They've terminated his contract for gross misconduct although he does have the right of appeal

Good. It's a shame they don't do the same with the other 2 numbskulls.

Blinkin' eck

Apparently he turned down an opportunity to stay until the end of the season on reduced wages

http://bit.ly/2NrvqOE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well done Derby! #hatedrinkdrivers

Kick him whilst he's down.

Unlucky mate.

I've not read the whole story although heard hearsay and seen pictures.

I'm sure it'll all start coming out very soon.

He had to be sacked to help pay 4 Rooney"s wages...

Goodclaret wrote:Well done Derby! #hatedrinkdrivers

Yet they are playing the two drink drivers

ClaretTony wrote:Yet they are playing the two drink drivers

Yeah, pretty shocking by Derby. If he wasn't injured during the event, he would most likely still be playing like the other two.. with a fine, and community service etc.

Yet instead they threaten to sack him if he doesn't accept to his wage being lowered, pretty sure Lawrence and Bennetts wage didn't get reduced.

Wembley09 wrote:Yeah, pretty shocking by Derby. If he wasn't injured during the event, he would most likely still be playing like the other two.. with a fine, and community service etc.

Yet instead they threaten to sack him if he doesn't accept to his wage being lowered, pretty sure Lawrence and Bennetts wage didn't get reduced.

No fines or community service for Keogh - he didn't commit any offence, just made the mistake of getting into the back seat of a car about to be driven by a drunk driver. I think, given he's not going to play again during the remaining time on his contract, and him being unlikely to get another deal, they've tried to reduce his wage and then terminated the contract for gross misconduct when he said no. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Don't see why the other 2 haven't been sacked as well? Obviously because they were lucky enough to not get injured they're still useful to them.

Wembley09 wrote:Yeah, pretty shocking by Derby. If he wasn't injured during the event, he would most likely still be playing like the other two.. with a fine, and community service etc.

Yet instead they threaten to sack him if he doesn't accept to his wage being lowered, pretty sure Lawrence and Bennetts wage didn't get reduced.

I’ve clearly misunderstood this story. Was he a passenger or was he in a third car? I’m presuming he was also driving for you to suggest that he would get a fine and community service?

jrgbfc wrote:Don't see why the other 2 haven't been sacked as well? Obviously because they were lucky enough to not get injured they're still useful to them.

Because they are able to work under the terms of their contract. Not sure how on earth Derby will get away with sacking the one who wasn't driving for gross misconduct though because he wouldn't take a pay cut.

MRG wrote:I’ve clearly misunderstood this story. Was he a passenger or was he in a third car? I’m presuming he was also driving for you to suggest that he would get a fine and community service?

Passenger in the back seat of Lawrence's car. When they crashed and legged it, they left him there.

Yep, I mean it's clear that Derby are doing it to try to save some £'s knowing he is very unlikely to play for them again.
That's why I find it abit shocking by them, they are trying to make him the scapegoat cause he was the captain.. like he could have stopped them getting into their cars driving when drunk on a night out, they still would have without him.

Also read that the Debry chairman had a right outburst at Keogh.. about his actions as a captain and not wearing his seatbelt either.
Haha he cleary was abit drunk and not thinking straight to get in the car with a driver who was drunk too.. I doubt he was thinking much about his seatbelt, and from what I have heard Tom's car was full of stuff, hence why he had to squeeze into the back seat.. and even had his legs raised in a abnormal position cause of all the stuff (which was why his leg got so damaged) so I don't think he could even put his seatbelt on if he wanted.

He will be under an obligation in his contract not to behave recklessly in a way that could endanger his ability to play. He didn't fulfil that obligation. He could probably have been sacked then. Derby offered a compromise. He turned it down. Derby did what any reasonable employer would do.

The other two were lucky and didn't end up unable to play so Derby could only fine them under the usual scale of fines.

jrgbfc wrote:Don't see why the other 2 haven't been sacked as well? Obviously because they were lucky enough to not get injured they're still useful to them.

Because they're far more valuable assets to the club than Keogh.

thatdberight wrote:He will be under an obligation in his contract not to behave recklessly in a way that could endanger his ability to play. He didn't fulfil that obligation. He could probably have been sacked then. Derby offered a compromise. He turned it down. Derby did what any reasonable employer would do.

The other two were lucky and didn't end up unable to play so Derby could only fine them under the usual scale of fines.

I think they were both fined six weeks wages.

thatdberight wrote:He will be under an obligation in his contract not to behave recklessly in a way that could endanger his ability to play. He didn't fulfil that obligation. He could probably have been sacked then. Derby offered a compromise. He turned it down. Derby did what any reasonable employer would do.

The other two were lucky and didn't end up unable to play so Derby could only fine them under the usual scale of fines.

That sounds feasible. They surely wouldn't have sacked him unless they were confident they were on very solid legal ground.

Don't see much that he's done wrong, over and above what the other tossers have done.

It's simply that he's no use to them anymore because of the injury and his age. I will be
surprised if they get away it tbh.

ClaretTony wrote:Yet they are playing the two drink drivers

Yeah, good point CT. Thinking about it, have they "got rid" as it's the cheapest option. Losing the other two would be way more financially damaging to them.

PS I remove my credit to Derby

ClaretTony wrote:Passenger in the back seat of Lawrence's car. When they crashed and legged it, they left him there.

Just the kind of spineless, immoral cowards a chap needs as mates - not!

The cynic in me thinks they kept the other two because they’re younger, able to play and are more valuable ‘assets’. But that’s just me.

On the plus side it’s likely they won’t get much use of them when they’re doing bird.

Classless by Derby. Keep the two younger players who committed criminal offences because they are of actual value to the club and sack the guy who has served them well and who’s only real offence is a lack of judgement.

I’m sure he’ll be in breach of contract in some way but to hang him out to dry whilst the real offenders got away practically Scott free is spineless.

Will he be able to claim job seekers allowance ?

For all the lurid stories that came out neither of the two drivers were even twice the limit.
Whilst I don’t agree with drink driving at any level we will all know that that level isn’t p1ssed. As one ran into the back of the other at speed the driver of the second car is the guilty man in the whole situation.
Re: Keogh. It is a decision to expect from Derby. So no candy but crushed for Richard.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:The cynic in me thinks they kept the other two because they’re younger, able to play and are more valuable ‘assets’. But that’s just me.

I don’t think you need to be cynical to think that

Derby don't come out of this very well at all. But as we all know in football money talks, and the fact that Lawrence is a decent player means its harder to get shut.

Looks like a clear win on appeal for the PFA based on the facts we are aware of. I suspect it will end up with them having to pay him off either at full wages due or some figure close to it. What sacking him gains is that he is no longer entitled to the agreed squad bonus payments which is probably the 'pay-cut' being talked about in the media as his basic salary would be dictated by his contract.

Mmmmm...on the face of it, a very hypocritical and contemptible act by Derby. I understand what thatdberight says about a potential contractual obligation on Keogh’s part not to act recklessly in a way that endangers his ability to play. Well - difficult to see how the same would not apply to the 2 convicted drunk drivers. And they haven’t been sacked, have they?

If stories are to be believed Keogh abused a parademic, tried touching her up and then refused to co operate with police, first by refusing to give his real name and then abusing them.

Think if it all comes out Derby will be found to be well within their rights for sacking him. Although the other two should have been as well for the running from the crime but they have value so wont be. Terrible form from Derby for me in not sacking all 3

Whatever way you put it, it seems like blackmail by Derby.
They know they can get rid due to professionalism etc, and know he won't play for them again any time soon.. if ever.

So they offer him a reduced wage and tell him it's either that or sacked. He refuses to lower his wage so they sack him.

If they see what he did as so wrong that they felt it a reason to sack him... then if I was in a court I would be asking what about the other 2? They have done worse than him are you going to sack them aswell? You can't just use his actions from that night as the reason to sack him.

Unless the same happens to the other two, I can't see how they could get away with it if it went to an appeal etc.
Surely they can't just say 'ah well the other two are fit to play so it's ok, he suffered a bad injury and can't play so we have every right to sack him'

Be a different story if he was the only one, but there was 3 of them In this incident.. and the other two's actions were much.. much worse.

Derby have taken their time before they sacked him , did they make sure they have all bases covered and think they can get away with this , who knows . I hope Dicky takes them to the cleaners .

Cleveleys_claret wrote:If stories are to be believed Keogh abused a parademic, tried touching her up and then refused to co operate with police, first by refusing to give his real name and then abusing them.

Think if it all comes out Derby will be found to be well within their rights for sacking him. Although the other two should have been as well for the running from the crime but they have value so wont be. Terrible form from Derby for me in not sacking all 3

Hearsay plays no part in what's gone on. He's been sacked unfairly.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:On the plus side it’s likely they won’t get much use of them when they’re doing bird.

They are not going to prison.

tim_noone wrote:Hearsay plays no part in what's gone on. He's been sacked unfairly.

And you know this how?

" and from what I have heard Tom's car was full of stuff, hence why he had to squeeze into the back seat.. and even had his legs raised in a abnormal position cause of all the stuff (which was why his leg got so damaged) so I don't think he could even put his seatbelt on if he wanted

First time I read this I thought you'd said the car was full of snuff. I took this to mean some other form of powdered entertainment

Bordeauxclaret wrote:They are not going to prison.

Ok Judy.

Well they might do if they commit other crimes but not for this one.

Middle-agedClaret wrote:Mmmmm...on the face of it, a very hypocritical and contemptible act by Derby. I understand what thatdberight says about a potential contractual obligation on Keogh’s part not to act recklessly in a way that endangers his ability to play. Well - difficult to see how the same would not apply to the 2 convicted drunk drivers. And they haven’t been sacked, have they?

And they have been sanctioned in a way consistent with the damage done. If two footballers decided to do one of the other activities their contract forbids, say skydiving, and one gets badly hurt and one doesn't - it would be bizarre to demand the same sanction for both.

As we saw recently with the American who drove on the wrong side of the road and killed someone, the consequences of actions and not only the actions themselves define what happens when you do something. Other people who commit the same error and are lucky that no-one is coming the other way simply get told to be more careful.

thatdberight wrote:And you know this how?

I'm representing him.....and Bordeaux the other two..... They're not going to prison.

tim_noone wrote:Hearsay plays no part in what's gone on. He's been sacked unfairly.

Its not hearsay, the reports the police and parademics submitted have all been reported on for their content. Pictures of the incident clearly show bags of white powder and laughing gas cannisters all outside and inside the car.

The only thing that hasnt become public knowledge is who the fourth player in the car with them was

tim_noone wrote:I'm representing him.....and Bordeaux the other two..... They're not going to prison.

What do they need representing for?

Cleveleys_claret wrote:Its not hearsay, the reports the police and parademics submitted have all been reported on for their content. Pictures of the incident clearly show bags of white powder and laughing gas cannisters all outside and inside the car.

The only thing that hasnt become public knowledge is who the fourth player in the car with them was

So your privy to paramedic and police reports ok.and who did the white powder belong to?

Not keen on getting into a hair-splitting debate with thatdberight, but...in my experience of employment law, the contractual obligation would be to refrain from acting in the reckless manner. The outcome would be irrelevant. Difficult to see how driving over the limit, resulting in a collision, could be seen as other than reckless. Every bit as reckless as, say, permitting yourself to be driven by someone who is over the limit.
But, of course, neither of us knows what was in their contracts.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:What do they need representing for?

Well when a person is deemed to be unfairly dismissed that person is usually represented. And I'm sure the two other lads will also need representation ....do they not?

boatshed bill wrote:" and from what I have heard Tom's car was full of stuff, hence why he had to squeeze into the back seat.. and even had his legs raised in a abnormal position cause of all the stuff (which was why his leg got so damaged) so I don't think he could even put his seatbelt on if he wanted

First time I read this I thought you'd said the car was full of snuff. I took this to mean some other form of powdered entertainment

haha no, his training gear etc. I can't remember who it was who said it, sure it was Tom Huddlestone.. as not all players left with the transport the club had providided.. but the others didn't drink drive home either.

Found this from an article of the night with a quick google search:

Lawrence, 25, Bennett, 23, and Keogh, 33 — a backseat passenger in the former's car who suffered a career-threatening knee injury in the collision — were returning home from a heavy drinking session that followed a day of bowling and a team-bonding dinner.
In clips uploaded on the Snapchat account of 32-year-old midfielder Tom Huddlestone — who will replace Keogh as Derby skipper — Bennett had been filmed downing drinks in a pub and, in other clips, vomiting in a urinal and insisting 'I've had more than three' pints of Peroni.


Lawrence and Bennett decided to drive home having 'ignored the opportunity to be driven home using cars laid on by the club.'
They were arrested at the scene and charged after the crash involving Lawrence's Range Rover, which was pictured crumpled up after careering into a lamp post, and a Mercedes GLC.

Keogh was left unconscious at the scene in the back of the Range Rover before the emergency services discovered him.
Later the pair (Lawrence and Bennett) appeared back at the scene to check on their teammates wealthfare, fearing they had left him to die.


A source said: “Tom came driving really quickly behind him (Mason). He was going so fast he smashed into the back of Mason’s car which span and flipped round.
"Tom’s car then carried on and crashed into a lampost on the other side of the road.
“Richard was in the back of the car which had all of Tom’s stuff in it. So Richard was sat on loads of kit with no room on the back seat and his legs were up and on the side.
"His knees were to the side too. And they smashed into the car. He’s f***ed himself...he smashed his face up as well."

Striker Mason Bennett, 23, and teammate Tom Lawrence, 25, were both charged with drink driving following the collision.
Keogh had been travelling in Lawrence’s Range Rover when it crashed into the back of Bennett's car before ending up wrapped around a lamppost.
He was later found by emergency crews unconscious, with his teammates later coming back to 'rescue him' after initially both running away from the scene.

tim_noone wrote:Well when a person is deemed to be unfairly dismissed that person is usually represented. And I'm sure the two other lads will also need representation ....do they not?

Not anymore they don’t.