Isn't that likely to weaken their case. How can they claim they sacked him for gross misconduct or endangering lives or any of the other things in their statement when they were prepared to keep employing him if they lowered his wages.Are people missing they offered to cut his wages even though it was his fault he couldn't do his job?
Because the other 2 can still do their job.
There's the difference between them.
Statement from the Club: "As we have said from the outset, (Derby County FC) will not tolerate any of its players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings the club into disrepute....."
No one agrees with his actions but this is clearly age discrimination and he will have a good case in any tribunal. Derby have behaved appallingly in treating him differently to the other 2 that have broken the law.
It's clear to see this is because hes injured long term and he has no resale value.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Really? They will say why weren't the other 2 given the same punishment. If it was me my union would have a field day. Him being injured has nothing to do with it. There reasoning is gross misconduct bringing the club into disrepute which Lawrence and Bennett are equally guilty of.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Petrocelli - still alive and practising.Isn't that likely to weaken their case. How can they claim they sacked him for gross misconduct or endangering lives or any of the other things in their statement when they were prepared to keep employing him if they lowered his wages.
How come people are so desperate to defend him?
Doubt you would care if he didn't used to play for us.The whole thing stinks. He deserves to be sacked and so do the other two.
Agreed. All or nothing.The whole thing stinks. He deserves to be sacked and so do the other two.
It is though as it is punishment for the same incident. Disciplinary actions have to be fair and equal. If he had something in his contract then that is a different storyIt isn't relevant mate. If it was found that they hadn't applied their policy in the case of the other two it doesn't mean they shouldn't have for Keogh.
We don't know what it says in Keogh's contract either.
Isn't that likely to weaken their case. How can they claim they sacked him for gross misconduct or endangering lives or any of the other things in their statement when they were prepared to keep employing him if they lowered his wages.