Derby County Drink Driving charges (merged topics)

[alexukhc]

16 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Derby have been caught between a rock and a hard place.

Had Keogh got into his own car drunk, crashed and bust his knee I suspect that most football fans would applaud their decision to sack him for gross misconduct as they feel that rsh footballers think they can get away with anything.

Derby's problem is that the actions of Mount and Lawrence in the same incident makes it appear that their stance and action over Keogh is  motivated more by hard financial prudence that moral indignation.

Following on from Pride Park Gate it does not paint the club in the best moral light.

Mount? 

[CyderInACan]

8 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

As the senior professional present, and club captain, Derby had every right to expect him to show leadership and a responsible attitude both personally and to the younger professionals

I wonder if it says that in his Job Description? 

[downendcity]

17 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

Mount? 

Got my Mason's mixed up!

[Pezo]

50 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Derby have been caught between a rock and a hard place.

Had Keogh got into his own car drunk, crashed and bust his knee I suspect that most football fans would applaud their decision to sack him for gross misconduct as they feel that rsh footballers think they can get away with anything.

Derby's problem is that the actions of Mount and Lawrence in the same incident makes it appear that their stance and action over Keogh is  motivated more by hard financial prudence that moral indignation.

Following on from Pride Park Gate it does not paint the club in the best moral light.

I don't think anyone is defending Keogh most seem happy with his treatment by Derby, I think the problem is the other 2 deserve similar if not harsher treatment and aren't getting it.

[Nibor]

I think Keogh deserves to be fired and so do the others. But it's not exactly an informed opinion, none of us were there.

Derby can do what they like within the contract, they have no obligation to consider them all the same way.

For all we know the circumstances might indicate a worse punishment for Keogh, in particular the impact of being unfit for 15 months is a factor.

 

[daored]

3 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I think Keogh deserves to be fired and so do the others. But it's not exactly an informed opinion, none of us were there.

Derby can do what they like within the contract, they have no obligation to consider them all the same way.

For all we know the circumstances might indicate a worse punishment for Keogh, in particular the impact of being unfit for 15 months is a factor.

 

I wonder if the club would have been so keen to terminate his contract if the players involved had not been drunk and was just an accident 

[Tipps69]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Derby have been caught between a rock and a hard place.

Had Keogh got into his own car drunk, crashed and bust his knee I suspect that most football fans would applaud their decision to sack him for gross misconduct as they feel that rsh footballers think they can get away with anything.

Derby's problem is that the actions of Mount and Lawrence in the same incident makes it appear that their stance and action over Keogh is  motivated more by hard financial prudence that moral indignation.

Following on from Pride Park Gate it does not paint the club in the best moral light.

Keogh has always had that bit covered, he has never been able to drive (legally) so he just gets everyone else to drive him around.

Maybe that’s why he couldn’t afford to pay his bar bill from the night in question (supposedly)? Because he’s spent all his wages on taxi’s? (If only).

What I find strange in this, is that Derby wanted him to take a pay cut, now I’m assuming they gave Keogh a reason for this & the consequences were explained to him if he didn’t accept the reduced terms or at the very least he would have an idea as to why this action was being taken?

The whole fiasco doesn’t look favourably on Derby with the way they have handled the whole thing & I’d expect it to have further consequences for the club with regards to future signings & links with other clubs (Chelsea etc), would any big club be comfortable with sending their potential stars there knowing what’s going on? I’d suggest not!

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Got my Mason's mixed up!

Should have added that without a handshake that's easy to do.

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Keogh has always had that bit covered, he has never been able to drive (legally) so he just gets everyone else to drive him around.

Maybe that’s why he couldn’t afford to pay his bar bill from the night in question (supposedly)? Because he’s spent all his wages on taxi’s? (If only).

What I find strange in this, is that Derby wanted him to take a pay cut, now I’m assuming they gave Keogh a reason for this & the consequences were explained to him if he didn’t accept the reduced terms or at the very least he would have an idea as to why this action was being taken?

The whole fiasco doesn’t look favourably on Derby with the way they have handled the whole thing & I’d expect it to have further consequences for the club with regards to future signings & links with other clubs (Chelsea etc), would any big club be comfortable with sending their potential stars there knowing what’s going on? I’d suggest not!

This is the strange part of the whole episode.

If I read it correctly , Keogh was asked to take a pay cut over the remainder of his contract and his rejection of this offer resulted inches being sacked. Presumably therefore, had Keogh accepted Derby's offer of a reduction in pay,  he would remain a Derby player/employee and for this to happen  there could be no gross misconduct charge.

From this it would appear that gross misconduct is not determined by the player's action but by the cost to the club.

 

[Nibor]

24 minutes ago, daored said:

I wonder if the club would have been so keen to terminate his contract if the players involved had not been drunk and was just an accident 

One is definitely negligence and recklessness, the other may well not be.

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

From this it would appear that gross misconduct is not determined by the player's action but by the cost to the club.

I expect there would have been a charge with a different punishment. Cost is a reasonable consideration.

[Drew Peacock]

24 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

 

The whole fiasco doesn’t look favourably on Derby with the way they have handled the whole thing & I’d expect it to have further consequences for the club with regards to future signings & links with other clubs (Chelsea etc), would any big club be comfortable with sending their potential stars there knowing what’s going on? I’d suggest not!

But presumably Lampard knew about this culture at the club and therefore condones it?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Read that PFA- though it's merely a Tweet rather than anything official- calling for a Derby transfer embargo/ban until this situation resolved.

Also the FFP angle- sacking him, then paying him up differently could be an an FFP ruse- but this is at the discretion of the League, unless this aspect has changed.

Quote

 

APPENDIX D – Permitted Exceptional Items

1 Introduction

1.1 This Appendix sets out further details as to what may (or may not) be regarded as a Permitted Exceptional Item within the Fair Play Calculation.

2 Permitted Exceptional Items

2.1 Championship Clubs can apply to the Fair Play Panel at any time for permission for any item to be included as a Permitted Exceptional Item adjustment (in accordance with Rule 4.2.7) in calculating their Fair Play Result.

2.2 The Fair Play Panel shall, subject always to Rule 11.3, have absolute discretion when determining any application made under paragraph 2.

2.3 Applications under paragraph 2.1 must be made in writing together with copies of all documents in support of such application, to The League which will then (absent any prior decision of the Fair Play Panel on the same subject matter) refer the matter to the Fair Play Panel for determination.  The decision of the Fair Play Panel shall be provided to the Club not later than 28 days after the date of receipt of the application.  For the avoidance of doubt, the last date for filing any application for a given Reporting Period is 1 October immediately preceding the date for filing Fair Pay Information for that Reporting Period in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3.1.

2.4 The following items may be the subject of an application for treatment as a Permitted Exceptional Item under these Rules by a Championship Club:

2.4.1 The timing of transfer fund receipts and their subsequent use in financing replacement players (for example where a Championship Club recognises a transfer receipt in one Reporting Period but then utilises those funds for player purchases in a subsequent Reporting Period);

2.4.2 Post year end player sales proceeds which can be demonstrated to have been used to fund previous losses;

2.4.3 Costs (net of any insurance proceeds) associated with a career ending injury;

2.4.4 Exceptional litigation and associated professional fees;

2.4.5 Exceptional bad debts; and

2.4.6 Stadium revaluation losses or reversal of losses including depreciation adjustments to the extent that these are recognised in the profit and loss account in line with FRS 15 or equivalent International Accounting Standard.

2.5 By way of further illustration in the event a Championship Club suffers a material loss through, say, its major contracted sponsor being unable to fulfil its financial obligations under that contract or where a material bad debt arises through the liquidation of another football club both these items would be covered by 2.4.5 above.

2.6 The League may from time to time add to the list of Permitted Exceptional Items set out in paragraph 2.4 without requiring an amendment to these Rules.

I wouldn't have thought the League would be inclined to do Derby any favours personally! Perhaps on the legal fees they could get them excluded, but no more.

On a side note, just look at the bolded bit- did Shaun Harvey type up that one?? Legalistic terms, then "through, say". However yes, there is quite possibly an FFP angle here- certainly through maintaining the value of the other 2, asset wise.

[alexukhc]

Why reject a pay cut when no ones gonna pay you for 15 months plus anyway?

[Tipps69]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

This is the strange part of the whole episode.

If I read it correctly , Keogh was asked to take a pay cut over the remainder of his contract and his rejection of this offer resulted inches being sacked. Presumably therefore, had Keogh accepted Derby's offer of a reduction in pay,  he would remain a Derby player/employee and for this to happen  there could be no gross misconduct charge.

From this it would appear that gross misconduct is not determined by the player's action but by the cost to the club.

 

That’s exactly what I’m struggling to understand, so surely there’s something a little dodgy going on with it all? And given the way it looks on the surface surely Keogh has a case for his appeal / defence? And even more so when the other two have been treated so leniently!

And I don’t buy into this thing of Keogh was guilty because of his senior player status / being the captain. The large majority of those out for that night were adults & are unlikely to do what someone else tells them to do, especially when you remember that they are footballers & because of that status / money, they tend to do what they want anyway!

[Tipps69]

4 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

Why reject a pay cut when no ones gonna pay you for 15 months plus anyway?

Depends what the pay cut is / was & if he knew it was take it or nothing & if he thought it was likely to happen?

I’d hope that he’d run it by his legal representatives & got advice from them as to where he stands.

[Silvio Dante]

I’m wondering if Derby’s angle to this is insurance related.

Keoghs injury, irrespective of how sustained, appears to be career ending. In such a circumstance, it’s possible the club have insurance which gives them fair value for the asset loss.

However, to make that claim all parties have to agree its a career ender.

Could it be the case that Derby have got medical advice that Keogh won’t play again professionally, but RK hasn’t agreed despite expert opinion - and therefore Derby can’t claim, and are incurring losses?

Its loose, but “gross misconduct” could be refusing to sign a piece of paper when third party experts confirm you should, hence leading to the club making a significant loss? (I.e. it’s possible RKs contract stipulates he must agree in such a circumstance)?

[phantom]

40 minutes ago, alexukhc said:

Why reject a pay cut when no ones gonna pay you for 15 months plus anyway?

I'm guessing the 15 months is what was left on his current contract, so would assume that he was guaranteed that salary for that time period.

 

[downendcity]

21 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

That’s exactly what I’m struggling to understand, so surely there’s something a little dodgy going on with it all? And given the way it looks on the surface surely Keogh has a case for his appeal / defence? And even more so when the other two have been treated so leniently!

And I don’t buy into this thing of Keogh was guilty because of his senior player status / being the captain. The large majority of those out for that night were adults & are unlikely to do what someone else tells them to do, especially when you remember that they are footballers & because of that status / money, they tend to do what they want anyway!

 

16 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Depends what the pay cut is / was & if he knew it was take it or nothing & if he thought it was likely to happen?

I’d hope that he’d run it by his legal representatives & got advice from them as to where he stands.

I'm sure Ive read the pay cut was 50%.

Its a bit mystifying as my take is that Derby would have confronted Keogh with the misconduct charge and an either or option - take a reduction in pay for the remainder of the contract or be charged with misconduct and be sacked, so get nothing.

Faced with such clear cut options, Im guessing that Keogh must have taken legal advice before rejecting the wage reduction offer and being sacked, otherwise he's just blown over £1/2m! 

Suggestions that there might be more to Keogh's situation than has been officially stated would explain Derby's apparently hypocritical offer of reduced wages, even though Keogh had committed gross misconduct, which I presume would in itself justify sacking, as I guess that had he accepted anything esle that might have been even more embarrassing for the club could be effectively swept under the carpet.

 

 

[Tipps69]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

 

I'm sure Ive read the pay cut was 50%.

Its a bit mystifying as my take is that Derby would have confronted Keogh with the misconduct charge and an either or option - take a reduction in pay for the remainder of the contract or be charged with misconduct and be sacked, so get nothing.

Faced with such clear cut options, Im guessing that Keogh must have taken legal advice before rejecting the wage reduction offer and being sacked, otherwise he's just blown over £1/2m! 

Suggestions that there might be more to Keogh's situation than has been officially stated would explain Derby's apparently hypocritical offer of reduced wages, even though Keogh had committed gross misconduct, which I presume would in itself justify sacking, as I guess that had he accepted anything esle that might have been even more embarrassing for the club could be effectively swept under the carpet.

 

 

Something just doesn’t smell right with it all, especially from a Derby County perspective & if Keogh has taken legal advice, surely he knows what position he is in with regards to appeal? It feels very naive from both parties & is likely to get very ugly, which the whole situation has been from the very start.

It just feels to me that someone is going to get found out for something very underhand & if this is the way Derby treat their captain, a player of theirs for 7-8 years, then hopefully others will think twice before joining them. And with Morris’ previous underhand behaviour, any trust that he’s previously earned must be quickly leaving the building! And I for one am very glad!

[Robbored]

9 minutes ago, phantom said:

I'm guessing the 15 months is what was left on his current contract, so would assume that he was guaranteed that salary for that time period.

 

Not if he’s been sacked. He’ll get nothing.

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Pezo said:

I don't think anyone is defending Keogh most seem happy with his treatment by Derby, I think the problem is the other 2 deserve similar if not harsher treatment and aren't getting it.

Wasn't suggesting fans are unhappy with Keogh's treatment, but, as you say, it is the comparison with the treatment of the other 2 that grates.

[CHIPLEY RED]

A guy who works for me is a big Derby fan and he told me today the Keogh was offered a reduction in wages to £20,000 per week whilst unable to play due to the injuries he sustained.

Now nobody knows the details of his gross misconduct hearing or why the others did not get hit with the same charge, but think of it this way if correct he was offered well over £1m to recover from an injury caused by his own action of 1) getting drunk 2) getting into a car which was being driven by someone who was drunk.

I'm sure Derby's lawyers would have been all over this and they only have to show their actions were reasonable and that their procedure was followed. 

 

[downendcity]

11 minutes ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

A guy who works for me is a big Derby fan and he told me today the Keogh was offered a reduction in wages to £20,000 per week whilst unable to play due to the injuries he sustained.

Now nobody knows the details of his gross misconduct hearing or why the others did not get hit with the same charge, but think of it this way if correct he was offered well over £1m to recover from an injury caused by his own action of 1) getting drunk 2) getting into a car which was being driven by someone who was drunk.

I'm sure Derby's lawyers would have been all over this and they only have to show their actions were reasonable and that their procedure was followed. 

Derby obviously feel fully justified in sacking Keogh , presumably because of his "gross misconduct" and will almost certainly have taken legal advice before taking that action. Many feel this hypocritical and that he is being treated in this way because he has little or no value to Derby both because of his age and that he will be unable to play for them over the remainder of his contract.

If so, then why would they offer him a financial deal for reduced wages ( the reduction I've read is halving his £1.3m a year wages) while he remains unable to play for them over the remainder of his contract? If his gross misconduct is sufficient to justify his sacking, notwithstanding the remaining 15 months of his contract, then why would he be effectively offered £1/2m+ to stay?

On the face of it , it makes no sense. As does Keogh's rejection of the club's offer of £1/2m pay while he recuperates, with access to the club's medial facilities and recuperation in the care of the club's physiotherapists and trainers.

Unless Keogh feels that he has been singled out for different treatment by the club than the other 2 protagonists and therefore made the fall guy, and is making a stand accordingly, there just has to be more to this story than meets the eye.

[Port Said Red]

13 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Don't see how Keogh has a leg to stand on. The idea that he has been treated unfairly doesn't wash with me. Regardless of whether he was driving or not his behaviour allowed himself, other players and the general public to be put at risk and brought Derby County FC into disrepute. As the senior professional present, and club captain, Derby had every right to expect him to show leadership and a responsible attitude both personally and to the younger professionals. He should not have allowed the situation to develop and taken action to prevent others driving while under the influence. What Derby decide to do in disciplining others involved is a matter for Derby and not us. 

Judging by the pictures doing the rounds, he almost didn't.

[BigTone]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’m wondering if Derby’s angle to this is insurance related.

Keoghs injury, irrespective of how sustained, appears to be career ending. In such a circumstance, it’s possible the club have insurance which gives them fair value for the asset loss.

However, to make that claim all parties have to agree its a career ender.

Could it be the case that Derby have got medical advice that Keogh won’t play again professionally, but RK hasn’t agreed despite expert opinion - and therefore Derby can’t claim, and are incurring losses?

Its loose, but “gross misconduct” could be refusing to sign a piece of paper when third party experts confirm you should, hence leading to the club making a significant loss? (I.e. it’s possible RKs contract stipulates he must agree in such a circumstance)?

But surely sacking him doesn't make it a career ending injury.

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Nibor said:

I think Keogh deserves to be fired and so do the others. But it's not exactly an informed opinion, none of us were there.

Derby can do what they like within the contract, they have no obligation to consider them all the same way.

For all we know the circumstances might indicate a worse punishment for Keogh, in particular the impact of being unfit for 15 months is a factor.

 

I suspect one of Keogh’s next actions will be to sue the driver (Bennett or Lawrence).  The insurance company will probably say they aren’t covering the driver, because he was drunk.

Keogh might also attempt to sue Derby for the club arranged bonding session and that in part being a contributory factor.

Out of interest, his contract doesn’t expire until 30.06.2021 so still 20 months left on it. I can see why he might start an appeal... that’s £2m!!!

[Port Said Red]

Just now, Davefevs said:

I suspect one of Keogh’s next actions will be to sue the driver (Bennett or Lawrence).  The insurance company will probably say they aren’t covering the driver, because he was drunk.

Keogh might also attempt to sue Derby for the club arranged bonding session and that in part being a contributory factor.

Out of interest, his contract doesn’t expire until 30.06.2021 so still 20 months left on it. I can see why he might start an appeal... that’s £2m!!!

I thought the issue was the fact that these players decided to continue on their own after the event was finished? That's why they declined the cars that were supplied by the club.

[cityloyal473]

What a tool Keogh is. He's just ended his career through greed. 

[REDOXO]

7 hours ago, Olé said:

 

Quote of the week!. I bet that even raises a smile in the Middlesbrough board room!

 

For the record I believe Keogh is club captain. This may be why Derby have made the decision they did. If three of my staff got into a car drunk, and one of them was a senior manager, that results in hundreds of thousands in losses and global bad press I might be inclined to do the same thing and fire the manager.

The manager has a duty of care as does Keogh 

[downendcity]

56 minutes ago, BigTone said:

But surely sacking him doesn't make it a career ending injury.

A few have suggested that Keogh has been thrown under a bus by Derby.

Now that would be a career ending injury!