Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County Drink Driving charges (merged topics)


WhistleHappy

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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)?

If it were insurance related, then why would Derby have first offered Keogh the chance to see out his contract, but on reduced wages?

Hardly seems the action of a club dealing with a player whose career is finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigTone said:

He was stupid but he has been made the scapegoat I think

All 3 were stupid, but Derby's actions make it appear that Keogh was the most stupid of them all.

While there are many aspects of Keogh's behaviour to criticise, it is difficult to understand how his actions were judged worse than those of the 2 lads who chose to drive while well over the drink drive limit, and who compounded their actions by leaving the scene of the accident. 

Keogh's actions could, at worst, have injured him ( as they did) The others could have injured (or worse) not only Keogh, but themselves and any innocent pedestrians or other road users unfortunate enough to be caught up in their accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, downendcity said:

All 3 were stupid, but Derby's actions make it appear that Keogh was the most stupid of them all.

While there are many aspects of Keogh's behaviour to criticise, it is difficult to understand how his actions were judged worse than those of the 2 lads who chose to drive while well over the drink drive limit, and who compounded their actions by leaving the scene of the accident. 

Keogh's actions could, at worst, have injured him ( as they did) The others could have injured (or worse) not only Keogh, but themselves and any innocent pedestrians or other road users unfortunate enough to be caught up in their accident.

It can only be that they have resale value and the club want to sell them in the future. Keogh doesn’t have a future with Derby they have decided and will take lots of time and staff to get him through the injury, time and staff that they need to spend on their other players I expect. 

When it first happened I immediately wondered if he was wearing a seatbelt, we still don’t know do we. Maybe the club are saying he was negligent and should have taken care of himself as the injury could possibly have be prevented. Maybe he as club captain made a verbal promise they weren’t going drinking and he had a duty of care to the players he was with, it was after all an official club function, even though that had ended.

i don’t really know of course, just guessing wildly how a passenger has been dismissed and be worse off than the drink drivers who were racing eachother(?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RedM said:

It can only be that they have resale value and the club want to sell them in the future. Keogh doesn’t have a future with Derby they have decided and will take lots of time and staff to get him through the injury, time and staff that they need to spend on their other players I expect. 

When it first happened I immediately wondered if he was wearing a seatbelt, we still don’t know do we. Maybe the club are saying he was negligent and should have taken care of himself as the injury could possibly have be prevented. Maybe he as club captain made a verbal promise they weren’t going drinking and he had a duty of care to the players he was with, it was after all an official club function, even though that had ended.

i don’t really know of course, just guessing wildly how a passenger has been dismissed and be worse off than the drink drivers who were racing eachother(?)

Resale value, value write down required on sacking etc is the reason IMO.

Whether these would stack up in court or at an Employment Tribunal, based on the facts as we know them- which is a fairly big caveat, is a different debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, downendcity said:

All 3 were stupid, but Derby's actions make it appear that Keogh was the most stupid of them all.

While there are many aspects of Keogh's behaviour to criticise, it is difficult to understand how his actions were judged worse than those of the 2 lads who chose to drive while well over the drink drive limit, and who compounded their actions by leaving the scene of the accident. 

Keogh's actions could, at worst, have injured him ( as they did) The others could have injured (or worse) not only Keogh, but themselves and any innocent pedestrians or other road users unfortunate enough to be caught up in their accident.

 

59 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

 

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 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

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.

Yes, absolutely, but perhaps it was the 20 pints they had at the Derby event rather than the half of shandy they had afterwards that was the major factor!!!

I joke in the above Paragraph To some extent but I recall something from work many years ago where they tried to sack someone - but they got off because the evening started with the works do where alcohol was provided. Lawyers are good at finding reasons for unfair dismissal!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Resale value, value write down required on sacking etc is the reason IMO.

Whether these would stack up in court or at an Employment Tribunal, based on the facts as we know them- which is a fairly big caveat, is a different debate.

I agree. We got to remember that unlike most of us Keogh had a contract with his employers too. No doubt it states in there what arrangements are if he gets injured whilst playing, training etc or in an incident where he is not to blame, eg he is entitled to a full health care package. Now if he has caused injury to himself, even through others, that probably is another thing. If he was a young player with years ahead of him and an asset to the club both financially and playing-wise I’m sure this outcome would not have happened. 

Keogh might argue he got into a car, didn’t realise the others had been drinking and will want his contract honoured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Resale value, value write down required on sacking etc is the reason IMO.

Whether these would stack up in court or at an Employment Tribunal, based on the facts as we know them- which is a fairly big caveat, is a different debate.

 

3 minutes ago, RedM said:

I agree. We got to remember that unlike most of us Keogh had a contract with his employers too. No doubt it states in there what arrangements are if he gets injured whilst playing, training etc or in an incident where he is not to blame, eg he is entitled to a full health care package. Now if he has caused injury to himself, even through others, that probably is another thing. If he was a young player with years ahead of him and an asset to the club both financially and playing-wise I’m sure this outcome would not have happened. 

Keogh might argue he got into a car, didn’t realise the others had been drinking and will want his contract honoured.

Im guessing that Keogh rejected Derby's offer a reduced contract because he had received legal advice on the matter.

If so, then Im guessing he plans to take legal action, whether that be for unfair dismissal ( presumably based in his treatment being substantially different from the other 2) and or a civil action against one or both of the other 2 players who were driving while over the legal limit.

If legal action ensues it will be interesting to see the arguments put forward by opposing sides, and especially Derby's justification for sacking RK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 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.

A total non-starter.

Whilst the drivers' insurers might seek to refuse/reduce any claim presented by Keogh on the basis of 'Volenti non fit injuria', i.e. whereby, in accepting a lift from a 'drunken driver', he (Keogh) willingly placed himself in a position where he might suffer harm, the drivers' insurers would be unable to simply refuse cover.

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

While there are many aspects of Keogh's behaviour to criticise, it is difficult to understand how his actions were judged worse than those of the 2 lads who chose to drive while well over the drink drive limit, and who compounded their actions by leaving the scene of the accident. 

Whilst not condoning the actions of either of the two drivers, my understanding is that, surprisingly, they were only 'slightly' over the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

A total non-starter.

Whilst the drivers' insurers might seek to refuse/reduce any claim presented by Keogh on the basis of 'Volenti non fit injuria', i.e. whereby, in accepting a lift from a 'drunken driver', he (Keogh) willingly placed himself in a position where he might suffer harm, the drivers' insurers would be unable to simply refuse cover.

Whilst not condoning the actions of either of the two drivers, my understanding is that, surprisingly, they were only 'slightly' over the limit.

Like being only just pregnant? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Like being only just pregnant? :) 

?. As I said, not condoning it, but neither driver was more than twice the limit - 58 and 64, when the limit is 35.

I suppose it is a question of semantics, but I believe there is a difference in accepting a lift from somebody who perhaps has had one pint too many as opposed to from somebody who is staggering to get to, or even find their car and then struggles to get the keys in the ignition.

Upon reflection, something about my argument makes me think about digging holes deeper....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

?. As I said, not condoning it, but neither driver was more than twice the limit - 58 and 64, when the limit is 35.

I suppose it is a question of semantics, but I believe there is a difference in accepting a lift from somebody who perhaps has had one pint too many as opposed to from somebody who is staggering to get to, or even find their car and then struggles to get the keys in the ignition.

Upon reflection, something about my argument makes me think about digging holes deeper....   

Keogh may want to file against the drivers as well. Almost guaranteed an out of court settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, billywedlock said:

I would assume Keogh will be suiing the driver.Why he the driver  was not charged with causing injury by dangerous driving can only be because the police were Derby fans. Charges and sentence were pathetic and the most lenient in current times. A prison sentence, suspended was the least that should have been given. 

Let us not forget the judge!

He handed down the following sentence, with the following circs:

Quote

District judge Jonathan Taaffe had warned the players that a prison sentence was an option but the men walked free from court after probation services told the hearing of concerns they would struggle in custody

The punishment for the two was as follows:

Quote

He imposed a 12-month community order on both defendants, ordering them to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work and banned them from driving for two years

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just seen also, Keogh was sacked after refusing a paycut from £29,000 per week to £3,000 per week.

Seems the decision to sack was for not wearing a seatbelt and refusing a near 90% paycut...so far as what we can see in the public domain.

Well, who could get by on £156,000 pa whilst receiving free expert private medical care? Could any of us? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

?. As I said, not condoning it, but neither driver was more than twice the limit - 58 and 64, when the limit is 35.

I suppose it is a question of semantics, but I believe there is a difference in accepting a lift from somebody who perhaps has had one pint too many as opposed to from somebody who is staggering to get to, or even find their car and then struggles to get the keys in the ignition.

Upon reflection, something about my argument makes me think about digging holes deeper....   

I know you weren't condoning it Phil, but I can well imagine it to be the type of argument  Derby use to justify not taking more severe action against the 2 lads who drove the cars - because  they were only just over the limit!

The ambiguity/hypocrisy of this case is that  Derby appear to have taken the view that getting into the back seat of a car while drunk is a higher level of gross misconduct  than getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk i.e. over the legal limit. 

It's a right old mess and I am glad it's happening at Derby and not here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Well, who could get by on £156,000 pa whilst receiving free expert private medical care? Could any of us? ?

Ha well quite- not that I have particular sympathy, but I'm quite interested in the legal arguments, proportionality, treatment in employment terms as against other players etc.

Club arranged event too, we shouldn't forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Ha well quote- not that I have particular sympathy, but I'm quite interested in the legal arguments, proportionality, treatment in employment terms as against other players etc.

Derby have clearly taken legal advice, hence the, in football terms, derisory contract offer, designed to be declined, followed by the sack. That helps Derby argue that they have behaved reasonably. 

As to the other two, i expect both will be moved on in January, with Derby pocketing whatever they can. As i previously posted, it's all about money, Derby's  and the Lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

Derby have clearly taken legal advice, hence the, in football terms, derisory contract offer, designed to be declined, followed by the sack. That helps Derby argue that they have behaved reasonably. 

As to the other two, i expect both will be moved on in January, with Derby pocketing whatever they can. As i previously posted, it's all about money, Derby's  and the Lawyers.

In my view it stinks. That said, I would have had a little more respect if they had sacked Keogh and put the other 2 on the transfer list immediately . At least it would look a little less like taking advantage of the situation to get rid of a high earner who can't play for the rest of the season, while at the same time almost condoning the actions of the other two because they have value.

Just when you think you can't dislike an owner more, and then ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a greater crime then- in terms of a greater crime worthy of the sack?

Entering a car drunk, however not wearing a seat belt- or actually drink driving?

Surely an Employment Tribunal would find this very interesting- granted the fact he would've been out for some time is a counterpoint...

Hope he gets reinstated, or his contract paid in full and aggravated damages- not because I think he necessarily merits it but because it would put further budgetary squeezes on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

Derby have clearly taken legal advice, hence the, in football terms, derisory contract offer, designed to be declined, followed by the sack. That helps Derby argue that they have behaved reasonably. 

As to the other two, i expect both will be moved on in January, with Derby pocketing whatever they can. As i previously posted, it's all about money, Derby's  and the Lawyers.

Nailed it on the head

Keogh will be 36/37 be the time he gets fit Sell on value = nothing = sacked

Other two have a sell on value = Keep on books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw my workmate this morning (an ex Derby player). He he acknowledged my flippant text message last night. I was almost begging him to defend Derbys actions but he can't. He simply shakes his head and says "dont understand it". I guess it all comes down to exactly what it says in the Captains contract...and none of us know that detail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, downendcity said:

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.

Quite often companies will come to a "without prejudice" agreement with an employee, effectively pay them off rather than go down the disciplinary route. Its quicker,  easier and without the risk of appeal. The employee is free to accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected then normal disciplinary procedure is followed.

As it is very rare that a footballer is sacked Keogh may have thought Derby would not pursue the Gross Misconduct case and thought why should I take a 50% pay cut - who knows.

I am in agreement that if Keogh had a "value" there is no way Derby would have sacked him and that's probably why the other 2 haven't been dealt with in the same way. There is probably more to this than is in the public domain. In cases I have dealt with that is usually the case and the employer cannot disclose the facts so only 1 side of the story is public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just seen also, Keogh was sacked after refusing a paycut from £29,000 per week to £3,000 per week.

Seems the decision to sack was for not wearing a seatbelt and refusing a near 90% paycut...so far as what we can see in the public domain.

In the public domain is the key phrase. Many say 50% pay cut I heard it was to £20k per week its now £3k. looks like Keoghs agent is getting his side of the story out first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

In the public domain is the key phrase. Many say 50% pay cut I heard it was to £20k per week its now £3k. looks like Keoghs agent is getting his side of the story out first.

Hmm.

50% sounds more realistic yes but Matt Lawton is a good journalist, he isn't often wrong- so I'm inclined to treat it as pretty- not definitively- but pretty credible.

Don't know whether this link works but it seems to for me.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/derby-sacked-richard-keogh-for-not-wearing-a-seat-belt-hdrwlmvrw?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1572543213

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...