Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County Drink Driving charges (merged topics)


WhistleHappy

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t think we will be hearing the last of this....unless “sacked” is the external wording and “contract paid up” us what’s really happened?  

I think your right @Davefevs if you look at it factually Keogh went out and get pissed up. Did he break any laws, no? Was he irresponsible, yes.

Be interesting to see if one of the two ‘drivers’ had such a serious injury whether the same action would be taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t think we will be hearing the last of this....unless “sacked” is the external wording and “contract paid up” us what’s really happened?  

Can't imagine they'll be contractually oblige to pay much if anything in the circumstances. Sacking by gross misconduct normally would entitle you to wages up until day of dismissal and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

Funny how, he wasn’t the one driving or being the wrong side of the law but has been sacked, whilst the two who were found guilty of drink driving still keep their job . ? 

now call me a cynic , but might it have something to do with Keogh being injured and not being a asset anymore . 
something dodgy about Mel Morris imo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can smell a legal challenge here from Keogh. 
 

Unless he was told, whether by dint of being club captain or specifically on the night that he had to basically stop grown men drink driving, then his actions in getting drunk are theoretically less serious than the other two as he didn’t put himself in charge of a car.

As has been said, this looks to be about transfer value and ability to currently play. Derby’s statement indicates sacked for gross misconduct - but that misconduct looks to be less than Bennett and Lawrence. The injury is circumstantial here in the context. He put himself in harms way but didn’t put others in harms way as well as himself.

Unless there is a huge settlement he’s definitely got a case - not morally saying he’s in the right, but he’s certainly no more in the wrong than the other two and a decent lawyer would tear this apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok is it’s easy for us all to be moral about this....but as several of you have said above, the other two were the ones that broke the law.  In some respects you could argue the club should be supporting Keogh.  Just imagine he was sober and it had happened.

Derby not coming out of this situation very well at all.  They’ve handled it very poorly imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Player with no sell on value due to age, on big contract, wth possibly a career ending injury is sacked, younger players who have a value retained, anyone surprised?

Heard Simon Jordan on Talksport a short while ago discussing a particular issue, and he commented that " when it comes to money, football has no integrity".

This proves that to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Funny how, he wasn’t the one driving or being the wrong side of the law but has been sacked, whilst the two who were found guilty of drink driving still keep their job . ? 

now call me a cynic , but might it have something to do with Keogh being injured and not being a asset anymore . 
something dodgy about Mel Morris imo 

Indeed. In what way were the other two not guilty of gross misconduct?

Though I would hesitate to suggest Mel Morris does not have the highest possible ethical standards, of course. After all he could have set up a bogus company to buy Keogh for £80m instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mr Popodopolous I agree that a specialist expert employment lawyer with full access to the facts and contract could probably construct a decent case here. But at the same time I suspect Derby have already consulted a specialist expert employment lawyer with full access to the facts and contract and have probably been advised that they can go ahead - if they've not done that then they are insane.

Or of course RK has had a decent wedge of cash stuck in his bank account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well Keogh is consulting lawyers and the PFA are getting involved so it'll be interesting to see- so the decent wedge of cash option doesn't sound so likely based on that?

 

Correct. If he'd been given cash he'd have signed a settlement agreement restricting him from making any further claims and probably making him keep shtum about the whole thing. If he's talking to lawyers then there can't be a settlement agreement in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Can't imagine they'll be contractually oblige to pay much if anything in the circumstances. Sacking by gross misconduct normally would entitle you to wages up until day of dismissal and nothing more.

That is true but I can’t see how a club could justify a disciplinary policy where one person has been sacked for gross misconduct for sitting in a car with a drunk driver but two others have not been sacked for drink driving. I suspect he may have a strong legal argument, unless there is something major that is not in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

there is something major that is not in the public domain.

This is a good point. If there is something to distinguish his case from that of Lawrence and Bennett then that could be the technicality Derby need. Perhaps it only snowed in certain parts of Derby that night...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

That is true but I can’t see how a club could justify a disciplinary policy where one person has been sacked for gross misconduct for sitting in a car with a drunk driver but two others have not been sacked for drink driving. I suspect he may have a strong legal argument, unless there is something major that is not in the public domain.

My thoughts exactly. If policy and procedure were not applied even handedly he could have a case. Which suggests that there are indeed factors not in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is a good point. If there is something to distinguish his case from that of Lawrence and Bennett then that could be the technicality Derby need. Perhaps it only snowed in certain parts of Derby that night...?

Mel Morris will probably say Bennett and Lawrence we’re acting responsibly because they had their seat belts on ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

This is a good point. If there is something to distinguish his case from that of Lawrence and Bennett then that could be the technicality Derby need. Perhaps it only snowed in certain parts of Derby that night...?

Certainly the behaviour of all parties involved in this case is getting up my nose ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

That is true but I can’t see how a club could justify a disciplinary policy where one person has been sacked for gross misconduct for sitting in a car with a drunk driver but two others have not been sacked for drink driving. I suspect he may have a strong legal argument, unless there is something major that is not in the public domain.

Don’t defend his behaviour but he appears on the face of it to have been royally shafted by Derby . Would love him to challenge and win his case to show Morris that he can’t just do what he likes ( such as buying the stadium to allegedly bypass ffp ) ! Don’t disagree with sacking him but he surely shouldn’t have been singled out when the other two got a slap on the wrist ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...