Yeah that's what I am assuming If that's the case it again makes a mockery of football clubs and their double standards Cash is what matters to them all
They started it off pretty much the day after by releasing a statement condemning the actions of their club captain without a single reference to the others. They were trying to isolate him on the basis of the fact that he was the captain rather than the much more obvious which was that he was the only one injured and he was also the oldest and least valuable to them financially. I'd say his solicitors will have a field day with this one.
Seems they wanted him to take a pay cut and he said no thanks. so with Keogh out for up to 14 months, and out of contract shortly there after suddenly his being in the back seat of the car was gross misconduct and grounds for sacking. Like Ed said. solicitors rubbing their hands at this one
The fact he's in the back seat has to suggest there was a front seat passenger too and probably a front seat passenger in the other car. So out of a minimum of 5 people they single out him. In many ways I can understand them being pissed off with a lad old enough to know better allowing this happen but surely they have left themselves open to paying him more than they would have if they just let his contract run down. The only logical reason I can think off, and maybe I've been reading too much of the indo, but maybe the idea behind this is to have insurance cover them when they inevitably lose in court.
I was going to say I'd be surprised if they didnt come to a settlement with him that allowed them to say he's been sacked for PR purposes rather than just paid up,but then I realised that anybody stupid enough to think this was a clever PR move would easily be stupid enough to leave themselves so open to being sued.
Even if that were their thought process, very hard to see anybody willing to take the hit on the clubs behalf and have that follow you around for the rest of your life. In 5/10 years time the narrative remembered would be "oh yeah, Keogh...wasnt he the guy who crashed a car while drunk and got the sack...what a moron"
For what its worth I think they have good grounds to terminate his contract and commented on here at the time that they would. I also don't think the other two players have anything to do with it. Club has contract with player A. Contract stipulates grounds on which club can terminate player A's contract. As long as those grounds exist, club can terminate. Players B and C are not parties to the contract.
Any chance Derby can win the case on the grounds Keoghs reckless behaviour made him a financial liability that they shouldn't have to bare the burden of while at the same time not punish themselves financially by sacking the other two? I hope that's not the case but consequences often play a part in sentencing so Im wondering if legally they can work in Derbys favour here. Edit-I hadn't seen the post above when I was asking this.
Does the same rules not apply to employees of Tesco or Are Lingus? If 3 lads from Tesco all done something that breached their contract but they only fired one then he would not have grounds for discrimination or some sort? Time to play the Paddy card.
I'm glad I caught this one because I was typing something similar and would have looked a right prick explaining again how I hadn't seen the post above I reckon he'd have to have a good case under labour law. I've seen precedent used a few times in our place to reduce sanctions or even get lads their jobs back.
Footballers contracts would generally be fairly bespoke whereas Tesco ones would be pretty much all the same I'd imagine. But if you take that line of reasoning, are you saying it would be ok if all three had their contracts terminated? Because they could still terminate the other two contracts if he took a case, would that then make it ok? I think there is privity of contract. I'd be pretty sure he's in breach of it because they would have strict bringing the club into disrepute and misconduct clauses. There would probably be grounds on the basis of being club captain in the sense of setting example for the others and being older, more experienced, more mature and having more responsibility to do what is right and lead by example.
noticed the Scottish prem league table in the paper earlier, stevie's doing a good job this season, closing the gap.
Granted Keogh was the "senior pro", but the fact that Derby were willing to let him see out his contract on a much reduced rate seems to me that they werent terribly worried about his (lack of) example setting until he wanted his 24k a week until the end of his contract. The others involved seem far more culpable to me and theyve been fined 6 weeks wages. Hadnt realised that the other 3 had fled the scene and left Keogh unconscious in the crashed car, where paramedics found him. They "came to their senses" and returned 45 minutes later where they were arrested. While Keogh is certainly not blameless in the whole scenario - should have been a good little boy and gone home when the do ended in club laid on cars - honestly think he's been hung out to dry in a poorly thought out PR excercise by his club, while 3 others who commited actual crimes get a fine and community service.
I'm pretty sure when it comes to gross misconduct the PFA have always insisted its club standards enforced across the board so I dont imagine Keogh will have anything in his contract that's not in everybody else's in relation to the conduct expected of him. I also think Derby would be mad to go down the morality route of claiming they expect more from the club captain. The fact he has been club captain for so long will be pointed to as testament of his professionalism up until that point and when the punishment for the lads who committed the much more serious offences,then legged it and left their mate unconscious is so paltry in relation to Keoghs,who's going to seriously believe they're taking a moral stance? I dont know if those other players disciplinary process has been completed(it sounds like it has)but if it has the club wont be able to sack them for this incident now,no matter what Keogh does.
I don't know if this is true or not but was told today that Richard Keogh would have not been injured in the crash if he was wearing a seatbelt.
My opinion is they all should have been sacked or at the very least all received the same fine. If any of them were to receive lesser punishment I would have thought the player that wasn't driving would be the one entitled to it, not the other way around.
Here's one. Who would we say would be more deserving of being sacked. A passenger in the car of a drink driver that crashes, or an actual drink driver that doesn't crash but just gets caught?