Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: pumpkin on 31 October, 2019, 11:37:12 am
-
An expensive night out for this gentleman who was lucky not to die imo. No glory for his two colleagues but it's a great story in literally a car crash way.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/oct/30/derby-sack-richard-keogh-car-crash-reduced-wages
-
Compared with his teammates’ treatment by the club he does seem to have been treated unfairly. Whilst he did get into a car with a drunk driver he wasn’t at the wheel unlike the other 2 who arguably brought the club into greater disrepute.
-
Allegedly he's been sacked because he refused to take a pay cut from his £25k/week salary in light of him being responsible for his own injuries and not being able to play for 15 months.
The other two players have been fined (and have prosecutions to deal with) but can play because they're not injured.
-
Presumably his two colleagues are younger, cheaper, and have a future playing football. Cynical move by Derby.
-
Allegedly he's been sacked because he refused to take a pay cut from his £25k/week salary in light of him being responsible for his own injuries and not being able to play for 15 months.
The other two players have been fined (and have prosecutions to deal with) but can play because they're not injured.
He wasn't driving, however much he'd drunk, the driver is responsible. You could argue contributory negligence at best for getting in the car. The message here, loud and clear from Derby, is do whatever you like, just don't go to prison and you're good to go; someone else injures you, take a good long look at the gutter
-
Fired for gross misconduct for being injured in a car driven by a drunk? While the drunk driver(s) is not fired? Sounds like the difference between a player who is no longer an asset, and one (or more) who is.
I'm guessing there's more to the story, but it does sound pretty crappy by Derby. Wonder if their insurance won't pay out because it was "his fault".
-
I have a feeling that there will be a lot of litigation associated with this.
-
So that's what team bonding means. Je me coucherai moins con.
-
Allegedly he's been sacked because he refused to take a pay cut from his £25k/week salary in light of him being responsible for his own injuries and not being able to play for 15 months.
The other two players have been fined (and have prosecutions to deal with) but can play because they're not injured.
He wasn't driving, however much he'd drunk, the driver is responsible. You could argue contributory negligence at best for getting in the car. The message here, loud and clear from Derby, is do whatever you like, just don't go to prison and you're good to go; someone else injures you, take a good long look at the gutter
And the flip side is he turned down the club provided car to get him home, chose to get in a car with someone who was drunk, and chose not to wear a seatbelt. Avoiding any of which would have likely avoided the same severity of injuries.
Players are ultimately responsible (regardless of how drunk they are) for their own actions in situations like this, they're banned from doing sports like skiing or downhill mountain biking for similar reasons.
Ignore the rules and screw up your knee ligaments whilst skiing when you shouldn't? Breach of contract and no compensation for you sonny.
If he chose not to wear a seatbelt (even when drunk) that'll be all the contributory negligence on his part the club's lawyers will need.
But, yes, lawyers will be making lots of money out of this. 1.25 years at £25k/week is over £1.5m at stake.
-
i would have thought the driver's insurance will be paying for the knee surgery/rehab but will argue about loss of earnings/contract negotiations. The contract was finishing in June 2020 but the club is saving £24k per week whilst the dispute goes on. Be interesting to see the eventual outcome. Didnt know that about the club car - by such decisions lives are altered.
-
i would have thought the driver's insurance
I would have thought the driver's insurance would be null and void given the driver was way over the drink drive limit. Even if Keogh did manage a claim against that insurance for some parts I'd assume the insurance company would initiate action to claim that back from the driver personally (he should be good for it given he too is a well paid footballer).
But Keogh's situation is much simpler:-
* He did something that almost certainly gives the club grounds to cancel his contract outright.
* Rather than doing this they asked him to take a (probably sizeable) pay cut for the duration he wouldn't be able to provide his services to the club.
* Being a greedy **** he refused to take a pay cut so they reverted to cancelling his contract.
-
Allegedly he's been sacked because he refused to take a pay cut from his £25k/week salary in light of him being responsible for his own injuries and not being able to play for 15 months.
The other two players have been fined (and have prosecutions to deal with) but can play because they're not injured.
He wasn't driving, however much he'd drunk, the driver is responsible. You could argue contributory negligence at best for getting in the car. The message here, loud and clear from Derby, is do whatever you like, just don't go to prison and you're good to go; someone else injures you, take a good long look at the gutter
And the flip side is he turned down the club provided car to get him home, chose to get in a car with someone who was drunk, and chose not to wear a seatbelt. Avoiding any of which would have likely avoided the same severity of injuries.
<snippage>
[my bold]
Strewth. I didn't glean those facts from the version I read.
He's really screwed up. Admittedly the club don't look too good if you only hear parts of the story, but he's really brought this on himself.
(and it's hard to sympathise when you see his salary ... )