Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Non-Boro Football


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

He made a decision to get into the car, of which he knew the driver was over the limit. 

True, but that isn’t illegal. What the other two did was illegal. By any standard their misconduct was greater, but they weren’t fired. 
When asked why, Morris put it this way:-  if you fired everyone who drink drives, then all someone who wants to leave has to do is get drunk and caught drink driving, then leave on a free and get a big salary increase and singing on fee at another club. 
He’s right of course, but this sort of explains it. Keogh was expensive, coming to the end of a contact and wouldn’t play again because of his injury, The others were going to be available to play, and were probably valuable in terms of a transfer fee. So you get rid of Keogh and give the other two a written warning and a temporary suspension. That sounds a bit like discrimination, hence the tribunal case.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neverbefore

    1299

  • Borodane

    1202

  • Brunners

    1035

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their is a fascinating article about the Boro in today’s Athletic... Nine championship games in 29 days.  Following a team in their maddest run ever.    Neil Warnock was on the pit

Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers. I probably shouldn’t have made things public, but I was at as very low ebb. It’s been a difficult year, not made better by COVID. Lockdown bucket lists aren’t

Here's an even better question but it's quite a long one.  Why did we sign Bamford and Gestede for a manager that didn't want them at the time, then 6 months later, appoint a different manager wh

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

True, but that isn’t illegal. What the other two did was illegal. By any standard their misconduct was greater, but they weren’t fired. 
When asked why, Morris put it this way:-  if you fired everyone who drink drives, then all someone who wants to leave has to do is get drunk and caught drink driving, then leave on a free and get a big salary increase and singing on fee at another club. 
He’s right of course, but this sort of explains it. Keogh was expensive, coming to the end of a contact and wouldn’t play again because of his injury, The others were going to be available to play, and were probably valuable in terms of a transfer fee. So you get rid of Keogh and give the other two a written warning and a temporary suspension. That sounds a bit like discrimination, hence the tribunal case.

I understand that, but I'm pretty sure all 3 were offered new contracts at a reduced salary as "punishment" (for lack of a better term). I believe the other 2 accepted that but Keogh didn't. Hence why he then got the chop, and it seems that the reasons behind that where for the same reasons you've listed above.

They all got the same treatment until he didn't accept the "punishment" so he got his contract ripped up. He obviously felt at the time that was unfair hence the appeal to Derby (which was rejected), then the appeal to the EFL (which was also rejected) and finally to where we are today via an employment tribunal.

I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't have gotten to that stage, what I'm arguing is that he isn't blameless in the situation he has found himself in and that this will probably not get resolved anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I understand that, but I'm pretty sure all 3 were offered new contracts at a reduced salary as "punishment" (for lack of a better term). I believe the other 2 accepted that but Keogh didn't. Hence why he then got the chop, and it seems that the reasons behind that where for the same reasons you've listed above.

They all got the same treatment until he didn't accept the "punishment" so he got his contract ripped up. He obviously felt at the time that was unfair hence the appeal to Derby (which was rejected), then the appeal to the EFL (which was also rejected) and finally to where we are today via an employment tribunal.

I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't have gotten to that stage, what I'm arguing is that he isn't blameless in the situation he has found himself in and that this will probably not get resolved anytime soon.

They were not given the same punishment.

The other two, one of whom actually drink drove and seriously injured somebody, were fined 6 weeks wages and made to do community service.

Keogh was sacked.

At no point were Lawrence and Bennett forced to accept a new inferior contract or leave.

He got the chop because Derby's owner is scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TeaCider24 said:

They were not given the same punishment.

The other two, one of whom actually drink drove and seriously injured somebody, were fined 6 weeks wages and made to do community service.

Keogh was sacked.

At no point were Lawrence and Bennett forced to accept a new inferior contract or leave.

He got the chop because Derby's owner is scum.

I'd heard slightly differently. I'd heard that all 3 got offered reduced contracts and that Bennett and Lawrence got fined. Potentially that information is wrong and if that is the case then, yes they got differential treatment.

But like I said in my original post surely the fact that Keogh was unable to do the job he was contracted to do, whereas the other two where physically fine and legally fine (post court case). Surely that would warrant slightly different treatment anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I'd heard slightly differently. I'd heard that all 3 got offered reduced contracts and that Bennett and Lawrence got fined. Potentially that information is wrong and if that is the case then, yes they got differential treatment.

But like I said in my original post surely the fact that Keogh was unable to do the job he was contracted to do, whereas the other two where physically fine and legally fine (post court case). Surely that would warrant slightly different treatment anyway?

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

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.

That's what I heard at the time so I was basing my comments on that. Could well be entirely untrue of course. Although I stand by what I said earlier I don't think he's exactly blameless for the situation, but if he did get differential treatment (regarding getting the sack) compared to the other two, then I hope he does get the pay-out from Derby.

24 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

Don’t clubs ban players from taking part in some activities out of work to reduce risk of injury?

I used to play Rugby League with a Semi-Pro Rugby Union player and his union club had it in his contract that he wasn't allowed to play other contact sports. Which of course he was in breach of by playing League with us over in the summer! 😂 He actually broke his thumb really badly one game I played with him in and his excuse to his union club was he slipped in the shower!

That was a semi-pro contract, worth less that 5 figures, so I imagine when you start talking about 6 or 7 figure salaries they become a lot more stringent with stipulations within a contract. I also think players/clubs are insured against injuries sustained in "Footballing" circumstances, so the insurance will pay-out the salary rather than the club having too. Could be wrong on that, but I'm sure that is the case.

Edited by DanFromDownSouth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bennett and Lawrence accepted the "punishment" but Keogh didn't it doesn't necessarily make it right in the cases of Lawrence and Bennett. If Keogh wins then the Club may also have to retrospectively reinstate the original contract terms with the other two along with back payments if they then contest it reasoning that they were stitched up. Personally all three should have been dismissed in my book but that's another story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were there not other passengers in the two cards besides Keogh (and the two drivers). Keogh was unlucky to get injured but if sacking a passenger for bad judgement then everyone in those to cars should have been sacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I'm not that clued up on employment law (happy to be corrected) but would Keogh being injured long-term, where as Bennett and Lawrence being ok potentially skew things in terms of a breach of contract. Then consider neither were sentenced to actual prison time, I imagine if both were given jail time Derby may have terminated all three's contracts. I also can't be 100% sure but I think all 3 got offered new deals at reduced wages after the crash and Keogh was the only one to turn it down. 

Surely the fact they were willing to offer him a new contract (even on reduced terms) would significantly work against them? If its gross misconduct then the argument is that what he's done is so bad that they feel unable to allow him to continue doing his job, offering a new contract flies in the face of that. If anything it makes it clear that Derby's motivations were purely financial and nothing to do with disciplining the employee.

Edited by Will
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Borodane said:

Were there not other passengers in the two cards besides Keogh (and the two drivers). Keogh was unlucky to get injured but if sacking a passenger for bad judgement then everyone in those to cars should have been sacked.

Was only the 3 of them BD. Just those 3 involved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Will said:

Surely the fact they were willing to offer him a new contract (even on reduced terms) would significantly work against them? If its gross misconduct then the argument is that what he's done is so bad that they feel unable to allow him to continue doing his job, offering a new contract flies in the face of that.

Am I right in thinking the employment tribunal is more to find out whether the process of him getting the sack was followed correctly. Not necessarily whether he should have been sacked or not? If that's the case the potentially Derby in terms of following the procedures are in the wrong, but their reasoning behind sacking him could be justified.

Like I said in my original post I think there is more to come from this and it'll probably take a while to be resolved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

Am I right in thinking the employment tribunal is more to find out whether the process of him getting the sack was followed correctly. Not necessarily whether he should have been sacked or not? If that's the case the potentially Derby in terms of following the procedures are in the wrong, but their reasoning behind sacking him could be justified.

Like I said in my original post I think there is more to come from this and it'll probably take a while to be resolved.

The two are at least partly linked though. If you are dismissed, the dismissal may be unfair because legislation doesn’t allow for dismissal in those circumstances (e.g. because if you are dismissed for getting pregnant or undertaking trade union activities) or because your employment contract doesn’t allow for it. Alternatively, the dismissal may be unfair because although the end result was correct, the employer didn’t follow the rules correctly (e.g. you didn’t get the chance to appeal or the timescales in your contract weren’t followed). In these cases the tribunal can decide you were correctly dismissed but award compensation for the company not following the rules correctly - but the compensation in these cases will be pretty small. 
Given the amount the tribunal awarded,  they are saying the dismissal should not have happened I.e. Derby had no legal grounds for dismissing him for the “offence” 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • Anyone have any interesting betting tips?
    • If that's true that is a bit strange. Genuinely thought he might go for a back 5 with Maguire out injured, just for the added protection at the back, especially with Stones and Mings at the heart of defence. Trippier on the left over Shaw and Chilwell (pre-game) looks the wrong call, but potentially has he spotted a weakness/strength in the Croatia side that Trippier may be able to exploit better than the other two. Or is it more with a view point of set pieces. Think Rice and Phillips are needed today to match/nullify the Croatian midfield 3. No qualms with them both playing on that front. Also think the front four of Sterling, Foden, Mount and Kane has a good balance to it. Sterling with the out and out pace, Kane potentially dropping into the pocket with Mount and Foden bursting forwards seems a good prospect. For me Kane needs to have runners around/off him. Then Grealish coming off the bench layer in the game is an exciting prospect.
    • I'd love to see this team especially with Henderson and Maguire coming in for Phillips and Mings respectively. Could argue there would be a lack of out and out pace (although Foden and Mount aren't exactly slow).
    • What? It wasn’t personal. How could it be personal when I have no idea what he voted. It was purely stating fact that the English population voted to exit the EU. People constantly say that we should look at cheap foreign talent and I’m merely reminding those that it’s not possible due to Brexit as those players in all likelihood won’t get a work permit, as they need to be regulars for their national team. How is that political? 
    • Yeah croatia are being overhyped a little. They're not a great team, they've lost to some average teams and drawn against some woeful teams in the last couple of years. I think yous will, or should, win comfortably here. I'd just be worried if I was an England fan about some of the decisions he's made here. Put that side out against any of the top 5 or 6 teams in Europe and it's struggling at both ends of the pitch imo. 

×
×
  • Create New...