Skip to content

Richard Keogh

13

Comments

  • My view is they should have sacked them all or none...but I can understand why they asked Keogh to take a salary cut while he is out for the season. I can also understand why he told them to stuff that. Perhaps if he does sue more details would emerge that clarify what happened on the night. But a semantic argument about how drunk proven drunk drivers have to be until they are dubbed pissed has brightened my Friday.

  • @HCblue said:

    @drcongo said:

    @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.

    Not at all. It's perfectly fine for the captain to have a few drinks with the team on a team day out, even having a few too many in the name of "team bonding" isn't a big problem to me. The one and only problem is him then allowing the junior members to get in their cars and drive them. A work event is a grey area, so I'm sure some will have different opinions on him getting drunk, but there's no grey area about his responsibility to make an effort to not let them get behind the wheel.

  • @HCblue said:
    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.

    No, no it isn't. It's deliberately leaving out parts of the narrative to form an entirely new one. Was Richard Keogh's wife driving the car? If Dev really wanted to reframe it to Wycombe players he'd have had one of our young players drink driving with club captain Matt Bloomfield in the car.

    If he's going to chop pertinent parts of the narrative out, why just the fact that the car was being driven by a younger player whom Keogh is supposed to be setting an example to? Why not leave out the car itself? Might as well have reframed it as "If Joe Jacobson fell over after drinking one beer, should he be sacked?"

    WELL, SHOULD HE @HCblue?

  • @Username said:

    @HCblue said:

    @drcongo said:

    @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.

    Not at all. It's perfectly fine for the captain to have a few drinks with the team on a team day out, even having a few too many in the name of "team bonding" isn't a big problem to me. The one and only problem is him then allowing the junior members to get in their cars and drive them. A work event is a grey area, so I'm sure some will have different opinions on him getting drunk, but there's no grey area about his responsibility to make an effort to not let them get behind the wheel.

    Even if he was so drunk that he wasn't aware?
    Like I keep saying, none of us know the facts, as such it's all just hypothetical clap trap.

  • @EwanHoosaami said:

    @Username said:

    @HCblue said:

    @drcongo said:

    @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.

    Not at all. It's perfectly fine for the captain to have a few drinks with the team on a team day out, even having a few too many in the name of "team bonding" isn't a big problem to me. The one and only problem is him then allowing the junior members to get in their cars and drive them. A work event is a grey area, so I'm sure some will have different opinions on him getting drunk, but there's no grey area about his responsibility to make an effort to not let them get behind the wheel.

    Even if he was so drunk that he wasn't aware?
    Like I keep saying, none of us know the facts, as such it's all just hypothetical clap trap.

    I'd argue that as club captain, getting to that stage on a team outing would constitute gross negligence either way.

    You're right about there being plenty of unknowns.

  • @DevC said:
    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/

    I think this case may be different as I'm not sure it entirely counts as outside work. As I understand it is was a club arranged or sanctioned function and therefore is more of a grey area. (In my day job we had two employees (actually normally friends) on a work-sanctioned Christmas 'do' who came to blows which involved the police being called. It then became a question of whether this should be seen as being entirely outside work and our legal/HR experts decided that the instigator could reasonably be dismissed - in the end they resigned before it git that far).

    On a secondary issue, being reasonably familiar with the state of being 'pissed as a fart' I am quite happy to accept that definition for people whose first instinct following a crash where alcohol may have been a factor seems to be to run off leaving (or forgetting) an injured colleague in the back of their car, regardless of the actual technical amount of alcohol in their system.

  • Left behind two injured colleagues possibly @bookertease as apparently an unnamed fourth person was treated for facial injuries at the scene.

  • I think this case may be different as I'm not sure it entirely counts as outside work. As I understand it is was a club arranged or sanctioned function and therefore is more of a grey area.

    A friend of mine went to a conference in Vegas with work where someone got so drunk they pissed in a pint glass and then drank it for a bet. They were sacked and sent home before the hangover arrived.

  • He (or less likely she but you never know) probably doesn't work for a large national, unionised company then @drcongo

  • Multinational, but US so not unionised.

  • Incidents of fights and other alleged assaults at Christmas parties are a well known nightmare for HR professionals. Indeed another former Wanderer , Chris Zebroski, was fired after a booze induced fight at a "works outing" at Plymouth.

    Personally don't think that it would be relevant whether a drink driving incident (or indeed a drink passenger incident as this seems to be) followed an official works party or an unofficial one.

  • I've been trying to dig out old employment contracts from when I used to have jobs, as I'm pretty sure every one I've ever had included a clause about behaviour outside the place of work while representing the company. Obviously my behaviour is always impeccable so I've never had cause to test the clause.

  • While representing the company - no doubt.
    On way home after a works function unlikely unless that action itself serious enough to constitute gross misconduct in itself.
    As the berahino case link above points out, drink driving unlikely to be gross misconduct for a footballer. Keogh didn't drink drive. .

  • Leaving a works event is 100% representing the company.

    Do you not agree he had extra responsibilities being the captain?

  • @drcongo said:
    Multinational, but US so not unionised.

    To be fair there is a proud history of workers unions in the US.

  • @Chris said:

    @drcongo said:
    Multinational, but US so not unionised.

    To be fair there is a proud history of workers unions in the US.

    But an equally long history of significantly fewer workers' rights than in Europe.

  • Oh absolutely, I believe there are plenty of US states that allow no-fault dismissals. But there most definitely are unions and collective bargaining. Howard Zinn’s (slightly out of date) A People’s History of the United States gives a fascinating account of some of the battles between organised labour and capitalist corporations (and often the government) over the years.

  • John Sayles Matewan film is worth watching about strike breaking in the 1920s (I think!) weren't a lot of the 'families' involved in the big city unions over the years. forgedabahtit!

  • I'm always interested by the collective bargaining agreements present in American sports which seem to be almost anachronistic in their nature and extent as well as somewhat in contradiction of American free market ideals.

  • Same here @HCblue,it's very weird that the most overtly commercially exploitative part of american life is also the most effectively unionised.

  • @floyd said:
    Same here @HCblue,it's very weird that the most overtly commercially exploitative part of american life is also the most effectively unionised.

    Indeed. Not to mention the draft system, which actively rewards teams that fail for an extended period, increasingly often deliberately, in order to get higher picks of the college and high school talent. Both this year's World Series teams have excellent teams many of whom were drafted in long periods of deliberate crapness. In addition, there were a spectacular number of teams in the leagues this season who were obviously making no effort to be competitive.

    I guess it's a product of attempts, as with the Financial Fair Play system in football, to level the playing field and prevent the club with access to the most money from dominating the game. Unintended consequences...

  • I feel like the NBA Draft lottery will have to go, or be adjusted, in the next CBA, too much of an incentive to tank as soon as you can’t make the playoffs. But obviously that wouldn’t solve everything, no NFL lottery but the Dolphins are pretty obviously not putting much effort in.

  • A couple of years ago on a flight I watched a film called Draft Day and it was one of the most baffling films I’ve ever seen. I spent nearly two hours without the foggiest idea what was going on, or who was supposed to be the protagonist and what they were trying to do. Every now and then the incidental music would slip into an ominous minor key and I wouldn’t know why.

    I’m having a similar experience with your post @floyd

  • Link to "explanation" from Mel Morris of why the other two weren't sacked as well as Keogh. He appears to be saying that sacking them for getting drunk is not desirable because it would give all of Derby's other (financially valuable) players a convenient way of getting out of their contracts without penalty, since they could simply go out and get drunk with the express purpose of getting sacked in order to be free to take up more lucrative offers elsewhere.
    https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/morris-keogh-drink-drive-derby-3511068

  • So to get sacked, you have to be drunk AND injured, and old. Whether you're driving, or not.

  • It's always been a thing that greater value brings greater tolerance. Any moral argument falls by the wayside

  • If you sack good players with a high value you are doing them a favour unfortunately as after the fuss dies down they will have their pick of club's on a free and probably get a big signing on fee and a pay rise while you lose your investment.
    Interesting case with Mutu as it was drug related they fired him and sued him. Think it just about worked but took a lot of time and legal fighting.

  • The fact he was injured so he couldn't physically do his job fit the entirety of his contract must have played a big part.

  • Just massively uncomfortable that the players who actually broke the law have got off relatively scot free compared to the player who didn't.

    That's a shocking stance

  • @Malone said:
    Just massively uncomfortable that the players who actually broke the law have got off relatively scot free compared to the player who didn't.

    That's a shocking stance

    They received criminal punishments, and big fines. Not really sure what Derby could do, cost themselves tens of millions of pounds to sit in a moral pedestal, or keep them on.

    With Keogh they offered him a change in deal and he rejected it, he won't play for them again because of injury anyway.

Sign In or Register to comment.