Derby had told Keogh that he could stay and see out his deal with them. Yet they stunned the central defender by saying that he had to accept a massive pay cut in order to do so. The Guardian understands that Derby offered him only a fraction of the money that he would otherwise have collected over the remainder of his contract.
He's under contract. They can't just decide to not pay him what he is contractually due.why would they pay him full whack?
He's under contract. They can't just decide to not pay him what he is contractually due.
When it inevitably ends up in court they're going to have to show they have a valid reason to sack him but continue to employ the two players who were the drivers in the incident.
They can sack Keogh for the simple reason that he's unable to fulfil his contract due to this own recklessness whereas the other two can.Don't see how Derby are going to be able to defend this when it ends up in court. If they'd sacked all three of them fair enough but you can't keep playing the two players who were driving and sack one who was a passenger, it's ridiculous.
Wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of lawsuit from Keogh over loss of earnings if he can't play again as it was a club event he was at. Probably some sort of duty of care angle he can go for.
Don't see how Derby are going to be able to defend this when it ends up in court. If they'd sacked all three of them fair enough but you can't keep playing the two players who were driving and sack one who was a passenger, it's ridiculous.
Wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of lawsuit from Keogh over loss of earnings if he can't play again as it was a club event he was at. Probably some sort of duty of care angle he can go for.
I think the defence would be they were offered club transport home when the function ended but declined it to go elsewhere. But the decision to not sack the two main culprits will indeed be used against them.
Bound to end up in court so Derby will need to be able to cite precedence of players who have been sacked without pay when incurring injuries from non-football actives. Are there such cases they can cite?They can sack Keogh for the simple reason that he's unable to fulfil his contract due to this own recklessness whereas the other two can.
Bound to end up in court so Derby will need to be able to cite precedence of players who have been sacked without pay when incurring injuries from non-football actives. Are there such cases they can cite?
If his contracts ending just pay it up and its over and done with. This will now be a distraction for months or even years and will most likely cost them more in the long run.
This is why they say they've sacked himUnless it has something in his contract?
Be interesting to see how they are going to show that two players found guilty of drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident, who the judge said were lucky not to be dismissed for gross misconduct, don't qualify as having put their colleague in danger or brining the club into disrepute while the passenger who wasn't charged with anything does.Derby said: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.
as it was a club function and was being driven home by other staff members, he could sue the Company for not fulfilling its duty of care
Many similar stories around this lately
eg
Firm liable for business trip death during sex
as it was a club function and was being driven home by other staff members, he could sue the Company for not fulfilling its duty of care
Many similar stories around this lately
eg
Firm liable for business trip death during sex
I'm not sure it's so much about defending him as criticising Derby for the hypocrisy. Most clubs would be similar, including ours I feel as if the roles in the Hickman Bayliss episode were reversed, I imagine we'd have fined Bayliss rather than sacked due to the sell on capacity. That's what Derby have done here by playing and keeping the other two, but it still stinks.How come people are so desperate to defend him?
Agreed, don't think anyone is defending him but you can't sack Keogh, who at the end of the day was a passenger who has not been charged with anything, while keeping two other players, who have both been charged and found guilty. Lets not kid ourselves, they're just trying to get out of paying the rest of his contract.I'm not sure it's so much about defending him as criticising Derby for the hypocrisy. Most clubs would be similar, including ours I feel as if the roles in the Hickman Bayliss episode were reversed, I imagine we'd have fined Bayliss rather than sacked due to the sell on capacity. That's what Derby have done here by playing and keeping the other two, but it still stinks.
He can't go his job but the others can?I'm not sure it's so much about defending him as criticising Derby for the hypocrisy. Most clubs would be similar, including ours I feel as if the roles in the Hickman Bayliss episode were reversed, I imagine we'd have fined Bayliss rather than sacked due to the sell on capacity. That's what Derby have done here by playing and keeping the other two, but it still stinks.
He can't go his job but the others can?
But Derby need to treat him fairly. The tribunal will look at the nom sacking of the other 2 and find in his favour. Stupid statement from Derbyfuck him, if they hit a and killed a kid no one would be standing up for him
all 3 should be sacked but it makes sense he can not offer them anything unlike the other 2 who can still do their jobs
if he had done a mma match and got injured halfway through his contract he would be sacked. he got injured doing a dumb thing its that simple
Because the other 2 can still do their job.But Derby need to treat him fairly. The tribunal will look at the nom sacking of the other 2 and find in his favour. Stupid statement from Derby
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
No they won't. They will look at whether or not Derby followed their own policies correctly in this case.But Derby need to treat him fairly. The tribunal will look at the nom sacking of the other 2 and find in his favour. Stupid statement from Derby
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
... and the law!No they won't. They will look at whether or not Derby followed their own policies correctly in this case.
Really? They will say why weren't the other 2 given the same punishment. If it was me my union would have a field day. Him being injured has nothing to do with it. There reasoning is gross misconduct bringing the club into disrepute which Lawrence and Bennett are equally guilty of.No they won't. They will look at whether or not Derby followed their own policies correctly in this case.
But that is not the stated reason is it. Seen it loads as a rep. The tribunal will look at the lesser punishment for a greater crime.Because the other 2 can still do their job.
There's the difference between them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?