Dan, if all three got offered reduced contracts and the others accepted, then I see where your coming from and it does give Derby an argument to fight the tribunal. Of course, it depends what the reduced contracts offered to the other two were, compared to Keogh. I mean, if they halved his wages and took 10% off the others, you still have an issue. With the other two, you would assume they had a transfer value though and they didn’t have to accept a reduced contract, so they could have walked away and signed for someone else on a free and probably got a nice signing on fee and similar wages, maybe. Derby would have wanted to make sure they didn’t walk away, so any reduction must have been minimal.
As far as Keogh being unable to do the job, you might be right, but contracts will have clauses about injuries (e.g. reduced wages/bonuses etc.) and I’m guessing they don’t differentiate between those incurred whilst working and those out of work, but maybe there’s something about reckless behavior. Don’t clubs ban players from taking part in some activities out of work to reduce risk of injury?
Whilst on Derby, paper today report concerns at Championship clubs about the possible influence MSD Capital could have on clubs as they have loaned money to several. One of these is Derby - reported to have borrowed £30m at 9% interest . That’s a cool £2.7m a year going out in interest. No wonder they’re struggling to pay players and desperate for the takeover. I still think that its likely to all fall apart, it’s taking far too long to happen