Richard Keogh awarded £2.3m in breach of contract case against Derby

[Curr Avon]

Recent drop from the Guardian: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/richard-keogh-awarded-2-3m-in-breach-of-contract-case-against-derby/ar-BB1gBMKf?ocid=entnewsntp . Will they call him the 'Ram Buster'?

Richard Keogh has secured a payout of about £2.3m from Derby after winning his long-running compensation claim against them. The 34-year-old defender, who finished the season at Huddersfield, brought an action for breach of contract in the wake of his sacking by Derby in October 2019.

Keogh had sustained serious knee ligament injuries when he was in the car that his then teammate Tom Lawrence crashed into a lamppost after a night out in September of that year. He was dismissed by Derby for gross misconduct. His contract with them, worth a basic £24,000 a week plus bonuses, was due to run until June 2021.

Keogh went to the EFL’s Player Related Dispute Commission [PRDC], where he won a full payout only for Derby to contest the decision at the League Appeals’ Committee [LAC]. The process has been marked by delays, caused in part by the pandemic, but the LAC last week upheld the original verdict.

An EFL statement read: “The LAC has heard and dismissed an appeal under the regulations of the EFL by Derby against the decision of the PRDC in the case of Richard Keogh. The PDRC held that Mr Keogh had not committed gross misconduct, that he had not brought the club into serious disrepute and that he had been wrongly dismissed by the club.”

The car crash happened after a team-bonding day. Lawrence was over the drink-drive limit and so was Mason Bennett, now of Millwall, who had driven off ahead. When Bennett stopped his car at a give-way line, Lawrence went into the back of him before careering into the lamppost. They fled the scene, leaving Keogh unconscious.

Lawrence and Bennett admitted drink-driving and failing to stop at the scene of an accident when they appeared at Derby magistrates court. They avoided jail sentences but each was ordered to carry out 180 hours of unpaid community service and banned from driving for two years. Despite their criminal convictions, Derby chose not to sack them, although they did fine them. Both were unhurt in the incident.

Keogh, who would be out of action for 12 months, had been told by Derby that he could stay and see out his contract but they stunned him by saying that he had to accept a massive pay cut to do so. When he refused, Derby dismissed him with immediate effect. Keogh had to make an initial appeal against the decision to Derby, which was thrown out, before he entered into the EFL’s legal framework.

Keogh played at Derby for seven and a bit seasons, starting 316 of 330 Championship matches plus all 10 of the club’s play-off ties. He joined MK Dons in League One last August, making his debut in September, before moving to Huddersfield in January on a deal until the end of the season.

The Derby owner, Mel Morris, is trying to sell the club to No Limits Sports, which is fronted by the Spanish businessman Erik Alonso. Under the management of Wayne Rooney the team avoided relegation on the final day of the Championship season on Saturday when they drew 3-3 at home to Sheffield Wednesday and had another result – Rotherham’s 1-1 draw at Cardiff – go in their favour.

Derby, meanwhile, are to face sanctions from the EFL after the league won an appeal against a previously dismissed misconduct charge. It is not clear whether any punishment would be applied to this season or next, with the EFL saying there was “no definitive timescale” for proceedings.

An independent league arbitration panel concluded a disciplinary commission was wrong to dismiss the EFL’s expert accountancy evidence which stated Derby’s valuation of player registrations was contrary to standard accounting rules. The original disciplinary commission had concluded the club did not adequately disclose in its financial statements the nature and/or effect of its change in accounting policy and there has been no appeal against that decision. Derby and the EFL will have the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate sanction arising out of those breaches.

 

 

[SecretSam]

What an awful story, I never knew. Bennett and Lawrence look pretty poor in this. And how on earth did Derby think that they were on safe legal ground? Crazy.

[Curr Avon]

9 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

What an awful story, I never knew. Bennett and Lawrence look pretty poor in this. And how on earth did Derby think that they were on safe legal ground? Crazy.

It's a literal 'car crash'.

[formerly known as ivan]

Never made sense at the time. Sacking Keogh because of the injury and his age even though he was a passenger. The other two involved only given a slap on the rust because of their age and value.

Glad Keogh has eventually got something out of this.

[milo1111]

14 minutes ago, SecretSam said:

What an awful story, I never knew. Bennett and Lawrence look pretty poor in this. And how on earth did Derby think that they were on safe legal ground? Crazy.

To be fair to them they’ve have pretty much been writing their own rules for years and nothing’s stuck to them before. 

[1960maaan]

Really pleased for him, and pleased that Derby have been pulled up for something at last, first of a few I hope.
It was obvious that Derby were taking advantage of the situation, get rid of a player that they wanted out anyway (if rumours were true at the time), but let the 2 younger guys who were more at fault, carry on. Nothing to do with the possible value further on down the line.

They are an odious club, with no morals and play fast and loose with rules. I hope they at least get relegated this year, will make me feel better about the EFL.

[sephjnr]

22 minutes ago, milo1111 said:

To be fair to them they’ve have pretty much been writing their own rules for years and nothing’s stuck to them before. 

Until now. Wonder if they declared that they'd lose the case as part of the FFP report, or does it go into next season's?

[Dredd]

Good. Was a cynical decision from Derby at the time and everyone could see what they were doing in trying to sack and older injured player with little transfer value, while the bigger perpetrators got away with a slap on the wrist

[Taz]

Derby's mistake was getting rid of him. Heavy fine, rehab then in the reserves, probably would have gotten away with it.

To sack him, and then give the other 2 younger players a slap on the wrist, they kind of tightened the noose themselves.

[freezer]

59 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Never made sense at the time. Sacking Keogh because of the injury and his age even though he was a passenger. The other two involved only given a slap on the rust because of their age and value.

Glad Keogh has eventually got something out of this.

You'd think professional footballers could afford a decent motor? 

[DT The Optimist]

I stand to be corrected here but was Keogh not club captain and a bit of ‘vicarious liability’ here as he should have been an example in saying WTF are doing driving while pissed, grab a cab…it’s not as though they cannot afford it. 

Not being holy about it,  but sacking him and not the other two does  seems strange.

Rightly or wrongly they were all muppets  

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Never made sense at the time. Sacking Keogh because of the injury and his age even though he was a passenger. The other two involved only given a slap on the rust because of their age and value.

Glad Keogh has eventually got something out of this.

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

Really pleased for him, and pleased that Derby have been pulled up for something at last, first of a few I hope.
It was obvious that Derby were taking advantage of the situation, get rid of a player that they wanted out anyway (if rumours were true at the time), but let the 2 younger guys who were more at fault, carry on. Nothing to do with the possible value further on down the line.

They are an odious club, with no morals and play fast and loose with rules. I hope they at least get relegated this year, will make me feel better about the EFL.

As I understand it sacking him would allow them get around FFP, whereas paying up his contract wouldn’t.  Unlaaaaky.

[1960maaan]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As I understand it sacking him would allow them get around FFP, whereas paying up his contract wouldn’t.  Unlaaaaky.

I wouldn't be so anti Derby if they had sacked the lot of 'em. But it was so obviously nothing to do with misconduct and all to do with finance.
I really hope they get a points deduction this year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

53 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I wouldn't be so anti Derby if they had sacked the lot of 'em. But it was so obviously nothing to do with misconduct and all to do with finance.
I really hope they get a points deduction this year.

That would have been ballsy and praiseworthy- even coming from me! However they took the expedient route...

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

As I understand it sacking him would allow them get around FFP, whereas paying up his contract wouldn’t.  Unlaaaaky.

Hmm, so does this get excluded then or? Sacking around FFP or would the fact that the League Appeals Panel upheld the decision class it as unfair dismissal and move it into Paying up Contract territory?

[redsquirrel]

they should get the deduction this season ,after all,the initial ruling was earlier this season and would have been implied then if they hadnt appealed. knowing that scabby lot though,it will be next season and not a problem for them to overcome. come on EFL, 10 points tonight,please

[Mr Popodopolous]

Mel Morris and the law of football or maybe law in general don't have a good relationship at all times though- fairly sure they got found against in the Sam Rush case.

Quote

Rush won a ruling of unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal hearing in February

From 2018- and Derby v Rush they chose to settle rather than go to Court.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hmm, so does this get excluded then or? Sacking around FFP or would the fact that the League Appeals Panel upheld the decision class it as unfair dismissal and move it into Paying up Contract territory?

I don’t know the correct terminology, but as I read at the time, sacking him meant no payout, happy days for Derby.  But if they mutually terminated then they’d have to include his pay off.

[formerly known as ivan]

2 hours ago, freezer said:

You'd think professional footballers could afford a decent motor? 

I changed that originally from rest! Bloody autocorrect!!!

[grifty]

28 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

they should get the deduction this season ,after all,the initial ruling was earlier this season and would have been implied then if they hadnt appealed. knowing that scabby lot though,it will be next season and not a problem for them to overcome. come on EFL, 10 points tonight,please

Why is a 10 point deduction next season not a problem for them to overcome?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Unsure if they could get away with it but what if they simply said "Sue us for it" or similar, how long could that hypothetically kick the can down the road (the Keogh debacle not the FFP  ).

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, grifty said:

Why is a 10 point deduction next season not a problem for them to overcome?

10 points next year is straight forward, they know where they stand and a reasonable year they stay up.
Give them the 2 points now, season hasn't finished, make them suffer the consequences .

[1960maaan]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure if they could get away with it but what if they simply said "Sue us for it" or similar, how long could that hypothetically kick the can down the road (the Keogh debacle not the FFP  ).

This is where you'd want a strong governing body. You'd want them to say this has to be settled before they were allowed to sign up for next season. You can just see Derby trying to get past this year to give themselves a chance when any deduction is implemented .

[Mr Popodopolous]

Okay, this is an interesting exchange and may not be as watertight as we think?  Debated views on this though...

Suggestion that there is no real power of imminent enforcement- Football Debt rule though??

That would be a new low even for Derby under Mel Morris...Surely the Football League would have to take strong action if Derby went against a judgement of this nature- an open-ended Registration Embargo for a start.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Okay, this is an interesting exchange and may not be as watertight as we think?  Debated views on this though...

Suggestion that there is no real power of imminent enforcement- Football Debt rule though??

That would be a new low even for Derby under Mel Morris...Surely the Football League would have to take strong action if Derby went against a judgement of this nature- an open-ended Registration Embargo for a start.

It's a long time since I did employment law and attended tribunals but I'd query the statement "the award was not a legal judgement [sic] therefore cannot be legally enforced". 

From the Guardian it seems this award has been made by the Player Related Dispute Commission, then upheld by the League Appeals’ Committee. I don't know the legal status of those bodies, and they may not be "courts" or "tribunals" in the same way that the High Court or Employment Tribunal is. It might be that is being referenced when the guy says its not a "legal" judgment. A bit of googling reveals that these bodies are internal EFL dispute resolution "courts" and so the decision is enforceable only within the EFL framework.

The rules of the PRDC are published here https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-2---rules-governing-conduct-of-fdc-hearings-regulation-80/ non-payment incurs interest of BArclays Bank base rate plus 5% per annum, but there's nothing about actually enforcing payment. In practice I would guess that Derby might not pay, but that would be short-sighted. They'd still have to book it as a liability in their accounts, a liability attracting a hefty interest rate. I would also hazard a guess that it may be taken into consideration by the EFL each season that Derby apply to be a member of the EFL - ie they could, possibly, get booted out of the league if they continued to not pay.

Ultimately Keogh would likely need to bring a further case against Derby in the courts to get enforcement. I have no idea which court he'd have to go for. That's for his solicitor to advise.

On the second point: about 5 seconds of googling takes you here https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals/if-you-win-your-case. This suggests that one could make a £66 application online to the High Court for an enforcement order, and ask for the High Court Enforcement Officer (aka the "bailiffs") to pop round.

[Mad Cyril]

1 hour ago, grifty said:

Why is a 10 point deduction next season not a problem for them to overcome?

Er, because they will still finish above us?

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure if they could get away with it but what if they simply said "Sue us for it" or similar, how long could that hypothetically kick the can down the road (the Keogh debacle not the FFP  ).

I don’t think it would make a difference financially. It would improve their cash flow but have to appear on their balance sheet as a liability so their accounts would not be improved by it.

[REDOXO]

7 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Never made sense at the time. Sacking Keogh because of the injury and his age even though he was a passenger. The other two involved only given a slap on the rust because of their age and value.

Glad Keogh has eventually got something out of this.

I heard it was a nice motor!

[CHIPLEY RED]

15 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Never made sense at the time. Sacking Keogh because of the injury and his age even though he was a passenger. The other two involved only given a slap on the rust because of their age and value.

Glad Keogh has eventually got something out of this.

I'm not sure but i seem to remember the reason they gave for sacking Keogh and not the others was that Keogh was club captain, had organised the bonding session and failed in his duty as senior player to the then youngsters. 

I'm not in anyway suggesting this is correct and on the face of it they sacked him cause he had no real worth but kept the younger players because they did.

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

I'm not sure but i seem to remember the reason they gave for sacking Keogh and not the others was that Keogh was club captain, had organised the bonding session and failed in his duty as senior player to the then youngsters. 

I'm not in anyway suggesting this is correct and on the face of it they sacked him cause he had no real worth but kept the younger players because they did.

Yeah - all of that would essentially amount to reasons to strip him of the captaincy. Getting in a car with people he knew to be drink driving could only be gross misconduct if the same charge and punishment was given to everyone who got in the car, not least those driving.

I think the problem for the club is they tried to act  as those the two (valuable) players driving were wide eyed youngsters who needed guidance from senior players but they were 23 and 25 at the time. That is certainly old enough to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.