Hmm, so if the likes of Suarez and Terry get bans from the FA for saying offensive terms, what will the FL do towards Gillingham for being found to have racially discriminated against their players? All forms of racism are disgraceful but surely Gillingham's has been judged in a court to be much worse than name calling?
Why? All clubs have to do is not treat players differently on the basis of their race which is clearly as it should be.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
Why? All clubs have to do is not treat players differently on the basis of their race which is clearly as it should be.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
Why? All clubs have to do is not treat players differently on the basis of their race which is clearly as it should be.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
I don't think he's saying that at all. But if a player is being pushed out for being a bad influence for example, and has to train with the youth team etc, and then never gets signed up for another team it could go through their mind to do something like this. Any colour person! That is the point I think he's trying to make.
Why? All clubs have to do is not treat players differently on the basis of their race which is clearly as it should be.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
Er no. I didn't say that at all. But fire away & twist it however you like.
Even though the evidence needed is far from that required by a court, this hardly 'opens the door' to spurious claims from disgruntled black players. It sets no precedent in itself.
There are ways and means to manage players out of a club and the methods Scally employed were at best naive. There are very clear lines in employment law, and clearly the ET thinks Scally crossed them. McCammon would have had a job to demonstrate that his treatment was motivated by his race rather than just a personal dislike or bodged management (and the latter are still grounds for a claim) so I'd personally conclude that this was a ruling grounded in truth rather than a begrudged individual seeking revenge.
Usually these things would be settled by a compromise agreement; I guess Scally couldn't or wouldn't afford what it would cost to achieve that and was arrogant enough to consider he'd walk it.
On the face of it, it seems Scally's behaviour was idneed racially motivated, in which case McCammon was quite right to bring the claim and I'm glad he won. Hopefully this will make Scally and others in football think twice.
Why? All clubs have to do is not treat players differently on the basis of their race which is clearly as it should be.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
Er no. I didn't say that at all. But fire away & twist it however you like.
I'm not twisting anything but I am genuinely confused as to the point you are making?
This case sets no legal precedent at all. An employee was able to prove to the tribunals satisfaction that he was treated detrimentally on the basis of his race. That's it. No more no less.
Can you explain why then you feel this may lead to an increase in others claiming the same applies to them?
Very, very interesting reporting from the Daily Mail...
McCammon signed for Gillingham in 2008 on £2,500 a week and was the club's highest paid player.
'It was a phenomenal deal,' he said. 'It was a deal that most players would have taken.'
My view is that Gills agreed this crazy deal - 120K per year for a L1/L2 side!!! - and decided that they wanted him out as they could not afford those kinds of wages on a non 1st team regular.
Gillingham cannot afford to pay those sorts of wages on their revenue base.
This is from the organisation Workplace Law who send me regular updates on such matters ,it is always interesting to read beyond the win / lose headlines .
Particularly interesting is that Gillingham's witnesses 'colluded' in terms of the evidence given . I suspect this may have been a key factor in the decision making process.
Former Gillingham player, Mark McCammon, has won his race discrimination case against the club, after being sacked last year and accused of misconduct.
The 33-year-old striker has made British legal history by becoming the first black footballer to successfully bring a claim of racial victimisation against a professional football club, which he claims put him “through hell”. McCammon told the Employment Tribunal he and other black players had been treated differently to white players by the club, including being ordered to drive to the ground during “treacherous” wintry driving conditions while some white players were told they were not required, and only being offered NHS treatment for an injury while a white team-mate was flown to Dubai to see a specialist physiotherapist. McCammon also claimed he was told not to blog while others were permitted to. Gillingham Chairman, Paul Scally, described McCammon's claims as being made “maliciously and without foundation”, adding that the club had not had to deal with an allegation of racism in 18 years. The club said in a statement: “Today we have received the decision of the Ashford Employment Tribunal which sets out their findings that Mark McCammon was unfairly dismissed and that his dismissal was an act of racial victimisation. We are hugely disappointed, in fact staggered, by this decision. As an organisation we are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate against, nor victimise our staff. This case is the first of its kind to be brought against the club in its entire history, a history that has seen the club employ many thousands of staff of various race, religion and creed, none of whom have ever felt the need to bring such a claim.” McCammon was once the highest earning player at the club, with a salary of £2,500 per week. McCammon’s solicitor, Sim Owolabi, said in a statement: “Mr McCammon is relieved that he has been afforded the opportunity to put forward the truth about the experience he suffered at the hands of his former employers. He is pleased that the Employment Tribunal has found in his favour and feels that the judgment makes clear that his dismissal was not only unfair but an act of race victimisation. Mr McCammon raised a legitimate complaint of race discrimination, which the Tribunal found that Mr Scally had discounted from the start as being without merit. Mr Scally did not bother to investigate the complaint and ultimately dismissed him because of it. “The Employment Tribunal also makes clear that the club's witnesses not only colluded in the preparation of their witness statements leading to his dismissal but also colluded in the preparation of their evidence before the Employment Tribunal. Mr McCammon is astounded that the club went to such lengths to both dismiss him and win their case before the tribunal. Mr McCammon hopes that his success will make other players feel free to raise legitimate complaints of discrimination and not suffer the traumatic treatment that he has for doing so.” Mr McCammon is expected to receive in excess of £40,000 compensation, but the Tribunal panel has reserved its decision on compensation until a hearing, scheduled for 10 August.
From the BBC just now Victimised Gillingham player Mark McCammon awarded £68,000 A black footballer has been awarded more than £68,000 after his dismissal by his club was ruled as unfair racial victimisation. Club chairman Paul Scally said they might appeal against the verdict.
Kent Football News @ksnfootball BREAKING NEWS: GILLINGHAM HAVE LOST THEIR APPEAL AGAINST MARK McCAMMON'S CASE AGAINST THEM FOR RACIAL VICTIMISATION. #Gills
Comments
Has the evidence ended and are we awaiting the verdict ?
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
I don't think he's saying that at all. But if a player is being pushed out for being a bad influence for example, and has to train with the youth team etc, and then never gets signed up for another team it could go through their mind to do something like this. Any colour person! That is the point I think he's trying to make.
Because if a club is trying to force out a player, which they do regularly, (training with the youths, not being picked, frozen out of meetings, shunned by the squad etc) it may lead to a black player claiming racial discrimination, when in fact they just want to out them.
This case seems very blurred and not really sure what to make of it.
I'm sorry? Is what you're saying basically that black players are either likely to deliberatly make a false claim for racial descrimination for their own benefit in that situation or that they are too thick to realise that the club is trying to manage them out and it nothing to do with their skin colour?
Er no. I didn't say that at all. But fire away & twist it however you like.
There are ways and means to manage players out of a club and the methods Scally employed were at best naive. There are very clear lines in employment law, and clearly the ET thinks Scally crossed them. McCammon would have had a job to demonstrate that his treatment was motivated by his race rather than just a personal dislike or bodged management (and the latter are still grounds for a claim) so I'd personally conclude that this was a ruling grounded in truth rather than a begrudged individual seeking revenge.
Usually these things would be settled by a compromise agreement; I guess Scally couldn't or wouldn't afford what it would cost to achieve that and was arrogant enough to consider he'd walk it.
On the face of it, it seems Scally's behaviour was idneed racially motivated, in which case McCammon was quite right to bring the claim and I'm glad he won. Hopefully this will make Scally and others in football think twice.
Er no. I didn't say that at all. But fire away & twist it however you like.
I'm not twisting anything but I am genuinely confused as to the point you are making?
This case sets no legal precedent at all. An employee was able to prove to the tribunals satisfaction that he was treated detrimentally on the basis of his race. That's it. No more no less.
Can you explain why then you feel this may lead to an increase in others claiming the same applies to them?
McCammon signed for Gillingham in 2008 on £2,500 a week and was the club's highest paid player.
'It was a phenomenal deal,' he said. 'It was a deal that most players would have taken.'
My view is that Gills agreed this crazy deal - 120K per year for a L1/L2 side!!! - and decided that they wanted him out as they could not afford those kinds of wages on a non 1st team regular.
Gillingham cannot afford to pay those sorts of wages on their revenue base.
Particularly interesting is that Gillingham's witnesses 'colluded' in terms of the evidence given . I suspect this may have been a key factor in the decision making process.
Former Gillingham player, Mark McCammon, has won his race discrimination case against the club, after being sacked last year and accused of misconduct.
The 33-year-old striker has made British legal history by becoming the first black footballer to successfully bring a claim of racial victimisation against a professional football club, which he claims put him “through hell”.
McCammon told the Employment Tribunal he and other black players had been treated differently to white players by the club, including being ordered to drive to the ground during “treacherous” wintry driving conditions while some white players were told they were not required, and only being offered NHS treatment for an injury while a white team-mate was flown to Dubai to see a specialist physiotherapist.
McCammon also claimed he was told not to blog while others were permitted to.
Gillingham Chairman, Paul Scally, described McCammon's claims as being made “maliciously and without foundation”, adding that the club had not had to deal with an allegation of racism in 18 years.
The club said in a statement:
“Today we have received the decision of the Ashford Employment Tribunal which sets out their findings that Mark McCammon was unfairly dismissed and that his dismissal was an act of racial victimisation. We are hugely disappointed, in fact staggered, by this decision. As an organisation we are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate against, nor victimise our staff. This case is the first of its kind to be brought against the club in its entire history, a history that has seen the club employ many thousands of staff of various race, religion and creed, none of whom have ever felt the need to bring such a claim.”
McCammon was once the highest earning player at the club, with a salary of £2,500 per week.
McCammon’s solicitor, Sim Owolabi, said in a statement:
“Mr McCammon is relieved that he has been afforded the opportunity to put forward the truth about the experience he suffered at the hands of his former employers. He is pleased that the Employment Tribunal has found in his favour and feels that the judgment makes clear that his dismissal was not only unfair but an act of race victimisation. Mr McCammon raised a legitimate complaint of race discrimination, which the Tribunal found that Mr Scally had discounted from the start as being without merit. Mr Scally did not bother to investigate the complaint and ultimately dismissed him because of it.
“The Employment Tribunal also makes clear that the club's witnesses not only colluded in the preparation of their witness statements leading to his dismissal but also colluded in the preparation of their evidence before the Employment Tribunal. Mr McCammon is astounded that the club went to such lengths to both dismiss him and win their case before the tribunal. Mr McCammon hopes that his success will make other players feel free to raise legitimate complaints of discrimination and not suffer the traumatic treatment that he has for doing so.”
Mr McCammon is expected to receive in excess of £40,000 compensation, but the Tribunal panel has reserved its decision on compensation until a hearing, scheduled for 10 August.
Victimised Gillingham player Mark McCammon awarded £68,000
A black footballer has been awarded more than £68,000 after his dismissal by his club was ruled as unfair racial victimisation.
Club chairman Paul Scally said they might appeal against the verdict.
BREAKING NEWS: GILLINGHAM HAVE LOST THEIR APPEAL AGAINST MARK McCAMMON'S CASE AGAINST THEM FOR RACIAL VICTIMISATION. #Gills