Umm... that's a pay cut.
Derby sack captain Keogh
- Thread starter antsmithmk
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
While all that is true Keogh also signed a contract which said that he would play football for Derby County. Then while doing something incredibly risky and unrelated to his job, being driven by someone who is drunk, injured himself so that he can't fulfil his end of the contract. Derby were probably trying to be nice by offering him the deal and he said no.
You can look at it in a different light instead of through drunk driving, if he had deciding to go sky diving, another risky activity, and broke his leg while landing would you expect Derby County to have to pay his wages for the remainder of the contract? He put himself in a situation with a high risk of injury and because of it can't fulfil what he said he would do in his contract which I think makes Derby sacking him fair. The other two put themselves in the same situation but can still fulfil their end of their contracts by playing football for Derby so as they can still hold up their end they are still employed by Derby.
Got himself injured? He shouldn't have gotten in the car but one of them crashed into the other, causing his injury.
That's beside the point, the club has said he's been fired for gross misconduct. So my original question still stands.
This whole incident has created a very negative attitude towards the club from its own fans.
Most football fans I know support Derby and from day one all of them have called for all 3 players to be sacked.
What they have done and why they have done it is obvious. Keogh is no longer a valuable asset to Derby, the other 2 are. Unfortunately this should never have come in to it. For it to do so creates a very dangerous precedent for the younger players at the club.
People will say Keogh as captain should have done more, but there were plenty of other people that could have stepped in and he is not their dad.
How the 2 drunk drivers have ended up coming out of this better than a passenger is proving difficult to understand for the fans but since it occurred there has been a general consensus that some details have not emerged, however given that Keogh would appear likely to appeal his punishment I suspect a lot more will come out.
Most football fans I know support Derby and from day one all of them have called for all 3 players to be sacked.
What they have done and why they have done it is obvious. Keogh is no longer a valuable asset to Derby, the other 2 are. Unfortunately this should never have come in to it. For it to do so creates a very dangerous precedent for the younger players at the club.
People will say Keogh as captain should have done more, but there were plenty of other people that could have stepped in and he is not their dad.
How the 2 drunk drivers have ended up coming out of this better than a passenger is proving difficult to understand for the fans but since it occurred there has been a general consensus that some details have not emerged, however given that Keogh would appear likely to appeal his punishment I suspect a lot more will come out.
Yes, got himself injured. See ninjaskill's alternative scenario. The fact that he got into the car at all is not on them, it's on him. If you don't see it, you won't accept my answer and we are at an impasse.
I answered that extensively. Results matter. They all broke contract, it's up to the club to do as they please. He can no longer offer them any value, the others can, and mitigating circumstances do matter.
No it's not. It's a fine. A pay-cut is reducing your weekly wages for an extended period of time.
Um... OK. You don't math well, do you?
Um... I think you're being disingenuous because I disagreed with your other point to be perfectly honest and it's a bit petty.
We'll agree to disagree on the other points if you're going to take it to that level.
Silly conjecture. The team's legal counsel is getting paid, regardless of how the case ends up in court. Them going forward is no indicator of how solid their case is, ask Cardiff
Ah, no. You're the disingenuous one here, because you don't like the outcome.
Here's the math:
If the contract is to pay out over 52 weeks, and they dock them 6 weeks pay, then they're only getting 46/52nds of their pay over the course of the year. Now, you can say potahto, I can say potayto, but that's a pay cut, whether it's in the form of a contractual drop in the amount per week, or a fine of 6 whole weeks of pay. That's not disingenuous, that's math.
I suggest you read my long'ish comment on this whole debacle. I explain why the club fired Keogh, while they kept the other two. The punishment is not disproportionate as the situations are not the same. Might feel unfair but that's the reality.
Would never of happened at Frank Lampards derby country
I actually can't think of an equivalent situation in the real world that wouldn't hold up as a discrimination lawsuit.
A fine is a one-off charge and the max they can be fined is 6 week's wages.
A pay-cut which wouldn't usually have a limit is a completely different thing. Apparently the pay-cut they suggested was quite severe. They could have reduced his wages from 24 grand a week to 1 for all we know.
So no, not the same thing at all.
While I sort of do understad the whole 'they should get sacked too' debate, I actually don't understand the sympathy Keogh gets here, this vibe that he's somehow a double victim here because he wasn't driving and got injured is pretty fecked up. He can get fecked in my book, it's his responsibility (just like it would be anybody else's) to stop a drunk from driving. Getting into the car with one is being accomplice.
No it is not. Both sentences are factually incorrect. It would be nice if he tried to stop the others from driving, but it's not his responsibility. Nor is he an accomplice in any crime, not by any decent law system.
Hence the 'in my book' prior to what you've bolded.
just to clarify, like I did in another post, I understand why Derby have done it from a business sense. It is clear having a 1.3 million pound negative is not good for them in any way especially at his age and the nature of his injury.
Since the player is now taking them to court, this is not exactly true is it? They're not in China or anything.
That doesn't mean the player's case will hold water.
Could Derby argue that as the captain, Keogh failed completely in his duty to set a good example, and helped lead two of their younger players astray. Thus his punishment was greater because he was put in to a position of authority and abused that.
Apologies if that has already been mentioned here, just curious to see if that would work at all.
Apologies if that has already been mentioned here, just curious to see if that would work at all.
I read that there and I agree that it will be settled out of court and I reckon both parties are playing hard-ball at the minute.
However, the contention that getting into a car makes you as liable as the driver or is technically a crime isn't correct. Keogh hasn't been charged with a crime and being a passenger to a drunk driver isn't considered a crime. The drink driver is solely responsible for the accident in these types of cases.
I do know that if a passenger of a drunk driver is attempting to claim for their injuries then they are considered to be responsible for contributory negligence and this can reduce their claim by 40% as far as I'm aware.
However, some people have gotten a full pay-out as they were too drunk to ascertain if the one offering the lift was sober enough to drive.
That brings me on to the gross misconduct which is the sticking point for me. If Keogh is legally at most 40% resonsible for his injuries, then the remaining 60% would surely fall on either/both of the other two. In that case I don't see how this would stand up as a reason for sacking him alone.
As I said I don't think it will ever get to court but it doesn't add for me.
You may be missing that he was totally blotto, and who knows if someone else ushered him into the car himself?
Yes a pro footballer shouldn't be getting boozy, but the club obviously allowed them to go out for "team building" so must have known footballers will drink. It's not outside of possibilities that he just went along with what happened, rather than being the ring leader just because he's captain on the pitch.
Derby trying to get him to take a wage decrease will be the massive thing that finds them out. Sacking him straight after is unsavoury, as it's either gross misconduct or it isn't. Allowing him to stay no problems, if he takes a financial hit was a plain bizarre move.
You're right, it hit me too after your response to my comment.Then the comma shouldn't be there
But fair enough then
Not sure why people are focussing on the request for him to take a pay cut. It may well be very legitimate in the sense that was going to be part of his punishment however he refused and challenged, lost and was subsequently dismissed.
Keogh gave the club the option to enforce the standard termination clauses in his contract. They don't have to terminate, and they shouldn't have to apply the termination clauses consistently either in regards to others. If you're very important to any employee, you'll always have more leeway for difficult behaviour or personality than someone who can be easily replaced within a company. This is business in the real world, and I don't attribute it to discrimination.
The mental gymnastics with this one.
The person wore sexy clothing. Revealing. Tight.
No sympathy for any of them. He deserved to be sacked, he should have been setting the example. The other two will hopefully learn from the incident.
Last edited by a moderator: