Rival Watch

[Victor Meldrew]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

Has been their weak link in defence for years IMHO.

[The Enfield Royal71]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

Has been their weak link in defence for years IMHO.

No he hasn't.

[Hound]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

So sack the passenger but let the other 2 plebs who were driving carry on as though nothing has happened (bar a fine)

Confused by their logic tbh

[Stranded]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

So sack the passenger but let the other 2 plebs who were driving carry on as though nothing has happened (bar a fine)

Confused by their logic tbh

It's pretty clear isn't it?

Keep the young players who committed a crime as they have sell on value. Sack the passenger who happens to be 33 and injured for the forseeable - thus saving on his wages.

It is pretty outrageous and I would love to see how Derby try & spin this given the statement they gave released. A statement already contradicted by theirown actions.

[Hound]

Yep dodgy as anything

That and the stadium sale. Not covering themselves in glory

[URZZZZ]

Yep dodgy as anything

That and the stadium sale. Not covering themselves in glory

Well, apparently Keogh may be appealing the decision

[URZZZZ]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

So sack the passenger but let the other 2 plebs who were driving carry on as though nothing has happened (bar a fine)

Confused by their logic tbh

Maybe Bennett and Lawrence got the wrong end of the stick when their manager told them they need to get more points on the road?

[SCIAG]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

So sack the passenger but let the other 2 plebs who were driving carry on as though nothing has happened (bar a fine)

Confused by their logic tbh

It's pretty clear isn't it?

Keep the young players who committed a crime as they have sell on value. Sack the passenger who happens to be 33 and injured for the forseeable - thus saving on his wages.

It is pretty outrageous and I would love to see how Derby try & spin this given the statement they gave released. A statement already contradicted by theirown actions.

Bennett doesn’t really have a sell-on value, he’s a reserve team player who is out of contract in the summer with a drink driving conviction. Lawrence is the complication.

I suspect Derby have a pretty good case that, while all three committed gross misconduct, only Keogh was unable to do his job as a result of it. Keogh invalidated the club’s injury insurance by not wearing a seatbelt.

It does seem unfair but I think there’s a good case that the trial has been less damaging to Derby than the injury was.

[Stranded]

So sack the passenger but let the other 2 plebs who were driving carry on as though nothing has happened (bar a fine)

Confused by their logic tbh

It's pretty clear isn't it?

Keep the young players who committed a crime as they have sell on value. Sack the passenger who happens to be 33 and injured for the forseeable - thus saving on his wages.

It is pretty outrageous and I would love to see how Derby try & spin this given the statement they gave released. A statement already contradicted by theirown actions.

Bennett doesn’t really have a sell-on value, he’s a reserve team player who is out of contract in the summer with a drink driving conviction. Lawrence is the complication.

I suspect Derby have a pretty good case that, while all three committed gross misconduct, only Keogh was unable to do his job as a result of it. Keogh invalidated the club’s injury insurance by not wearing a seatbelt.

It does seem unfair but I think there’s a good case that the trial has been less damaging to Derby than the injury was.

I'm sure that will be their argument and will potentially rely on what any Employee Handbook at Derby states regarding punishments for gross misconduct but the punishments handed down seem grossly out of sync. Will always just sit badly that 2 players who essentially left a guy for dead seem to have escaped any meaningful censure whilst their "victim" (not the right word really but not sure how better to phrase it) has had his means of employment removed.

[WTRoyal]

Whatever Keogh is, he's not a victim. If you get into a car with a driver whom you categorically know to be unfit then you are as culpable as they for what happens next because you are condoning and facilitating their behaviour.
He was supposed to be the club captain... why didn't he have the balls to say "Lads, look, we earn hundreds of thousands a year & we've just spent £00s on drink. Let's spend another £50 on a cab each, eh?"
There does seem to be an imbalance of consequence in this case but it is not that Keogh had been treated too harshly; the others have been let off. If anything, him taking this to court should encourage the club to sack the other two, to bring all the punishments in line, not to change their minds on his fate.

[Hound]

oh yeah. Keogh has no case to argue imo. Its the other 2 I'm bothered about

[From Despair To Where?]

Apparently, it was a case of "Take a paycut or get the sack". Obviously don't know the terms of his contract but that seems a bit irregular. I've seen rumours that he wasn't covered by the club's insurance so they were in essence, trying to deduct the cost of his treatment from his wages.

As others have said though, the severity of the punishments as a whole seem to be linked to the player's value to the club, which can't be right. I presume Derby have crunched the numbers and realised that they need to lose another £750,000 for Rooney's wages to pass FFP.

[Stranded]

Whatever Keogh is, he's not a victim. If you get into a car with a driver whom you categorically know to be unfit then you are as culpable as they for what happens next because you are condoning and facilitating their behaviour.
He was supposed to be the club captain... why didn't he have the balls to say "Lads, look, we earn hundreds of thousands a year & we've just spent £00s on drink. Let's spend another £50 on a cab each, eh?"
There does seem to be an imbalance of consequence in this case but it is not that Keogh had been treated too harshly; the others have been let off. If anything, him taking this to court should encourage the club to sack the other two, to bring all the punishments in line, not to change their minds on his fate.

Admitted in my post the word victim was not the right one and I completely agree that his punishment is probably correct but it is the disparity that is unjust.

I can't image companies that any of us work for deciding to sack a senior manager whilst retaining the services of 2 less senior employees who broke the law and could have endangered the lives of themselves or a member of the public.

[Victor Meldrew]

Looks like Derby have terminated Keogh’s contract

Has been their weak link in defence for years IMHO.

No he hasn't.

Oh yes he has -see the Wembley play-off final v QPR as a good example.

[The Enfield Royal71]

Has been their weak link in defence for years IMHO.

No he hasn't.

Oh yes he has -see the Wembley play-off final v QPR as a good example.

That was one mistake about 6 years ago. I've seen players do worse. He wouldn't be their captain otherwise.

[Victor Meldrew]

No he hasn't.

Oh yes he has -see the Wembley play-off final v QPR as a good example.

That was one mistake about 6 years ago. I've seen players do worse. He wouldn't be their captain otherwise.

Captain of an underachieving team currently near the foot of the Championship when they were expected to have returned to the Premier League by now.
No wonder they don't want him any more.

[muirinho]

Apparently, it was a case of "Take a paycut or get the sack". Obviously don't know the terms of his contract but that seems a bit irregular. I've seen rumours that he wasn't covered by the club's insurance so they were in essence, trying to deduct the cost of his treatment from his wages.

As others have said though, the severity of the punishments as a whole seem to be linked to the player's value to the club, which can't be right. I presume Derby have crunched the numbers and realised that they need to lose another £750,000 for Rooney's wages to pass FFP.

I've heard the club insurance is refusing to pay out because he wasn't wearing a seat-belt. I'm quite sure his actions are sufficient to be sacked by the way - but it's the fact that he seems to have been singled out, despite not committing a criminal offence, whereas the other two seem to have got away with it, leaves a very bad taste.

I can only assume that Derby are not completely stupid, and will take further action against the other two in due course, once court proceedings have finished.

[Old Man Andrews]

It is possible that Derby have calculated that firing him is cheaper than having to pay out on his contract and release him, he may have even refused a release leaving the club with only this option. They may well end up settling out of court for less than the remainder of his contract is worth.

[The Enfield Royal71]

Oh yes he has -see the Wembley play-off final v QPR as a good example.

That was one mistake about 6 years ago. I've seen players do worse. He wouldn't be their captain otherwise.

Captain of an underachieving team currently near the foot of the Championship when they were expected to have returned to the Premier League by now.
No wonder they don't want him any more.

And that is why you are one of the worst posters on here. Clueless

[Victor Meldrew]

"Utter drivel" and "clueless" in the space of a couple of days.
Do you not wonder why your debating skills would not be sadly missed?