Gator Nate
Full Member
Umm... that's a pay cut.They didn't though. They were fined 6 week's wages.
Umm... that's a pay cut.They didn't though. They were fined 6 week's wages.
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.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?
Got himself injured? He shouldn't have gotten in the car but one of them crashed into the other, causing his injury.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.
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.Got himself injured? He shouldn't have gotten in the car but one of them crashed into the other, causing his injury.
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.That's beside the point, the club has said he's been fired for gross misconduct. So my original question still stands.
No it's not. It's a fine. A pay-cut is reducing your weekly wages for an extended period of time.Umm... that's a pay cut.
Um... OK. You don't math well, do you?No it's not. It's a fine. A pay-cut is reducing your weekly wages for an extended period of time.
Um... I think you're being disingenuous because I disagreed with your other point to be perfectly honest and it's a bit petty.Um... OK. You don't math well, do you?
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 CardiffI bet this does fly in court, too, or the team's legal counsel would not have let them do it.
Ah, no. You're the disingenuous one here, because you don't like the outcome.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.
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.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.
A fine is a one-off charge and the max they can be fined is 6 week's wages.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.
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.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.
Hence the 'in my book' prior to what you've bolded.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.
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.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.
Since the player is now taking them to court, this is not exactly true is it? They're not in China or anything.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.
That doesn't mean the player's case will hold water.Since the player is now taking them to court, this is not exactly true is it? They're not in China or anything.
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.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.
You may be missing that he was totally blotto, and who knows if someone else ushered him into the car himself?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.
Then the comma shouldn't be thereHence the 'in my book' prior to what you've bolded.
You're right, it hit me too after your response to my comment.Then the comma shouldn't be there
But fair enough then
Fine they weren't racist at a funeral, but what do you mean by they were racySorry I meant racy.
The mental gymnastics with this one.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.
The person wore sexy clothing. Revealing. Tight.Fine they weren't racist at a funeral, but what do you mean by they were racy
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.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.