The question that will need to be resolved in court: Does the contract allow this? Is it specified? - If not, the club can still argue that the players long absence is reason enough to warrant gross negligence of the terms in which he will be available for the club until 06 2020. - The Players Association that will no doubt give him legal council can argue that the club signed a contract, and that the alcohol provided to the players enabled them to get into the situation in the first place. This is a VERY thin line of arguing, and will not lead anywhere. A principle of law is that you are responsible for any and all actions you take as long as your state is of your own doing, or you are not acting in self defense / self preservation (Driving like a madman to the hospital because your son ruptured a femoral artery for example is good enough reason to drive like a madman. If you don't hurt anyone, that is a valid emergency to break the law. Hurt someone, and you are both allowed to, and not allowed to. A technical jargon that's not valid here obviously, but Im just putting an example out.

The other argument that the player can present is naturally that the two others have NOT been fired. IF the club argues publicly, and expressively states that he has been fired for "drink driving" or being a "drunk passenger", then the player has a pretty good case. Derby have the option to terminate the other two players for the same reason. Or they can eat Keoghs wages during his recovery.

If Derbys legal team has any sense they will not address the case in public, the board or its directors will not cite the drunk driving as the reason for admissal, and rather argue the self sustained injury.

I'm seeing a lot of posters argue that they are tired of "footballers" getting off easy. Is the argument to classify footballers as their own punishment code? What about factory workers? locksmiths? store clerks? There is a reason why the legal system takes care of punishment in society, and private entities are left to their own devices. The only way you can lose your job in the UK if youre drinking or driving is if: Its specifically mentioned in the work contract, or you can not perform your job. What you "think is right" or what "Should be" is not any argument since it's all make believe and will never happen.

I'm happy to predict what will happen here since it's not wizardry:

Derbys motivation is to save £1,34m in wages - Keoghs motivation is to collect £1,34m in wages. This is the business aspect of it, and its a real thing.

The parties will have a court date set. The parties will reach a closed door agreement where Keogh is paid a larger, but not full % of his pending wages until June 2020 and terms will not be disclosed. The two players remaining in Derby will have paid their club the fine of 6 weeks pay, and be in the midst, or have already served their community service. And life will go on.

The alcohol will be a secondary argument of Derby, the injury is the sole focus, and the huge difference. If Keogh was not injured, he would have received the same reaction as his counterparts.

No argument like "It should be this" "drinking and driving should automatically be prison, loss of house, kids and everything you own" is a real one, it's just not going to happen. - I mean, if that's the punishment for EVERY antisocial crime (And why wouldn't it be? If the argument is that people CAN get hurt, then pile it on), then the bailiffs of UK are going to become the largest employer on the Island.

Lastly, if anyone read all of this and still think that I defend drunk driving, then just grow up.

 

[Cutch]

Sounds like he will have a strong case if he takes them to court.

You'd think that but at the same time, Derby are bound to have done their homework legally on this

 

[Seaman]

So it’s ok to drink drive and finish their club captains career because they are a lot more valuable as an asset to the club?

Not ok. But football is business end of the day. You think if Rashford did this at United the club would sack him and release him on free? But I bet you if a reserve player did it he would be sacked. That goes for every club. So I don't think Derby is exception here

 

[GBBQ]

Anyone know the ins and outs of the Darren Gibson sacking? I'm sure he didnt get a settlement with Sunderland surely since they were on their knees when it came to money. However in this case, Keogh could argue he wasn't driving and the other two were and yet they kept their jobs.

If Derby sacked all 3 they could say that they take a zero tolerance approach to those involved in drink driving and likely the players wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact they have treated Keogh differently will come back to bite them.

 

[GBBQ]

Not ok. But football is business end of the day. You think if Rashford did this at United the club would sack him and release him on free? But I bet you if a reserve player did it he would be sacked. That goes for every club. So I don't think Derby is exception here

But in your examples there is only 1 player so they can't argue against preferential treatment. I don't think Keogh would argue that he wasn't in the wrong just that the consequences for all involved varied based on their ability to play football. So unless Keogh has something in his contract that allows reduced wages in the case of injury through negligence then I don't see how Derby have acted in a fair manner as an employer.

 

[ivaldo]

What sort off bullshit is this. He made a serious error of judgement by getting in the car and paid for it with public humiliation and a probable career ending injury. The other 2 got behind the wheel while drunk. They are actually playing ball again on the same wages. In what world does this make sense. He has been an incredible servant to the club and they're binning him now while offering redemption to the other two. Parity of treatment is the least he is due.

The other two players are still able to do their job. He isn’t. From Derby’s point of view it’s hardly bullshit.

 

[jeff gurr]

The other two players are still able to do their job. He isn’t. From Derby’s point of view it’s hardly bullshit.

From Derby's point of it's good business. The player knowingly put himself in harms way & now cannot play football for his club. If Derby don't have to pay him then why would they.

 

[Still ill]

Well yes, they've used this as an excuse to terminate his contract. Of course it makes economic sense. Ethically, he has still been isolated and treated disproportionately much harsher than the two other idiots that were actually breaking the law. I'm not arguing against it making economic sense for them. I am saying that he has not been treated fairly. Notwithstanding the knowledge that fairness, loyalty, compassion etc are antiquated concepts in the modern game.