Just to throw in a slightly different scenario. How does anyone know that Keogh wasn't so intoxicated that he was "poured " into the car practically unconscious, therefore had no idea of the circumstances?
As @HCblue correctly suggests, most of what is written on this and any other forum is pure conjecture as we don't know the facts.
@EwanHoosaami does it really matter? He was in a car, without a seat belt, and the injuries he suffered prevent him from fulfilling his side of his contract with Derby.
Can anyone argue that Derby have an obligation to pay him his full salary. I seriously doubt it.
And that's the difference between him and the others involved, they can still play football. Derby can and have treated him differently because he can't play football.
If Keogh believes he was in some way not responsible the people he should be taking legal action against would be the person who put him in the taxi and the car driver. Oh, I forgot, they were his, allegedly, pissed up team mates.
@EwanHoosaami said:
Yes, it does matter. As I have already stated, most of this topic is pure conjecture and gossip, as such your opinion ways no heavier than mine.
@DevC said:
He cant play because he was injured in a road traffic accident in which (although not sure it is relevant) he was not driving.
He wasn't blindsided while helping children across the road @DevC you've excluded the pissed as a fart in the back of car being raced by someone else who was pissed as a fart. Admittedly if I had to live in Derby....
The two young drivers of the cars were approximately 1.5 times over the drink driving limit. They had drunk the equivalent of perhaps 3-4 pints. That makes them utter scumbags for getting behind the wheel of a car. Not sure it means they were "pissed as a fart" though. Driving over the limit may be gross misconduct for a taxi driver. It isn't likely to be for a footballer. So they (I would say justifiably) were not found guilty of gross misconduct.
Not sure if we know whether Keogh was "pissed as a fart". Even if he was, that doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue in hand. certainly on the facts in the public domain, his disciplinary offence was much less serious even than that of the two drivers. If they weren't guilty of gross misconduct, Keogh certainly wasn't.
Further gross misconduct is one of those black or white things. You cant mitigate gross misconduct by taking a very large pay cut. By offering him that and only claiming gross misconduct when he refused and they faced a large cash hit paying a players contract while he was injured and saw a cynical way to avoid, Derby appear to have completely blown their case.
Unless there are factors not in the public domain, pretty sure Derby will lose in a tribunal and will have to pay the full value of their contractual liabilities plus a fair amount of legal fees. I hope so.
@DevC said:
The two young drivers of the cars were approximately 1.5 times over the drink driving limit.
When they returned to the scene 45 minutes later, having fled the scene. They had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left so it wasn't just a case of not taking little more water with it.
They had drunk the equivalent of perhaps 3-4 pints. That makes them utter scumbags for getting behind the wheel of a car. Not sure it means they were "pissed as a fart" though. Driving over the limit may be gross misconduct for a taxi driver. It isn't likely to be for a footballer. So they (I would say justifiably) were not found guilty of gross misconduct.
They were not charged with it were they to be found 'not guilty'. They were just fined by the club after their convictions.
Not sure if we know whether Keogh was "pissed as a fart". He had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left
Unless there are factors not in the public domain, pretty sure Derby will lose in a tribunal and will have to pay the full value of their contractual liabilities plus a fair amount of legal fees. I hope so.
We shall see. As Keogh has much more to lose I assume he'll take it all the way. Tribunal pay-out tops is £50,000 isn't it? I think Derby could swallow that. If he sues though..a different matter I suppose.
To be fair I can see both sides. Which is what makes it intriguing.
Not a chance they had only had 3/4 pints either. They were regular drinkers, had a couple hours before they were tested and Bennett had thrown up some of the booze....
I've known people who have blown twice the limit after serious drinking sessions, massively depends on the person.
Sorry Wendover, your quotes have gone horribly wrong, so cant work out what you are saying. Keogh definitively wasn't drink driving @Chris.
for those who seem to be supporting this action, let me bring this into context for you.
Lets say Matt Bloomfield is travelling home in a car driven by his wife and has an accident which puts him out of action for the rest of the season. Would you support the club tearing up the rest of his contract. Does you answer change if Bloomfield had had a few drinks? Does your answer change if Bloomfield knew that his wife was over the limit before she drove?
@DevC said:
Sorry Wendover, your quotes have gone horribly wrong, so cant work out what you are saying. Keogh definitively wasn't drink driving @Chris.
for those who seem to be supporting this action, let me bring this into context for you.
Lets say Matt Bloomfield is travelling home in a car driven by his wife and has an accident which puts him out of action for the rest of the season. Would you support the club tearing up the rest of his contract. Does you answer change if Bloomfield had had a few drinks? Does your answer change if Bloomfield knew that his wife was over the limit before she drove?
Completely different situation, if Bloomfield went out and got pissed up with Smyth and Pattinson (two junior squad members), then let one of them drive home, and then got injured, I'd expect them all to be sacked. He's the club captain, it is his responsibility to set am example- it's in the job description.
Yes...my quotes went all pete tong: basically @DevC
1) (Only 1.5 times over limit) -
When they returned to the scene 45 minutes later, having fled the scene!! They had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left so it wasn't just a case of not taking little more water with it.
2) (Younger players found 'not guilty' of gross misconduct) -
They were not charged with it to be found 'not guilty'. They were just fined by the club after their legal convictions.
3) not sure if Keogh was pissed. - He had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left as above.
4) Derby will lose a tribunal - We shall see. As Keogh has much more to lose I assume he'll take it all the way. Tribunal pay-out tops is £50,000 isn't it? I think Derby could swallow that. If he sues though..a different matter I suppose.
@DevC said:
Fair enough, @Username, I wouldn't. I wouldn't expect the legal system to support it either.
As club captain, he'll get paid extra for the extra responsibilities that role brings with it namely 1) Upholding the reputation of the club (beyond what other players are expected to do) and 2) Guiding and mentoring new or younger members of the squad
On what planet has he not been grossly negligent in either of those 2 areas of his job?
That's before even considering that he can't perform his basic job role of playing football because of it.
That's better, thankyou.
1) they may have been drinking all day but when they were tested (say an hour after the accident), they were about 1.5 times over the limit. Scumbags for driving at or over the limit - undoubtedly, pissed as a fart- probably not.
2) derby presumably considered gross misconduct as part of the drivers disciplinary process and concluded that was excessive. (Possibly helps that they were on lower wages and may have a value in the future)
3) Not sure its relevant, but if he was drinking at same rate as the two drivers, see 1)
4) If tribunal finds "gross misconduct" was unfair and hence he was unfairly dismissed, sueing Derby for breach of contract would be an open goal.
The two young drivers of the cars were approximately 1.5 times over the drink driving limit. They had drunk the equivalent of perhaps 3-4 pints. That makes them utter scumbags for getting behind the wheel of a car. Not sure it means they were "pissed as a fart" though. Driving over the limit may be gross misconduct for a taxi driver. It isn't likely to be for a footballer. So they (I would say justifiably) were not found guilty of gross misconduct.
@DevC said:
That's better, thankyou.
1) they may have been drinking all day but when they were tested (say an hour after the accident), they were about 1.5 times over the limit. Scumbags for driving at or over the limit - undoubtedly, pissed as a fart- probably not.
2) derby presumably considered gross misconduct as part of the drivers disciplinary process and concluded that was excessive. (Possibly helps that they were on lower wages and may have a value in the future)
3) Not sure its relevant, but if he was drinking at same rate as the two drivers, see 1)
4) If tribunal finds "gross misconduct" was unfair and hence he was unfairly dismissed, sueing Derby for breach of contract would be an open goal.
There's videos of one of the players throwing up during the drinking session, does that count as pissed as a fart?
@Username said:
Completely different situation, if Bloomfield went out and got pissed up with Smyth and Pattinson (two junior squad members), then let one of them drive home, and then got injured, I'd expect them all to be sacked. He's the club captain, it is his responsibility to set am example- it's in the job description.
But then Dev wouldn't be able to make the thread all about him if he didn't make up an entirely different scenario and then demand you answer his questions about it.
as far as I know "pissed as a fart" doesn't have a legal definition. Personally, while they absolutely should NOT have been driving, "pissed as a fart" has a higher threshold than 58 or 64 mgs (legal limit being 35).
@DevC said:
as far as I know "pissed as a fart" doesn't have a legal definition. Personally, while they absolutely should NOT have been driving, "pissed as a fart" has a higher threshold than 58 or 64 mgs (legal limit being 35).
Ignoring a blood reading a couple hours later... Would throwing up in a pub urinal constitute "pissed as a fart" to you?
@DevC said:
Sorry Wendover, your quotes have gone horribly wrong, so cant work out what you are saying. Keogh definitively wasn't drink driving @Chris.
for those who seem to be supporting this action, let me bring this into context for you.
Lets say Matt Bloomfield is travelling home in a car driven by his wife and has an accident which puts him out of action for the rest of the season. Would you support the club tearing up the rest of his contract. Does you answer change if Bloomfield had had a few drinks? Does your answer change if Bloomfield knew that his wife was over the limit before she drove?
It might change if Matt was injured in a car driven by his wife who he knew was well over the limit AND he was not bothering to wear his seat belt. The injury meant he would not be fit to play for the remainder of his contract, with medical opinion suggesting use of the seat belt would have avoided the injury. This happened pre new owner when we had no money to replace Matt.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely certain that Matt would never be so reckless or inconsiderate.
For those rigorously defending Keogh, it should be borne in mind that he is not particularly hard up being on £25k per week and considerably more when he was playing in the Premier
I suppose @Username that it is inevitably subjective whether the drivers were merely over the drink drive limit or had achieved "pissed as a fart" status or even excelled themselves and reached "pissed as a newt" or even "rat-arsed". What is not subjective is that they shouldn't have been anywhere near driving a car.
As I linked above, legal view is that the drivers actions would not constitute gross misconduct under employment law.
Keogh's actions, as not even a driver, even less so.
Keogh's wage isn't relevant to whether he has committed gross misconduct or not (but I suggest likely is to why Derby have sought a legal loophole to avoid paying it)
For those rigorously defending Keogh, it should be borne in mind that he is not particularly hard up being on £25k per week and considerably more when he was playing in the Premier
It’s nothing to do with the circumstances of the person involved and all to do with the principles.
@DevC said:
as far as I know "pissed as a fart" doesn't have a legal definition. Personally, while they absolutely should NOT have been driving, "pissed as a fart" has a higher threshold than 58 or 64 mgs (legal limit being 35).
Classic @DevC . Not legal definition but very much a DevC definition we should already have known about.
@Username said:
Completely different situation, if Bloomfield went out and got pissed up with Smyth and Pattinson (two junior squad members), then let one of them drive home, and then got injured, I'd expect them all to be sacked. He's the club captain, it is his responsibility to set am example- it's in the job description.
But then Dev wouldn't be able to make the thread all about him if he didn't make up an entirely different scenario and then demand you answer his questions about it.
Not at all fair. Dev’s hypothetical situation quite properly invites the reader to consider the extent to which an employee might be said to be responsible for injuries suffered in a car crash or, regardless of that, whether an employer might properly get rid of such an employee because their injuries made him unable to carry out his duties. It is a legitimate and valuable question.
Since some posters are happy both to throw in that the fact it was a work event means he was effectively on the clock as captain and that being drunk is itself grounds for dismissal in his position, I’ll throw in the (rhetorical) question of whether the club itself should be fired for organising an event at which its employees were likely to drink a bit too much.
Comments
Just to throw in a slightly different scenario. How does anyone know that Keogh wasn't so intoxicated that he was "poured " into the car practically unconscious, therefore had no idea of the circumstances?
As @HCblue correctly suggests, most of what is written on this and any other forum is pure conjecture as we don't know the facts.
@EwanHoosaami does it really matter? He was in a car, without a seat belt, and the injuries he suffered prevent him from fulfilling his side of his contract with Derby.
Can anyone argue that Derby have an obligation to pay him his full salary. I seriously doubt it.
And that's the difference between him and the others involved, they can still play football. Derby can and have treated him differently because he can't play football.
If Keogh believes he was in some way not responsible the people he should be taking legal action against would be the person who put him in the taxi and the car driver. Oh, I forgot, they were his, allegedly, pissed up team mates.
Yes, it does matter. As I have already stated, most of this topic is pure conjecture and gossip, as such your opinion ways no heavier than mine.
The fact he can't play isn't.
He cant play because he was injured in a road traffic accident in which (although not sure it is relevant) he was not driving.
He wasn't blindsided while helping children across the road @DevC you've excluded the pissed as a fart in the back of car being raced by someone else who was pissed as a fart. Admittedly if I had to live in Derby....
I fear the restart of an old @DevC staple posting about a goalkeeper. Copy and paste
The two young drivers of the cars were approximately 1.5 times over the drink driving limit. They had drunk the equivalent of perhaps 3-4 pints. That makes them utter scumbags for getting behind the wheel of a car. Not sure it means they were "pissed as a fart" though. Driving over the limit may be gross misconduct for a taxi driver. It isn't likely to be for a footballer. So they (I would say justifiably) were not found guilty of gross misconduct.
Not sure if we know whether Keogh was "pissed as a fart". Even if he was, that doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue in hand. certainly on the facts in the public domain, his disciplinary offence was much less serious even than that of the two drivers. If they weren't guilty of gross misconduct, Keogh certainly wasn't.
Further gross misconduct is one of those black or white things. You cant mitigate gross misconduct by taking a very large pay cut. By offering him that and only claiming gross misconduct when he refused and they faced a large cash hit paying a players contract while he was injured and saw a cynical way to avoid, Derby appear to have completely blown their case.
Unless there are factors not in the public domain, pretty sure Derby will lose in a tribunal and will have to pay the full value of their contractual liabilities plus a fair amount of legal fees. I hope so.
I was having flashbacks of the same @Right_in_the_Middle
Drink driving is serious enough to be gross misconduct.
When they returned to the scene 45 minutes later, having fled the scene. They had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left so it wasn't just a case of not taking little more water with it.
They had drunk the equivalent of perhaps 3-4 pints. That makes them utter scumbags for getting behind the wheel of a car. Not sure it means they were "pissed as a fart" though. Driving over the limit may be gross misconduct for a taxi driver. It isn't likely to be for a footballer. So they (I would say justifiably) were not found guilty of gross misconduct.
They were not charged with it were they to be found 'not guilty'. They were just fined by the club after their convictions.
We shall see. As Keogh has much more to lose I assume he'll take it all the way. Tribunal pay-out tops is £50,000 isn't it? I think Derby could swallow that. If he sues though..a different matter I suppose.
To be fair I can see both sides. Which is what makes it intriguing.
Not a chance they had only had 3/4 pints either. They were regular drinkers, had a couple hours before they were tested and Bennett had thrown up some of the booze....
I've known people who have blown twice the limit after serious drinking sessions, massively depends on the person.
Sorry Wendover, your quotes have gone horribly wrong, so cant work out what you are saying. Keogh definitively wasn't drink driving @Chris.
for those who seem to be supporting this action, let me bring this into context for you.
Lets say Matt Bloomfield is travelling home in a car driven by his wife and has an accident which puts him out of action for the rest of the season. Would you support the club tearing up the rest of his contract. Does you answer change if Bloomfield had had a few drinks? Does your answer change if Bloomfield knew that his wife was over the limit before she drove?
Completely different situation, if Bloomfield went out and got pissed up with Smyth and Pattinson (two junior squad members), then let one of them drive home, and then got injured, I'd expect them all to be sacked. He's the club captain, it is his responsibility to set am example- it's in the job description.
Fair enough, @Username, I wouldn't. I wouldn't expect the legal system to support it either.
Yes...my quotes went all pete tong: basically @DevC
1) (Only 1.5 times over limit) -
When they returned to the scene 45 minutes later, having fled the scene!! They had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left so it wasn't just a case of not taking little more water with it.
2) (Younger players found 'not guilty' of gross misconduct) -
They were not charged with it to be found 'not guilty'. They were just fined by the club after their legal convictions.
3) not sure if Keogh was pissed. - He had been drinking all day and stayed on when the rest of the team left as above.
4) Derby will lose a tribunal - We shall see. As Keogh has much more to lose I assume he'll take it all the way. Tribunal pay-out tops is £50,000 isn't it? I think Derby could swallow that. If he sues though..a different matter I suppose.
As club captain, he'll get paid extra for the extra responsibilities that role brings with it namely 1) Upholding the reputation of the club (beyond what other players are expected to do) and 2) Guiding and mentoring new or younger members of the squad
On what planet has he not been grossly negligent in either of those 2 areas of his job?
That's before even considering that he can't perform his basic job role of playing football because of it.
That's better, thankyou.
1) they may have been drinking all day but when they were tested (say an hour after the accident), they were about 1.5 times over the limit. Scumbags for driving at or over the limit - undoubtedly, pissed as a fart- probably not.
2) derby presumably considered gross misconduct as part of the drivers disciplinary process and concluded that was excessive. (Possibly helps that they were on lower wages and may have a value in the future)
3) Not sure its relevant, but if he was drinking at same rate as the two drivers, see 1)
4) If tribunal finds "gross misconduct" was unfair and hence he was unfairly dismissed, sueing Derby for breach of contract would be an open goal.
> @DevC said:Drink driving isn't gross misconduct!
Incredible.
There's videos of one of the players throwing up during the drinking session, does that count as pissed as a fart?
Whether you think it incredible or not, @Malone , in law it isn't except in very particular circumstances.
Perhaps this might be a useful summary (although remember in this case Keogh wasn't even driving). http://bhwsolicitors.com/dismissing-employees-conduct-outside-work/
But then Dev wouldn't be able to make the thread all about him if he didn't make up an entirely different scenario and then demand you answer his questions about it.
as far as I know "pissed as a fart" doesn't have a legal definition. Personally, while they absolutely should NOT have been driving, "pissed as a fart" has a higher threshold than 58 or 64 mgs (legal limit being 35).
Ignoring a blood reading a couple hours later... Would throwing up in a pub urinal constitute "pissed as a fart" to you?
It might change if Matt was injured in a car driven by his wife who he knew was well over the limit AND he was not bothering to wear his seat belt. The injury meant he would not be fit to play for the remainder of his contract, with medical opinion suggesting use of the seat belt would have avoided the injury. This happened pre new owner when we had no money to replace Matt.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely certain that Matt would never be so reckless or inconsiderate.
For those rigorously defending Keogh, it should be borne in mind that he is not particularly hard up being on £25k per week and considerably more when he was playing in the Premier
I suppose @Username that it is inevitably subjective whether the drivers were merely over the drink drive limit or had achieved "pissed as a fart" status or even excelled themselves and reached "pissed as a newt" or even "rat-arsed". What is not subjective is that they shouldn't have been anywhere near driving a car.
As I linked above, legal view is that the drivers actions would not constitute gross misconduct under employment law.
Keogh's actions, as not even a driver, even less so.
Keogh's wage isn't relevant to whether he has committed gross misconduct or not (but I suggest likely is to why Derby have sought a legal loophole to avoid paying it)
>
It’s nothing to do with the circumstances of the person involved and all to do with the principles.
defining 'pissed as a fart' guidelines. That's why I love the Gasroom.
Classic @DevC . Not legal definition but very much a DevC definition we should already have known about.
Not at all fair. Dev’s hypothetical situation quite properly invites the reader to consider the extent to which an employee might be said to be responsible for injuries suffered in a car crash or, regardless of that, whether an employer might properly get rid of such an employee because their injuries made him unable to carry out his duties. It is a legitimate and valuable question.
Since some posters are happy both to throw in that the fact it was a work event means he was effectively on the clock as captain and that being drunk is itself grounds for dismissal in his position, I’ll throw in the (rhetorical) question of whether the club itself should be fired for organising an event at which its employees were likely to drink a bit too much.