Keogh Sacked by Derby

Ohmeha · 31-10-2019 9:32am

Its going over a few heads here that Derby offered Keogh a new contract on reduced terms, they were very happy to have him continuing to represent the club despite the incident and his injury.

Keogh has been sacked for refusing to sign the new contract. If Derby sacking him was due to the incident he wouldn't have been offered any new contract in the first place.

The 3 players disgraced themselves that night and Derby have now disgraced themselves in their handling of this by only not condoning drink driving when it's financially beneficial to the club

stesaurus · 31-10-2019 9:36am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because his stupidity means he can't do his job and is a liability.

It's very simple. If 2 employees, do something wrong, 1 turns up the following day, 1 is unable to work again, I know who I'm looking to get rid of.

People think Derby should pay him over a million just to be fair or nice? This is the real world. No one here would shell out a year of wages to someone sitting on their arse because they got injured through their own fault.

Most people seem to be seeing this through the eyes of their work environment. Football is different and is protected in weird ways. You're not going to be sacked for getting drunk on a weekend and ending up in an accident while working in an office. Acting reckless, encouraging younger employees to drink while being responsible as club captain. Then being injured and unavailable for work for the next year and a half all through your own actions. Well **** him, his own fault, why should he be protected?
Gross misconduct gives them an out but it doesn't mean they have to enforce it. They've made a business decision keeping the other two but it makes zero financial sense to keep Keogh.
They obviously feel they have enough in Keogh to use the misconduct charge. They very probably have warnings and fines from the past to point to also.

razorblunt · 31-10-2019 10:05am

I would have thought they'd be duty of care for his treatment? Unless they're taking care of that too separately.

If he were to retire due to injury would he get an insurance pay out?

jacool · 31-10-2019 10:31am

. . . . . and as if to add insult to injury there is Lawrence, nominated for goal of the month for October on dcfc.co.uk
They are getting slaughtered on the Twitter page though!

Mushy · 31-10-2019 11:14am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because his stupidity means he can't do his job and is a liability.

It's very simple. If 2 employees, do something wrong, 1 turns up the following day, 1 is unable to work again, I know who I'm looking to get rid of.

People think Derby should pay him over a million just to be fair or nice? This is the real world. No one here would shell out a year of wages to someone sitting on their arse because they got injured through their own fault.

The law expects them to have fair procedures, so based on what we know, they haven't done that at all. But there has to be more to it, only way they could do this. Sacking is extreme.

Hoboo · 31-10-2019 11:31am

Mushy wrote: »

The law expects them to have fair procedures, so based on what we know, they haven't done that at all. But there has to be more to it, only way they could do this. Sacking is extreme.

Expects to have and to use, they had a number of meetings, which would suggest a procedure was followed.

blanch152 · 31-10-2019 11:39am

stesaurus wrote: »

Most people seem to be seeing this through the eyes of their work environment. Football is different and is protected in weird ways. You're not going to be sacked for getting drunk on a weekend and ending up in an accident while working in an office. Acting reckless, encouraging younger employees to drink while being responsible as club captain. Then being injured and unavailable for work for the next year and a half all through your own actions. Well **** him, his own fault, why should he be protected?
Gross misconduct gives them an out but it doesn't mean they have to enforce it. They've made a business decision keeping the other two but it makes zero financial sense to keep Keogh.
They obviously feel they have enough in Keogh to use the misconduct charge. They very probably have warnings and fines from the past to point to also.

It is not, the Bosman ruling saw to that, when it confirmed football was like other employment.

The questions here are

(1) Did Derby have a code of conduct for players?
(2) Did Keogh break the code of conduct?
(3) Did others break the code of conduct and were they treated in the same way as Keogh?
(4) Is there a separate code of conduct for club captain that allows Keogh to be treated differently?
(5) Were fair procedures applied?

We don't know any of the answers to these questions. If the answers to all of these are yes, then Derby have no case to answer. However, that is not clear at this stage and many owners of football clubs have little or no understanding of employment law. This may run.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 11:49am

its extreme in the fact that none of the others received the same sanctions.

Should he have know better ? Yes, but they are all adults so should they ALL.

Could or should he have used his influence to dissuade them from driving ? YES

We don’t know he may have tried.

The two others...Tom Lawrence, the driver and Mason Bennett got to keep their jobs and were find 6 weeks wages.

Keogh in effect has been fined approx 130 weeks wages.

Tom Lawrence, an adult, with a drivers license knowingly got into a car to drive it over the legal limit. He gets to keep his job.

ANYONE tells me that be it my friends, boss, supervisor to drive a car having had a drink.... they will be told to get bent. If they persisted they would be reported I wouldn’t give a fûck. Again in modern life too much reverence is given to people with titles... manager/captain/Fr/Dr etc... give me somebody with a moral compass over a couple of letters.

31-10-2019 11:51am

Mushy wrote: »

The law expects them to have fair procedures, so based on what we know, they haven't done that at all.

Fair procedures means carrying out an investigation and giving him an opportunity to give his side. I haven't seen him or anyone say they have not carried out any investigation.

Fair procedures does not mean that every employee has to be disciplined in the same way. And that would be obvious, big difference between an employee being drunk and taking a day off sick, and an employee being drunk and not being able to work for over a year.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 12:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair procedures does not mean that every employee has to be disciplined in the same way. And that would be obvious, big difference between an employee being drunk and taking a day off sick, and an employee being drunk and not being able to work for over a year.

The discipline dished out needs to be fair and proportionate.

A guy who was a passenger in the car gets fired.

The guy who was gargled and drove it gets a fine.

The guy who was gargled and chose to drive gets a bit of time off too.

The driver could have killed someone.

The driver is an adult who could and should have known better

The driver is under undue influence can still say..’NO, fûck you I’m NOT driving’.

If tomorrow at a work doo boss says... “Strumms, yer grand give us a lift home I need to be up early and no taxis... “no sorry, I’m not doing that” and I’m walking away, no discussion, no debate.

sReq | uTeK · 31-10-2019 12:07pm

osarusan wrote: »

Even though this is obviously a cost-cutting exercise, regardless of anything they might say about standards, you'd imagine Derby have done their homework and worked out that they can take these steps.

Why? Companies and HR policies get muddled up with the law on a daily basis and make ill-informed decisions. You don't think Lawyers are happy to go to trial on the basis of their advice and have their hourly rates for multiple bodies continue to be bank rolled. Lawyering is as much about business and billings as football is, read the secret lawyer very good insight into English law.

Whilst I'm not privy to the details, to offer someone a contract and then dismiss this shortly after because the person doesn't sign it...well it doesn't look good and nor will it looks good in the eyes of the courts.

Getting into the car is a silly thing to do, but being an intoxicated passenger in the backseat of a car is not against the law. Its even more of a bizarre dismissal when you factor in that the people driving the car who fled the scene of an accident/crime are still playing....

He will 110% in the eyes of law (Unless there is something we don't know) receive a full pay-out as well as claiming off the insurance of his buddies to get his medical expenses paid for. Its a clear case of unfair-dismissal / ageism as you'll see.

He'll be fine.

Finally, I'm sure anyone on 24k a week has a few pound saved up so I'm sure he won't starve.

Dr. Bre · 31-10-2019 12:10pm

Ah he hasn’t a leg to stand on. Right decision

osarusan · 31-10-2019 12:52pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Don't know how you could come to that conclusion really.

What I mean is that I'd say Derby's lawyers have already examined all of the arguments made on this thread (he was just a passenger, the other lads are still there and playing, etc) and still decided they have enough reason to sack him and make that stick.

Of course they might be wrong, and a court might see it that way.

But I would guess that every argument raised on this thread was already taken into consideration by them as they decided what to do.

banie01 · 31-10-2019 12:58pm

osarusan wrote: »

What I mean is that I'd say Derby's lawyers have already examined all of the arguments made on this thread (he was just a passenger, the other lads are still there and playing, etc) ad still decided they have enough reason to sack him and make that stick.

Of course they might be wrong, and a court might see it that way.

But I would guess that every argument raised on this thread was already taken into consideration by them as they decided what to so.

Honestly you would assume (and even hope) it has been dealt with that way.
However having been on both sides of a table in similar circumstances, quite often the end result of an employee being terminated is a decision taken by a manager or personnel director that is stuck to as a matter of principle and vindication of the manager's "power" rather than being legally sound.

I don't know the circumstances of the offer of a reduced term contract, but if that did happen?
Derby have placed themselves in a very precarious position.

PARlance · 31-10-2019 1:02pm

osarusan wrote: »

What I mean is that I'd say Derby's lawyers have already examined all of the arguments made on this thread (he was just a passenger, the other lads are still there and playing, etc) ad still decided they have enough reason to sack him and make that stick.

Of course they might be wrong, and a court might see it that way.

But I would guess that every argument raised on this thread was already taken into consideration by them as they decided what to so.

I'm sure they have but it's important to note that the actions of the Club aren't always going to be what the legal guys advise. Their legal experts won't solely be used to tell the Club what's right or wrong in terms of the law, they'll be used to advise the Club on what may work best for the Club.

I.e legal could have said that Keogh will have good grounds for a case. Club Management may acknowledge that but decide, on advice from Legal, that it will be years in the Courts and then Club Management decide to save cash now in the knowledge that they may have to pay out 2-3 years down the line... rather than paying 24k a week for the remainder of his contract.

31-10-2019 1:08pm

Strumms wrote: »

The discipline dished out needs to be fair and proportionate.

Absolutely, and I think it is fair and proportionate that someone who is unable to work for a year, through no fault of the employer, is treated differently to someone who has to take a morning off. It's not simply the act, it is also the ability to perform one's job after.

If you rang your employer tomorrow and said "(a) I did something really stupid and (b) I have to take a year off", do you think he'd be looking at your contract for a way to terminate your employment because of (b)?

Zebra3 · 31-10-2019 1:32pm

Firstly, Keogh made a horrendous mistake and I’ve no sympathy for him. Just glad no innocent party got injured.

But from a legal point of view “club captain” stuff is irrelevant. He wasn’t representing the club when the “accident” happened.

Scott Tenorman · 31-10-2019 1:36pm

The guys actions resulted in him not being able to do his job for a year, if that isn't gross misconduct i don't know what is!

31-10-2019 1:48pm

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

The guys actions resulted in him not being able to do his job for a year, if that isn't gross misconduct i don't know what is!

Well the misconduct really refers to the act. The ability to carry out one's job is more a question of competence. While it's tricky to dismiss someone for incompetence, it's not impossible, and inability to carry out ones job for a year certainly makes an arguable case. I suspect they will actually have a hybrid "conduct and competence" approach at any hearing.

Mushy · 31-10-2019 1:53pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Expects to have and to use, they had a number of meetings, which would suggest a procedure was followed.

The punishment is out of sync with the other guys though. Obviously yeah they can still play, sovthat came into their thinking. But he was sacked after not signing a new contract, that is alarm bells stuff.

Keogh deserved to be sacked, but so did the other 2. That's before the punishment (or lack of) dished out by the courts

Keyzer · 31-10-2019 2:03pm

Mushy wrote: »

The punishment is out of sync with the other guys though. Obviously yeah they can still play, sovthat came into their thinking. But he was sacked after not signing a new contract, that is alarm bells stuff.

Keogh deserved to be sacked, but so did the other 2. That's before the punishment (or lack of) dished out by the courts

This is the very reason he will most likely win a court case on this - he commited no criminal offence, the other two did. He gets sacked, the other two keep their jobs.

Regardless of how stupid he was to continue drinking and get in the car, the crime doesn't fit the punishment.

Any fule kno that.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 2:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely, and I think it is fair and proportionate that someone who is unable to work for a year, through no fault of the employer, is treated differently to someone who has to take a morning off. It's not simply the act, it is also the ability to perform one's job after.

If you rang your employer tomorrow and said "(a) I did something really stupid and (b) I have to take a year off", do you think he'd be looking at your contract for a way to terminate your employment because of (b)?

If I went out tonight and got fûcked drunk with a less experienced colleague, we were both knocked down and injured on the way to get some food, we needed hospital treatment, I can’t work for two months, either can Dave...

I get let go after the dust settles and having informed the company what happened, Dave gets a final warning.. both of us with clean disciplinary records.

Dave gets a final warning because... “ look he’s a young fella, 26, out for the match, had a few too many.. he’s was out with Strumms, would have expected him to be a bit more mature and responsible and be looking after things ?”

No ! Two adults, out for a few drinks, equals, accident happened, both had equal culpability. Punishments or sanctions should be equal..

stesaurus · 31-10-2019 2:29pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not, the Bosman ruling saw to that, when it confirmed football was like other employment.

The questions here are

(1) Did Derby have a code of conduct for players?
(2) Did Keogh break the code of conduct?
(3) Did others break the code of conduct and were they treated in the same way as Keogh?
(4) Is there a separate code of conduct for club captain that allows Keogh to be treated differently?
(5) Were fair procedures applied?

We don't know any of the answers to these questions. If the answers to all of these are yes, then Derby have no case to answer. However, that is not clear at this stage and many owners of football clubs have little or no understanding of employment law. This may run.

Ok so what other employment is allowed to be restricted by transfer fees. What other employment would allow fines of thousands of Euro for poor performance or turning up late for training?
Footballers are employed by limited term contracts. This is still allowed and they aren't considered employees. My limited employment law knowledge reminds me that similar cases where a business relies on said contractors they'd be considered as employees but yet football is allowed to be different.
This is not at all the same situation as you or I in an office environment.

Nerdlingr · 31-10-2019 2:44pm

Keogh's reckless actions resulted in him not being able to fulfill his contractual obligations I guess ie..be available for selection.
He put himself in that position and made the decision to get in the back of the car.
Due to this fact it seems he was offered reduced wages. Surely there is something in every players contract that if you do something stupid to injure yourself outside of the football club then the contract is null and void/ wages can be reduced. Or something to that effect.

He rejected their low wage offer, how much his wages were reduced i dont know but its better than getting your p45 i would have thought.
Reminds me of the time Fernando Redondo renounced his wages for AC Milan because he was out injured for so long. Here we have Keogh, who was at fault for his own injuries rejecting their 'olive branch'.

The other two , despite being reckless as well, were available for selection 2 weeks later.

Who knows the legalities of it though.

LollipopJimmy · 31-10-2019 2:47pm

I read this last night - now the information available is limited and mostly hearsay but if we take what we know as fact then from a HR point of view Derby are in a bit of bother. I often read the WRC website - I work in HR and some of the things you see there are crazy and from large companies who you would think should know better.

alchemist33 · 31-10-2019 2:53pm

Could Keogh sue the driver (if he wanted)? The driver was the most reckless here and he's the one whose actions put Keogh out of action. There isn't really a crime of "drunk passenger".

Strumms · 31-10-2019 3:26pm

alchemist33 wrote: »

Could Keogh sue the driver (if he wanted)? The driver was the most reckless here and he's the one whose actions put Keogh out of action. There isn't really a crime of "drunk passenger".

I’d doubt it. I’m sure it could be proven that Keogh was aware that the driver had drink taken.

It’s not in particular what happened to Keogh but what ISNT happening to the others.

I’m just wondering if maybe Keogh might have had form for maybe a disciplinary issue or two. He has 18 months on his contract so he would be of ‘some’ value to the club in the transfer market... a couple of million at least... strange that the club weren’t willing to hang onto him and cut him loose in the summer for a fee. Maybe handy though to use him as a scapegoat and keep the younger more valuable members of the squad.

lawred2 · 31-10-2019 3:29pm

Strumms wrote: »

I’d doubt it. I’m sure it could be proven that Keogh was aware that the driver had drink taken.

It’s not in particular what happened to Keogh but what ISNT happening to the others.

I’m just wondering if maybe Keogh might have had form for maybe a disciplinary issue or two. He has 18 months on his contract so he would be of ‘some’ value to the club in the transfer market... a couple of million at least... strange that the club weren’t willing to hang onto him and cut him loose in the summer for a fee. Maybe handy though to use him as a scapegoat and keep the younger more valuable members of the squad.

an injured passenger can always sue the driver's insurer.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 3:32pm

lawred2 wrote: »

an injured passenger can always sue the driver's insurer.

Possibly, I’m no expert just trying to establish some kind of reasonable logic here. It’s a stupid mess that I do know. Would the insurance be voided as a result of the alcohol taken ?

1o059k7ewrqj3n · 31-10-2019 3:38pm

Even if he was offered 1,000 a week (he’s on 25k now?) it’s better than nothing to be still with a club and avail of their physio and other facilities.

I guess that’s easy for me to say because a grand a week would be deadly for me ðŸ˜… but he must have a huge mortgage and expensive car to pay off, as well as needing to put money aside for imminent retirement

blanch152 · 31-10-2019 3:52pm

stesaurus wrote: »

Ok so what other employment is allowed to be restricted by transfer fees. What other employment would allow fines of thousands of Euro for poor performance or turning up late for training?
Footballers are employed by limited term contracts. This is still allowed and they aren't considered employees. My limited employment law knowledge reminds me that similar cases where a business relies on said contractors they'd be considered as employees but yet football is allowed to be different.
This is not at all the same situation as you or I in an office environment.

You are wrong, people employed by "limited term contracts" otherwise known as fixed term contract are employees, not contractors.

Bosman proved that EU employment law applies to footballers as employees. The terms of a contract may allow for fines for poor performance etc., but the laws in relation to termination are quite clear, and the tests I set out in my post must be met by Derby if they are to defend the case.

I am not saying that Derby will lose the case, there simply isn't enough information publicly available to make an honest opinion.

31-10-2019 4:55pm

Strumms wrote: »

If I went out tonight and got fûcked drunk with a less experienced colleague, we were both knocked down and injured on the way to get some food, we needed hospital treatment, I can’t work for two months, either can Dave...

But that's the whole point.

In the example you cite, both are out for the same time. Here, 2 employees have sore heads but essentially can perform their role. 1 employee can never work again for the duration of the contract.

I really don't see too many private sector employers shelling out over a million to someone taking a year off work to get over an injury that was nothing to do with the employer.

As has been stated, if he wants he can try to recoup his losses from the driver...but there are difficulties with claims by passengers of drink drivers where they know or ought to have known the driver was drunk. There will be significant contributory negligence.

Loafing Oaf · 31-10-2019 5:01pm

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Ehe must have a huge mortgage and expensive car to pay off, as well as needing to put money aside for imminent retirement

doesn't drive himself apparently. course he could afford a fancy car and a chauffeur on his (former) wages...

Mushy · 31-10-2019 5:19pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's the whole point.

In the example you cite, both are out for the same time. Here, 2 employees have sore heads but essentially can perform their role. 1 employee can never work again for the duration of the contract.

I really don't see too many private sector employers shelling out over a million to someone taking a year off work to get over an injury that was nothing to do with the employer.

As has been stated, if he wants he can try to recoup his losses from the driver...but there are difficulties with claims by passengers of drink drivers where they know or ought to have known the driver was drunk. There will be significant contributory negligence.

Employers insurance will cover salary from injury/illness, assuming they have that policy in place. Now with the obvious thing being that insurance may not pay out as drink driving was involved, then it comes down to what is in the contract. If the clause states that insurer t+cs come into play, then he just wouldn't be entitled to pay.

But they offered a reduced terms contract, which indicates he would be entitled to pay. So to sack someone for not signing that new contract is just wrong.

Should also say, if they paid out his contract, there be no issue. Or maybe even just the notice period. But that still leaves the question of the other two lads not being punished accordingly.

CantGetNoSleep · 31-10-2019 7:56pm

Strumms wrote: »

I’d doubt it. I’m sure it could be proven that Keogh was aware that the driver had drink taken.

It’s not in particular what happened to Keogh but what ISNT happening to the others.

I’m just wondering if maybe Keogh might have had form for maybe a disciplinary issue or two. He has 18 months on his contract so he would be of ‘some’ value to the club in the transfer market... a couple of million at least... strange that the club weren’t willing to hang onto him and cut him loose in the summer for a fee. Maybe handy though to use him as a scapegoat and keep the younger more valuable members of the squad.

He's worth dickey all in terms of transfer fee with his knee

Guy:Incognito · 31-10-2019 8:13pm

Ohmeha wrote: »

The 3 players disgraced themselves that night and Derby have now disgraced themselves in their handling of this by only not condoning drink driving when it's financially beneficial to the club

Has any club sacked players for drink driving? I cant remember one. Theres been plenty of players done for drink driving .

Guy:Incognito · 31-10-2019 8:15pm

Strumms wrote: »

.

Keogh in effect has been fined approx 130 weeks wages.

Was his contract not up next summer?

Guy:Incognito · 31-10-2019 8:18pm

Strumms wrote: »

If I went out tonight and got fûcked drunk with a less experienced colleague, we were both knocked down and injured on the way to get some food, we needed hospital treatment, I can’t work for two months, either can Dave...

I get let go after the dust settles and having informed the company what happened, Dave gets a final warning.. both of us with clean disciplinary records.

Dave gets a final warning because... “ look he’s a young fella, 26, out for the match, had a few too many.. he’s was out with Strumms, would have expected him to be a bit more mature and responsible and be looking after things ?”

No ! Two adults, out for a few drinks, equals, accident happened, both had equal culpability. Punishments or sanctions should be equal..

But that's not what happened. To be a fair comparison, dave is back working the next day while you're out for the 2 months.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 8:21pm

I supposed the length of absence is to be a consideration... yeah from the clubs point of view he is just a black hole

mark_jmc · 31-10-2019 8:33pm

I initially though it was very harsh on him when the others got away less harshly.
However- the other 2 will be available to fulfil the terms of their contracts (Ie play football) while Keogh I’m assuming is unavailable to play for the remainder of his contract for reasons other than an injury through football therefore he is unable to fulfill his obligations under his contract. It seems that the club made an offer to him to keep him for the remainder of his contract at reduced wages but he refused. If he was sacked because of inability to fulfill the terms of his contract then I could understand but if they sacked him because of gross misconduct then I’d say they are on shaky ground- unless there is more to the story that we don’t know about

ArnoldJRimmer · 31-10-2019 9:27pm

People comparing it to an every day office job saying that 'he's unavailable to work for 15 months, they're not' are ignoring the fact in any normal office job, the two who are available for work would be immediately sacked as they both broke the law. Richard Keogh didn't

Andrew00 · 31-10-2019 9:28pm

Sure he's a multi millionaire he can afford to retire at that age.

The man has been on thousands a week for over a decade

Zebra3 · 31-10-2019 9:28pm

ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »

People comparing it to an every day office job saying that 'he's unavailable to work for 15 months, they're not' are ignoring the fact in any normal office job, the two who are available for work would be immediately sacked as they both broke the law. Richard Keogh didn't

People in "normal office jobs" don't get sacked for breaking the law on their own time.

gimli2112 · 31-10-2019 9:33pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

People in "normal office jobs" don't get sacked for breaking the law on their own time.

They do but it depends on the offence and the company. It would be unlikely in this instance.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 9:41pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

People in "normal office jobs" don't get sacked for breaking the law on their own time.

True, not unless a subsequent certain criminal conviction might preclude you from doing a part of your job. There are some jobs say in the airport where you’d need a background criminal check to obtain an airside pass... if you were convicted of certain crimes it would compromise your ability to be security cleared, hold a pass and therefore do your job.

Zebra3 · 31-10-2019 10:22pm

Strumms wrote: »

True, not unless a subsequent certain criminal conviction might preclude you from doing a part of your job. There are some jobs say in the airport where you’d need a background criminal check to obtain an airside pass... if you were convicted of certain crimes it would compromise your ability to be security cleared, hold a pass and therefore do your job.

Which wouldn’t be a “normal office job”.

Strumms · 31-10-2019 11:10pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which wouldn’t be a “normal office job”.

Loads of pretty regular office jobs need that clearance, people who work in.......
HR, accounting, purchasing all office based management positions, to name only a few

31-10-2019 11:42pm

Looking back over the past few pages one thing has struck me.

I think pretty much all points have been made fairly civilly and respectfully. People have disagreed, but without the usual drama and trolling that contaminates so much discussion around here. I wonder is it because it's a debate about someone who is not with one of 2 certain clubs where everything descends into nonsense.

Hoboo · 01-11-2019 2:11am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looking back over the past few pages one thing has struck me.

I think pretty much all points have been made fairly civilly and respectfully. People have disagreed, but without the usual drama and trolling that contaminates so much discussion around here. I wonder is it because it's a debate about someone who is not with one of 2 certain clubs where everything descends into nonsense.

You're right. It's been very civil and sensible. Nice to see.

I think everyone agrees that no one outside the meetings knows what happened, what was discussed etc.

I'd be very very surprised if a 'company' the size of Derby didn't follow procedure perfectly, as would be advised by presumably a top 3/4/5 law firm.

The media grab a few bits, offered lower wages, sacked, yet no substance or facts.

I'd be confident Derby are covered. But who knows. Time will tell better than the rag papers.

Keogh Sacked by Derby

Comments