Lee Burge has just been taken off at HT for Sunderland. Doesn’t seem like an injury either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Must be an injury surely. Even when they drop an absolute clanger keepers don't get taken off.
Maybe they only had one ball left after he had sliced all of the other ones outside the ground and to avoid a postponement took him off
Agreed ISB. Stokes is a really decent bloke as well. Very good memories of his time with us.
Burge is injured and will be out for a few weeks according to the Sunderland fans forum.
Marc McNulty scored in normal time of the 1-1 draw, but failed to score his penalty, as Oxford United defeated Sunderland via a penalty shoot out in the EFL Cup.
Burge was not in goal for Sunderland (see my previous post).
Burge was not in goal for Sunderland (see my previous post).
Last edited:
I was just about to post that. Seems a bit odd seeing as the players driving haven't been sacked. Must be more to it.
Edit: There is more to it now I've actually read the article. Crazy I know, easier to survive on headlines.
Seems to be shaky territory for Derby for me. How can they sack Keogh who wasn't one of the men driving and didn't flee the scene but not sack the other two.
The punishment has to be inline with others, and it isn't so could be shaky at an employment tribunal etc.
Keogh injured 33, no resale value = liability
Bennett, Lawrence - not injured, younger = assets
Hypocrisy by the club imo.
I can’t see how this is fair. If the other two had been sacked as well then maybe fair enough. Keogh on the face of it seems the least guilty of the three but has been given the harshest punishment. His age and the severity of his injury seem to have counted against him. Seeing that he is was 24k a week it was hardly surprising he left us to go to Derby. I liked Keogh as a player but 24k seems a lot for someone who has never played in the top flight.
I find it strange how if he would of excepted reduced money he wouldn’t of done gross misconduct and was ok, but because he said no it’s not ok and it was gross misconduct.
so actually the gross misconduct was not taking a pay cut, not the involvement in the crash
so actually the gross misconduct was not taking a pay cut, not the involvement in the crash
A cynical view is that Derby have decided to sack him as he wouldn't negotiate. They can always do a deal on the court room steps if he sues them
If he wasn't injured it would be very different
Basically the other two, while having committed gross misconduct, can still perform their job. Keogh has committed it leaving him unable to perform the job he's contracted to do. It's definitely dodgy and the other two were more in the wrong but I can see why Derby think they could argue a case.
Good point, in the real world he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if he was unable to do his job due to misconduct.
That can be the only thing they can argue when it reaches court but I can see them struggling.
Keogh will say he was attending a club event, wasn't drink driving and wasn't charged with any offence.
He can also bring up the comments of the judge that sentenced the two drivers "The readings before me in terms of drink drive, are not the highest".
Personally I'd have sacked all three and think clubs should have much more power to sack players but that's not how these things work.
I know that’s the generally accepted idea, that clubs are more lenient on younger players due to resale value, but thinking back to the Adrian Mutu case, weren’t Chelsea allowed to claim compensation from the club he signed for (Fiorentina?) after they sacked him?
The club would argue that they turned down the club provided transport and decided to carry on drinking
Tell us more? What's the missing link that explains this? My reaction has been as other posters but do share if you know different....
Not now he's badly injured for 18 months he doesn't!!
Re Keogh-he can’t even drive. He hasn’t got a licence.
So very difficult for club to pin drink driving on him!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
So very difficult for club to pin drink driving on him!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I initially thought they’d just sacked him and couldn’t understand why they hadn’t sacked the other two players who’d actually been driving. But I can half understand why they have and they offered him reduced wages and he turned it down. The other two players have still have something to offer he doesn’t. He’s got himself injured and possibly ended his career and it’s his own fault.
As others have mentioned it may go to tribunal etc. All that is basically a long way of saying there’s more to it than they’ve just sacked him. Nothing more.
Doh ! correct but in mitigation they are the same - some ex Man U has been
that is very richOK thanks - I do think that it's harsh that they've issued a more severe punishment to him than to the two drivers!!!
With Becks ( Rooney
With the drink driving convictions he'll fit right in!