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.
Talent trumps morals. Very sad but another example of the wealth in football taking it away from the rest of us.
I'm sure they could argue that it was a sackable offence but they offered him an alternative. You're not obliged to sack someone for a sackable offence of course.
@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
As @StrongestTeam said above, the two players would probably have benefited financially from getting sacked. It's a no win situation for justice unfortunately.
@Malone said:
So what he's done is sackable...unless he takes less money.
That's an awkward one to argue when it goes to court.
He literally had no way of doing his job again within his current contract because of what happened. The others can continue to help the club on the pitch
@Malone said:
So what he's done is sackable...unless he takes less money.
That's an awkward one to argue when it goes to court.
He literally had no way of doing his job again within his current contract because of what happened. The others can continue to help the club on the pitch
I do take your point, but I'm just thinking out loud on the whole situation as it's so unique.
I'm wondering if in other "active" jobs, such as services etc, if team bonding had gone on, and someone had got drunk, then got into someone else's car and got injured, would they be sacked.
I can't get beyond it not being a crime to be drunk, or have bad judgement to get into the car of someone who is drunk.
Unless like others have said, there's a lot more to this.
@Malone, as a professional athlete Keogh had at least a moral duty to look after himself physically. I'm quite willing to believe (but acknowledge I've no proof) he also had a contractural duty to train on certain days and be available to play if selected.
If so he's broken his side of the contract. Derby offered a new contract to reflect the new reality - he couldn't play but presumably could undertake other responsibilities.
He refused that new contract, so Derby terminated his contract for gross misconduct.
Say, for intance, you're a travelling salesman on a 2 year contract who has to drive for a living and decide to do a charity parachute jump which goes badly wrong. Let's say you have a serious back injury which means you're unable to sit down for more than 10 minutes at a time that is going to take 18 months to heal.
Your employer might pay sick pay for a while, depending on the contract terms, they might offer you a different contract in an office. More likely they might decide you had broken the terms of the original contract and terminate your employment.
@Chris said:
If you’re too ill to do your job, your employer will follow their sickness policy and you’re likely in the end to be dismissed.
However, that isn’t the route that’s been followed in this case.
You could argue this situation is slightly different in so far as Keogh is not actually suffering with an illness. The injury is partly self inflicted is so far as he got in a car being driven by a younger player knowing that the driver was over the limit, and exacerbated the danger by not wearing a seatbelt.
Getting drunk is reckless, but in your own free time, not necessarily something anyone will worry about, and even as a footballer probably just fineable material.
There's talk of how he "chose" to get into a car with a drunk driver, but obviously being drunk, he's in no mind to make sensible decisions.
If we use the ill/injury sickness policy, that's often dependent on length of service.
As a fairly long service worker, he'd likely have a fair amount of sick pay, possibly 6months worth. But the "rules" us normal workers have are a lot different to footballers.
All getting very legal now, but I'd imagine anyone truly ill, through no fault of their own would come to a mutual agreement with an employer rather than being dismissed as such.
Otherwise that sounds like the stuff of the courts.
Footballers on fixed term contracts cannot be terminated prior to expiry of their contract due to injury for obvious reasons.
This is a red herring.
Derby are seemingly arguing that his behaviour on the night constituted gross misconduct. Personally I can’t see how they could win any court case unless of course there are factors we are not aware of publically.
@Malone said:
All getting very legal now, but I'd imagine anyone truly ill, through no fault of their own would come to a mutual agreement with an employer rather than being dismissed as such.
Otherwise that sounds like the stuff of the courts.
You might imagine that but it isn't the case.
'You can be dismissed if you have a persistent or long-term illness that makes it impossible for you to do your job.
Before taking any action, your employer should:
look for ways to support you - eg considering whether the job itself is making you sick and needs changing
give you reasonable time to recover from your illness'
Although FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players prevent clubs unilaterally terminating the contract of injured players they can terminated the contract of a player in the case of Just Cause. FIFA RSTP Article 13 &17.
Likewise players can terminate the contract with Just Cause - it's how players were able to leave Bolton & Bury when their wages weren't paid.
However, the issue of what does or does not constitute just cause for termination is a matter of fact for each case and will be dependent upon the various issues which make up the factual matrix.
The commentary on the RSTP provides somewhat limited guidance on what may constitute just cause. It states:
‘The definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each case. In fact, behaviour that is in violation of the terms of an employment contract still cannot justify the termination of a contract for just cause. However, should the violation persist for a long time or should many violations be cumulated over a certain period of time, then it is most probably that a breach of contract has reached such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally.'
Lawyers are going to get rich on this why don't we let them do
Watching forest v county. Commentators avoiding mentioning the reds clearly singing 'Tom Lawrence he should be in jail...' As he is their top scorer the chances of Lawrence getting the tin tack always slim!
Comments
Talent trumps morals. Very sad but another example of the wealth in football taking it away from the rest of us.
So what he's done is sackable...unless he takes less money.
That's an awkward one to argue when it goes to court.
I'm sure they could argue that it was a sackable offence but they offered him an alternative. You're not obliged to sack someone for a sackable offence of course.
As @StrongestTeam said above, the two players would probably have benefited financially from getting sacked. It's a no win situation for justice unfortunately.
He literally had no way of doing his job again within his current contract because of what happened. The others can continue to help the club on the pitch
I do take your point, but I'm just thinking out loud on the whole situation as it's so unique.
I'm wondering if in other "active" jobs, such as services etc, if team bonding had gone on, and someone had got drunk, then got into someone else's car and got injured, would they be sacked.
I can't get beyond it not being a crime to be drunk, or have bad judgement to get into the car of someone who is drunk.
Unless like others have said, there's a lot more to this.
@Malone, as a professional athlete Keogh had at least a moral duty to look after himself physically. I'm quite willing to believe (but acknowledge I've no proof) he also had a contractural duty to train on certain days and be available to play if selected.
If so he's broken his side of the contract. Derby offered a new contract to reflect the new reality - he couldn't play but presumably could undertake other responsibilities.
He refused that new contract, so Derby terminated his contract for gross misconduct.
Say, for intance, you're a travelling salesman on a 2 year contract who has to drive for a living and decide to do a charity parachute jump which goes badly wrong. Let's say you have a serious back injury which means you're unable to sit down for more than 10 minutes at a time that is going to take 18 months to heal.
Your employer might pay sick pay for a while, depending on the contract terms, they might offer you a different contract in an office. More likely they might decide you had broken the terms of the original contract and terminate your employment.
I can't see what's hard to understand?
If you’re too ill to do your job, your employer will follow their sickness policy and you’re likely in the end to be dismissed.
However, that isn’t the route that’s been followed in this case.
You could argue this situation is slightly different in so far as Keogh is not actually suffering with an illness. The injury is partly self inflicted is so far as he got in a car being driven by a younger player knowing that the driver was over the limit, and exacerbated the danger by not wearing a seatbelt.
Getting drunk is reckless, but in your own free time, not necessarily something anyone will worry about, and even as a footballer probably just fineable material.
There's talk of how he "chose" to get into a car with a drunk driver, but obviously being drunk, he's in no mind to make sensible decisions.
If we use the ill/injury sickness policy, that's often dependent on length of service.
As a fairly long service worker, he'd likely have a fair amount of sick pay, possibly 6months worth. But the "rules" us normal workers have are a lot different to footballers.
You can be dismissed before you have reached the limit of your sick pay, that isn’t relevant.
All getting very legal now, but I'd imagine anyone truly ill, through no fault of their own would come to a mutual agreement with an employer rather than being dismissed as such.
Otherwise that sounds like the stuff of the courts.
Footballers on fixed term contracts cannot be terminated prior to expiry of their contract due to injury for obvious reasons.
This is a red herring.
Derby are seemingly arguing that his behaviour on the night constituted gross misconduct. Personally I can’t see how they could win any court case unless of course there are factors we are not aware of publically.
You might imagine that but it isn't the case.
'You can be dismissed if you have a persistent or long-term illness that makes it impossible for you to do your job.
Before taking any action, your employer should:
Although FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players prevent clubs unilaterally terminating the contract of injured players they can terminated the contract of a player in the case of Just Cause. FIFA RSTP Article 13 &17.
Likewise players can terminate the contract with Just Cause - it's how players were able to leave Bolton & Bury when their wages weren't paid.
However, the issue of what does or does not constitute just cause for termination is a matter of fact for each case and will be dependent upon the various issues which make up the factual matrix.
The commentary on the RSTP provides somewhat limited guidance on what may constitute just cause. It states:
‘The definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each case. In fact, behaviour that is in violation of the terms of an employment contract still cannot justify the termination of a contract for just cause. However, should the violation persist for a long time or should many violations be cumulated over a certain period of time, then it is most probably that a breach of contract has reached such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally.'
Lawyers are going to get rich on this why don't we let them do
Lawyers are going to get rich on this one, why don't we agree to let them do the wrangling?
There were some fairly strong rumours of Keogh failing other tests, that could explain things
There always are but if they were true you wouldn't imagine court would be necessary.
Watching forest v county. Commentators avoiding mentioning the reds clearly singing 'Tom Lawrence he should be in jail...' As he is their top scorer the chances of Lawrence getting the tin tack always slim!