Printable View
Interesting take from a random twitterer that might be on point. Derby aren't exactly strangers to playing fast and loose with FFP.
"FFP loop hole? Sack him, take wages out of the calc, he now appeals, they "settle out of court" at full value of his contract but it's then a legal expense and exempt from FFP?"
Interesting theory!
Very interesting. The reputational damage arising from the decision is hard to quantify. I think there have been a lot of podcasts and forum posters and Twitter users who have highlighted the double-standards involved here by Derby in not sacking either of the valuable, contracted, younger players. And when you line that fact set up with the contents of their statement announcing the sacking it becomes even more baffling.
I would say that’s fairly bang onQuote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
I suppose it should be remembered that Keogh was offered a pay cut, supposedly still earning £12k a week, despite being worthless to the football club. So they didn't just sack him.
Although The Times are reporting that he was 'only' offered £3k a week - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...region=ie&t=ie
"Keogh was club captain at Derby. That was one of the reasons given for the club's harsh decision to sack him as it was argued that his age and responsibility from that captaincy role should have led him to find any way home from the team's night out apart from being driven by a pal who had been drinking."Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Nonesense as usual, utter tripeQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Please inform where Derby stated in their press release that Keogh being club captain was a factor.
There was only one factor in their decision, economy, and they haven't a leg to stand on (even less that Richie has) when it comes to the appeal.
I only quoted that from an article I read it wasn't something I said. I'd like to think the journalist wouldn't be just making things up.
https://amp.independent.ie/sport/soc...-38661785.html
Their owner, Mel Morris, elaborated a little bit on the whole episode here - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/spo...-derby-3511068
Is that supposed to have cleared things up? Jaysus.
I would fully agree with a decision from DCFC to hold Keogh to a higher standard as a result of him being club captain and terminate him but, based on Mel's response, I don't see any real reason in there as to why him and not the other two. Based on that response, if Keogh had been younger, i assume he wouldnt have been fired? GTFO of here.
Yeah, I'm just taking it to mean that sacking the other two wouldn't be a punishment, as they'd find another club and get a nice signing on fee. Whereas it's very much a punishment in Keogh's case. There's a bit of logic in there I suppose, but it stinks to the high heavens.
I wonder was Richard planning to go down the pundit / coach route . This probably wasn’t the way to bow out if he was .
I think he has a case because the other two weren’t fired.
If it was just him who was blind drunk and got injured I don’t think he’d have a case
If Mel is being ‘logical’, and I would suggest that his logic is totally warped, given that he feels perfectly fine to cast a crippled Keogh aside based on nothing but economics, then ‘logically’ the message to the squad is so long as you’re a valuable enough player, feel free to commit criminal acts.Not only will you face no more than a 6 week fine, we’ll also continue to pick you in the first 11 as ‘punishment’.Derby are an utter, disgusting, disgrace.
Football is ruthless.
If Roy Keane’s famous interview for MUTV had happened three years earlier, Ferguson wouldn’t have gotten rid of him.
Keogh’s age is the biggest thing going against him
Yes, that's fair. I mean, I'd be okay with them standing by him even in the second scenario, but they'd have every right to sack him too. Mick put forward a very dubious defence for Richie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick McCarthy
There's only logic in it if you are trying to excuse yourself. He is putting monetary loss/value/gain against the whole club ethos he mentions previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
This line gives his BS away:
"So it's not as simple as people think when they think about these issues. And I actually think, in the case of two of the lads,they have to come out and face our crowd every game now and the only way they can improve on this is on the field, that's all they can do."
Couldn't he just ban them for a couple of months? Footballers want to play football they don't want to be playing reserve or not playing at all. Its complete horseSh1te.
Get tha fcukoutta ere in saskatchewan saskatoon
I see he's in with the Ireland squad at present, obviously not in a playing capacity. I think it's a nice touch by Mick. What he did cannot be condoned but he was silly and he has paid a serious price for his silliness, as bad as he could have imagined. I'm sure the decision is absolutely eating him up. No harm give him something to be involved in to take his mind off that.
Are you quoting people who have similar standards as yourself in order to support your claim? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Unlike yourself Paul I had listened to the BBC podcast in its entirety by the Derby County centric sports reporter.
The reported quoted from the owner speak volumes. The theory that he was captain was a factor in his sacking is ridiculous. It was a 100% economic based decision on a player who rejected an offered 3k pw salary, a player who had no further value to the club and who had by dint of his own poor choice made himself unavailable for work.
That he was team captain he definitely had a responsibility on the night, that goes without saying even if we don't know details but his captaincy did not come with a contractual responsibility.