No one disputes that Keogh acted irresponsibly and deserves to be punished, perhaps even sacked.
It's the double standard of not treating the other two in a similar way that stinks.
Derby's morals don't extend to Rooney, another convicted drink driver either but he'll sell seats and shirts and promote their gambling sponsor by wearing the no.32 shirt.
Keogh is sacked and the other two get fined six weeks wages.
I wonder if this is what Keogh will base his appeal on
Derby have effectively let the instigators off whilst punishing someone who in a way just happened to be there
Would be like me killing someone in a traffic accident yet my Wife gets the sentence because she was a passenger
It would be like if Tom Lockyer crashed a car when pissed, Charlton fining him 6 weeks wages as a punishment but then sacking Lewis Page who was in the back seat
Lewis Page isn’t club captain. Derby will argue that Keogh was held to a higher standard of responsibility (which was probably reflected in his remuneration) than the other players.
Is there any case law to confirm this. I can see many a lawyer licking their lips at the thought of challenging this if this is the basis of the dismissal
No idea, you’re confusing me for a lawyer who specialises in drunken footballer-shenanigans-law!
i cant help thinking that there is more to this than is in the public eye because i really don't see Derby sacking him without legal advice and i cant imagine their legal team ok-ing the sacking the one who didn't drink drive, didn't flee the scene of the accident and didn't face any criminal charges.
there was a lot of rumours going around when this first happened of the players doing balloons and getting on it and these are the sort of things you would sack the club captain for being involved in (not that myself nor anyone on charlton life is claiming to be the case)
Derby's argument will likely be that Keogh's actions resulted in him being unable to fulfil his role as misser of interceptions and overrunner of counter attacks and that is why he's been sacked, whereas the other two committed misconduct but it hasn't prevented them from carrying out their duties. It's a tenuous argument because it relies entirely on the physical outcome of the crash and puts next to no focus on the intent, negligence and recklessness of the act itself. I imagine he'll appeal so it will be interesting to see how this one goes for Derby
Derby's argument will likely be that Keogh's actions resulted in him being unable to fulfil his role as misser of interceptions and overrunner of counter attacks and that is why he's been sacked, whereas the other two committed misconduct but it hasn't prevented them from carrying out their duties. It's a tenuous argument because it relies entirely on the physical outcome of the crash and puts next to no focus on the intent, negligence and recklessness of the act itself. I imagine he'll appeal so it will be interesting to see how this one goes for Derby
Mate, no offence but I doubt that will be their legal defence!
If judgment was passed on this, you would have to find in favour of Keogh.
You can't set such a dangerous precedent by allowing an employer to administer such different disciplinary penalties linked to the value to the business/convenience to profit. The employer has a duty to enforce disciplinary procedures as a custodian of behaviour of employees.
The incident for Keogh would probably constitute Gross Misconduct, even though he was just a passenger. His injury was caused by his own negligence and was a team event.
However Derby didn't sack two even more culpable participants. They cannot be allowed to do that on the facts of this case, the matter shows a total lack fairness or responsibility on the part of Derby.
I imagine the matter will settle quite quickly but no doubt would make an interesting full trial if it did proceed.
All this proves is that Football is a business, and was only about money.
Lawrence and Bennett have some resale value and aren't going to cost Derby a season in medical bills whilst picking up their weekly payslip, like Keogh.
That's all there is to it really, I don't think the fact he's captain has even come in to it as far as they're concerned. He was coming to the end of his contract and likely never going to kick a ball for them again.
All this proves is that Football is a business, and was only about money.
Lawrence and Bennett have some resale value and aren't going to cost Derby a season in medical bills whilst picking up their weekly payslip, like Keogh.
That's all there is to it really, I don't think the fact he's captain has even come in to it as far as they're concerned. He was coming to the end of his contract and likely never going to kick a ball for them again.
So, could Keogh sue whoever was driving the car he was in?
Don't think there's much doubt that Keogh would win a case for unfair dismissal, there are clear legal precedents about inconsistent disciplinary decisions. The maximum payout is less than £100k so why would Derby be worried, much cheaper than honouring his contract and paying medical bills.
If it goes to a civil action it will be settled out of court eventually at a cost lower than Derby are otherwise liable for under his contract.
Don't think there's much doubt that Keogh would win a case for unfair dismissal, there are clear legal precedents about inconsistent disciplinary decisions. The maximum payout is less than £100k so why would Derby be worried, much cheaper than honouring his contract and paying medical bills.
If it goes to a civil action it will be settled out of court eventually at a cost lower than Derby are otherwise liable for under his contract.
If true (not doubting you), Derby would save @£1M, even if he won a case for unfair dismissal.
As others have said, on what basis is his behaviour gross misconduct. He wasn't driving and it wasn't a school night.
I'm no expert (but that hasn't stopped the rest of you speculating!) but I would have thought Footballers contracts are different from "normal" employment contracts. I'd imagine he'd only take it to tribunal if it helped him with a civil case for breach of contract. That way he should be able to reclaim all benefits lost as a result of being dismissed, presumably including any ongoing medical bills. In saying that Derby may have paid his contract up as part of his dismissal in which case hes suffered no financial loss. He could possibly sue them for defamation & slander though and get even more money
As others have said, on what basis is his behaviour gross misconduct. He wasn't driving and it wasn't a school night.
I'm no expert (but that hasn't stopped the rest of you speculating!) but I would have thought Footballers contracts are different from "normal" employment contracts. I'd imagine he'd only take it to tribunal if it helped him with a civil case for breach of contract. That way he should be able to reclaim all benefits lost as a result of being dismissed, presumably including any ongoing medical bills. In saying that Derby may have paid his contract up as part of his dismissal in which case hes suffered no financial loss. He could possibly sue them for defamation & slander though and get even more money
depends what his contract says, for all we know not getting in a car with a pissed driver may very well be in his contract due to insurance rules.
i'm pretty sure that if a player gets injured skiing/bungee jumping etc that the club has problems with the insurance so getting injured after willingly getting in a drunk blokes car will cost the club extra.
Without a doubt Keogh will be suing them, as the club statement is a complete farce.
"Derby County Football Club has completed the disciplinary hearing regarding Richard Keogh in respect of his involvement in the events of Tuesday, September 24th.
"As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
"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."
Yet prior to this statement they said he could stay but on a reduced salary. So they've basically said if you take a pay cut it's ok, but because you won't and we don't want to pay you 25k a week, we now "don't tolerate players putting themselves at risk of injury" so you're sacked.
I've no doubt he'll get a pretty good pay off when this goes to court.
They don't tolerate that sort of behaviour yet they have not sacked or terminated the contract of the two who got pissed and smashed their cars and captain up.
Even by footballs flexible moral compass surely nobody has not picked up the irony or blunt hypocrisy of that? Or am I not fully getting something
Without a doubt Keogh will be suing them, as the club statement is a complete farce.
"Derby County Football Club has completed the disciplinary hearing regarding Richard Keogh in respect of his involvement in the events of Tuesday, September 24th.
"As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
"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."
Yet prior to this statement they said he could stay but on a reduced salary. So they've basically said if you take a pay cut it's ok, but because you won't and we don't want to pay you 25k a week, we now "don't tolerate players putting themselves at risk of injury" so you're sacked.
I've no doubt he'll get a pretty good pay off when this goes to court.
Well surely driving whilst drunk is "putting yourself at risk of injury" so why not sack the other 2.
Oh, maybe because they are in their 20's & have a sell-on factor. And one cost them £8m just a few months ago.
Derby would also have to prove that Keogh knew Lawrence was drunk. Tricky to do. His BA level was 58ml, less than 1 3/4 over limit so would have been lucid.
I'd love to know what the legal advice they've been given is.
Derby's owner must've consulted lawyers before sacking him. But equally Keogh must've consulted his before turning down the reduced salary offer.
So someone has been given very bad advice here.
No downside for Derby offering a crap deal they know will not be accepted. Potential upside for Keogh if lawyers say he will get more from a civil action and he can't end up getting less than on offer.
It's nothing to do with legal advice on whose case wins, it's how people with money in a dispute arrive at a settlement.
The video that’s come out was a private joke, didn’t mean any harm to the derby fans. The club has been great with me and will always be greatful. I apologise if I’ve offended anyone.
I still can't get over Richard Keogh being sacked by the club, while the 2 drunk drivers are just fined.
It was because Keogh was injured for the season and his contract was over at the end of the season anyway.
Derby probably thought why bother paying him for months when he couldnt play if they had a valid reason to sack him.
The other 2 were young enough and still had time on there contract to carry on playing and sell in the future.
Can see the thinking behind it, but I agree the wrong decision was made
Morally wrong though, and I'm positive the employment tribunal will have something to say about it too, as it surely has to be counted as discrimination
A (presumably) sober Bennet was doing well for Millwall during his loan spell .. Rowett had him playing out a bit wider rather than down the middle .. I'm surprised as playing for Derby he always looked fecking useless, possibly perhaps because he was always brahms and lizst
I still can't get over Richard Keogh being sacked by the club, while the 2 drunk drivers are just fined.
It was because Keogh was injured for the season and his contract was over at the end of the season anyway.
Derby probably thought why bother paying him for months when he couldnt play if they had a valid reason to sack him.
The other 2 were young enough and still had time on there contract to carry on playing and sell in the future.
Can see the thinking behind it, but I agree the wrong decision was made
Morally wrong though, and I'm positive the employment tribunal will have something to say about it too, as it surely has to be counted as discrimination
I think Derby’s justification that, as captain, Keogh accepted being held to a higher standard. God knows if that will work, doubt that “captain” has any real legal validity.
Comments
It's the double standard of not treating the other two in a similar way that stinks.
Derby's morals don't extend to Rooney, another convicted drink driver either but he'll sell seats and shirts and promote their gambling sponsor by wearing the no.32 shirt.
there was a lot of rumours going around when this first happened of the players doing balloons and getting on it and these are the sort of things you would sack the club captain for being involved in (not that myself nor anyone on charlton life is claiming to be the case)
If Derby says that in court Keogh is likely to implicate Mason and Lawrence.
You can't set such a dangerous precedent by allowing an employer to administer such different disciplinary penalties linked to the value to the business/convenience to profit. The employer has a duty to enforce disciplinary procedures as a custodian of behaviour of employees.
The incident for Keogh would probably constitute Gross Misconduct, even though he was just a passenger. His injury was caused by his own negligence and was a team event.
However Derby didn't sack two even more culpable participants. They cannot be allowed to do that on the facts of this case, the matter shows a total lack fairness or responsibility on the part of Derby.
I imagine the matter will settle quite quickly but no doubt would make an interesting full trial if it did proceed.
All this proves is that Football is a business, and was only about money.
Lawrence and Bennett have some resale value and aren't going to cost Derby a season in medical bills whilst picking up their weekly payslip, like Keogh.
That's all there is to it really, I don't think the fact he's captain has even come in to it as far as they're concerned. He was coming to the end of his contract and likely never going to kick a ball for them again.
So, could Keogh sue whoever was driving the car he was in?
The only outcome from a trial would be Keogh winning which is not what I want
If it goes to a civil action it will be settled out of court eventually at a cost lower than Derby are otherwise liable for under his contract.
I'm no expert (but that hasn't stopped the rest of you speculating!) but I would have thought Footballers contracts are different from "normal" employment contracts. I'd imagine he'd only take it to tribunal if it helped him with a civil case for breach of contract. That way he should be able to reclaim all benefits lost as a result of being dismissed, presumably including any ongoing medical bills. In saying that Derby may have paid his contract up as part of his dismissal in which case hes suffered no financial loss. He could possibly sue them for defamation & slander though and get even more money
i'm pretty sure that if a player gets injured skiing/bungee jumping etc that the club has problems with the insurance so getting injured after willingly getting in a drunk blokes car will cost the club extra.
"Derby County Football Club has completed the disciplinary hearing regarding Richard Keogh in respect of his involvement in the events of Tuesday, September 24th.
"As a result of that process, Mr Keogh has had his contract terminated with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He has the right of appeal within 14 days.
"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."
Yet prior to this statement they said he could stay but on a reduced salary. So they've basically said if you take a pay cut it's ok, but because you won't and we don't want to pay you 25k a week, we now "don't tolerate players putting themselves at risk of injury" so you're sacked.
I've no doubt he'll get a pretty good pay off when this goes to court.
Even by footballs flexible moral compass surely nobody has not picked up the irony or blunt hypocrisy of that? Or am I not fully getting something
Derby's owner must've consulted lawyers before sacking him. But equally Keogh must've consulted his before turning down the reduced salary offer.
So someone has been given very bad advice here.
Oh, maybe because they are in their 20's & have a sell-on factor. And one cost them £8m just a few months ago.
It's nothing to do with legal advice on whose case wins, it's how people with money in a dispute arrive at a settlement.
Posted a video apparently it was a private joke but its been leaked, driving past Pride Park and videod himself saying F***ing burn
He has tried to claim it was a joke aimed at a picture on the side of the stadium
The video that’s come out was a private joke, didn’t mean any harm to the derby fans. The club has been great with me and will always be greatful. I apologise if I’ve offended anyone.
There is a picture of my good friend shinz and it was a joke to him.
Derby probably thought why bother paying him for months when he couldnt play if they had a valid reason to sack him.
The other 2 were young enough and still had time on there contract to carry on playing and sell in the future.
Can see the thinking behind it, but I agree the wrong decision was made