Mark McCammon in race discrimination claim

[User removed 4]

I've got to say that on the medical treatment bit, Mark McCammon's spot on. Clubs DO routinely pay for private medical treatment - of course they do, because they want their players out on the pitch, not sitting around in an NHS queue, where, quite rightly, they are not first priority as a sports injury isn't quite as big a deal as life-saving surgery.

But apparently they DIDNT want mccammon out on the pitch, thats why they didnt throw good money after bad by paying for private treatment.

 

[itszamora]

But apparently they DIDNT want mccammon out on the pitch, thats why they didnt throw good money after bad by paying for private treatment.

Which I don't understand at all - why would you want an injured player in any circumstances? It wouldn't surprise me if private medical treatment for injuries and the like is a standard thing in contracts - you'd certainly think it would be these days with clubs understandably wanting their highly-paid assets (and he was their top earner) available as much as possible - witness us sending players abroad for the best treatment, for example.

 

[User removed 4]

Which I don't understand at all - why would you want an injured player in any circumstances? It wouldn't surprise me if private medical treatment for injuries and the like is a standard thing in contracts - you'd certainly think it would be these days with clubs understandably wanting their highly-paid assets (and he was their top earner) available as much as possible - witness us sending players abroad for the best treatment, for example.

The impression i get is that paying for private medical treatment was viewed as throwing good money after bad, yes they were mugs to sign him on that contract , but wanting out of it doesnt make it a case of racial discrimination.

 

[Simster]

The impression i get is that paying for private medical treatment was viewed as throwing good money after bad, yes they were mugs to sign him on that contract , but wanting out of it doesnt make it a case of racial discrimination.

This, plus the fact that his black team mates are not rallying behind him just about says it all for me.

 

[User removed 4]

This, plus the fact that his black team mates are not rallying behind him just about says it all for me.

They've just gone about it in a crap , unprofessional way , leaving themselves wide open to this sort of thing, but thats paul scally all over.

 

[Simster]

Totally agree.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The impression i get is that paying for private medical treatment was viewed as throwing good money after bad, yes they were mugs to sign him on that contract , but wanting out of it doesnt make it a case of racial discrimination.

The thing is Bushy, they had evidence that black players were being treated unfavourably. The medical treatment in itself is not racially discriminative but it does back up the claim that McCammon was unfairly treated. In itself i would have thought there was a argument to sue Gillingham for breach of contract if it is the usal practice in football for the club to pay the private medical bills of players.

 

[drew]

Not sure why so many have a problem with McCammon. He didn't force us to sign him and he didn't hold a gun to the head of Gillingham to get his alleged contract. As for criticism of the money. He is at the latter stages of his career as a footballer, he is 34 I believe, and his salary is hardly going to mean he doesn't have to work again. He's not a great player but again, it's the clubs that decide to sign him. With regard to the tribunal, they obviously felt there was enough evidence to show that he was treated differently to players that were white. Signing bad players is not the players fault but that of the managers/scouts etc.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

Gillingham have just lost their appeal