Dingles....

[dutchblade]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/barnsley/Survival-will-not-stop-Cryne.5215719.jp
Unbelievable

 

[MAQ]

i had a feeling that this may happen, cant be to annoyed about as we do seem to have set a standard for legal preceedings. A rod for our own back if you will

 

[derrywan]

he be talking out of his A-Hole

 

[MAQ]

for those among us who are unable to click (PS: I Have made the items Bold that infuriate me)

Survival will not stop Barnsley owner seeking damages



BARNSLEY owner Patrick Cryne has warned Sheffield United to prepare for a legal battle over Iain Hume – even if his club is not relegated to League One.


Cryne is adamant that Barnsley have a case against the Blades as a result of the challenge by defender Chris Morgan that fractured Hume's skull five months ago.

Lawyer Maurice Watkins, who, ironically, represented West Ham United against the Blades in the 'Carlos Tevez affair', is advising Barnsley and 17 MPs have signed an Early Day Motion calling on the Football Association to take action against Morgan.

The Blades won compensation in the region of £25m from West Ham after proving that Tevez, who was signed illegally, played a key role in their relegation from the Premier League two years ago.

Hume's absence is a major reason why Barnsley are in danger of the drop although a point from Sunday's final game of the season at Plymouth Argyle will be enough to preserve their Championship status.

Cryne, who sanctioned the £1.2m signing of Hume from Leicester City last summer, said: "We are looking at the legal hurdles in the way of seeking to recover damages from Sheffield United. Our action will not be dependent on whether we are relegated.

"Our argument is, simply, that we paid a lot of money for Iain Hume in transfer fee and wages and we have lost his services through a violent, reckless, or intentional act. His loss to Barnsley FC had a serious impact on our season."

Outlining his frustration at the existing laws, Cryne revealed that Barnsley may have no option but to launch a test case at the Court of Appeal.

"The law is absurd in this area and precedent is against one employer suing another because the employee of one has inflicted damage on the employee of another," he said.

"If a Sheffield United player had recklessly damaged our property, we could have sued them with a strong prospect of success. The precedent for property being considered more important than people dates back to the days of slavery and has never been changed.

"To be successful, we would probably have to ask the High Court for leave to have the case heard by the Court of Appeal or House of Lords in order to overcome the case precedents. We could take a test case and try to change the law. That could open the floodgates."

The Football Association's inability to take action against Morgan, ironically a former Barnsley player, has been a major source of anger and disappointment at Oakwell.

Club officials have explicit footage of the challenge, in which Hume is struck on the head by Morgan's right elbow, but FIFA rules will only allow retrospective action in cases where a referee failed to spot and punish an offence. Andy D'Urso, the official in charge, booked Morgan for the challenge.

"It's an absurdity that the FA cannot punish this offence because it has, apparently, been dealt with at the time," said Cryne. "It is perverse that we can not re-visit an event of this seriousness, even with the benefit of modern technology.

"This is not a witch-hunt against Chris Morgan," he stressed. "But it was a serious offence. The game has to have consistency in the way a foul on the field of play is punished."

Should Barnsley be relegated this weekend, the implications of Hume's absence will be even greater as Barnsley set about trimming budgets for life in League One.

Cryne, however, does not agree with the idea of blaming other clubs for loss of income in the manner that the Blades pursued compensation from West Ham.

"I am not sure the Sheffield United route on Tevez is something we would be interested in following," he said. "We would not blame Iain Hume's loss for relegation but we would seek compensation for that loss. I don't believe you can 100 per cent blame Carlos Tevez for Sheffield United's relegation. We won't go down that route because I think it would be quite wrong. They had it in their own hands.

"We have lost money and we have lost an important player," he said. "It is the financial loss of not being able to call upon a £1m player and the costs we have had to pay on his replacements (that matters)."

Canadian international Hume has now returned to full training with Barnsley, but doctors are unable to offer any guarantees that he will able to play competitive football again.

"Until that happens, you don't know if the psychological and physical damage will make him any less of a player than before," said Cryne. "He wants to play again and is training hard to achieve that goal. All the doctors can say now is that it is expected to have healed before the start of next season."

It is understood that Hume is also considering a civil action against Morgan, depending on the extent of his losses.

"At the moment, he is still being paid his wages and has only lost out on bonuses," said Cryne.

"If he never gets back from his injury, he would take action for sure, because he would have lost his career. In that case, he would be likely to win."

Sheffield United were unavailable for comment last night.

 

[S64 Blade]

That about Hume's absence being the reason why they're stuggling.....what's that saying again, one player doesn't make a team?

 

[dansufc]

If this goes through anyone fancy suing Chelsea for the injury that happened to a Mr Rob Hulse. Because if not injuried we more than likely would have stayed up, crazyness if Barnsley actually get anything out of it.

 

[Bladesman]

We should sue Chelsea.

Plus Chelsea can afford to pay us.

 

[jodman]

I fail to see how they have any case when we have not actually broken any rules; i really hope they go down.

 

[madeinsheffield]

They were not scoring enough or winning games when he was playing so it would be very hard to prove.I still think Barnsley staff have been negligent.

Personally I hope they don't go down purely for the fact I wouldn't want Morgs to get any more bollocks than he has already had, TV showed he was behind Morgs and we all know he's hard but fair and would NOT go out to hurt another player.

 

[TonyAgana]

we all know he's hard but fair and would go out to hurt another player.

QUICK!! Change it!! Davey and Cryne will use this as evidence!!!

 

[Billyblade]

Time for another Dingle joke then.

TV chiefs have pulled the plug on a proposed TV series "CSI Barnsley". Apparently it wouldn't work because nobody has any dental records and everyone has the same DNA

 

[happyhippy]

There is a sort of precedent set though with Matty Holmes v Kevin Muscat, not to mention Gordon Watson v Kevin Gray. The difference, as I see it, is that in the two above mentioned cases, they became personal cases by the players against the clubs and players involved.

I really can't see how Barnsley, as a club, can quantify Hume's 'worth', and therefore 'loss'. When the Tevez crap was going on, it eventually boiled down to what he actually did when a compensation figure was agreed. Barnsley seem to believe that they can find a figure based on a player not being there.

Well, as far as I'm aware that is trying to prove a negative, which is a mite tricky.

Hume's absence is a major reason why Barnsley are in danger of the drop

Would Hume have scored since November? Possibly. How many? Who can tell. One may infer that Hume's absence is a major reason for them being near the foot of the table, but they already were flirting with the bottom as it was.

"We are looking at the legal hurdles in the way of seeking to recover damages from Sheffield United. Our action will not be dependent on whether we are relegated.

"Our argument is, simply, that we paid a lot of money for Iain Hume in transfer fee and wages and we have lost his services through a violent, reckless, or intentional act. His loss to Barnsley FC had a serious impact on our season."

OK. Let's look at both of these paragraphs. Firstly, he implies that Barnsley will be bringing a straight civil case against United. This doesn't seem to be about loss of earnings, etc (as per Tevez), as any potential relegation isn't a matter. OK, fine, let's see why ....

.... it appears to be because they paid some £££££ for a player who got injured. He then goes on to say some rather silly things, in particular insinuating that the elbow was a deliberate attempt to injure Hume (.... intentional act.). I always thought there was such a phrase as caveat emptor. This of course, is ignoring their own potential mistreatment of Hume by the Barnsley medical staff on the day of the incident itself.

By the same token, had Hume arrived on a free, would there be an issue?

"The law is absurd in this area and precedent is against one employer suing another because the employee of one has inflicted damage on the employee of another," he said.

So the MD of McMuck's could sue Muck King because one of Muck King's employees spilt coffee on a McMuck's employee? I doubt it, yet that is what he is saying here .....

"If a Sheffield United player had recklessly damaged our property, we could have sued them with a strong prospect of success. The precedent for property being considered more important than people dates back to the days of slavery and has never been changed.

Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that people aren't property anymore. You know, that whole slavery thing. Sorry if the last 175 years passed you by, Mr Cryne.

"It's an absurdity that the FA cannot punish this offence because it has, apparently, been dealt with at the time," said Cryne. "It is perverse that we can not re-visit an event of this seriousness, even with the benefit of modern technology.

"This is not a witch-hunt against Chris Morgan," he stressed. "But it was a serious offence. The game has to have consistency in the way a foul on the field of play is punished."

Actually, that isn't true, is it Mr Cryne? What can't be done is for the yellow card to be upgraded to a red card, and rightly so. Can you imagine the number of appeals? If it were allowed to happen, it would have to happen the other way around, and for yellows to be rescinded. Lancaster Gate would fold under the paperwork.

What could have happened was akin to the Ben Thatcher case where the FA stepped in and imposed a lengthy ban (despite Man City already having done so, and they fined him). The FA looked at the Hume/Morgan incident and decided that no further action would be taken.

And purely in the interests of consistency, I would also invite Mr Cryne to view the challenge by Jermaine Johnson on Kyle Naughton at Hellsbore, and to also look at the punishment given on the field.

As for it not being a witch hunt, I'm not convinced it is. Unfortunately what it is, is Barnsley thinking that 'they won in court, so we will'. The fundamental flaw in this is that at no time, in any way, shape, or form have Sheffield United broken any rules. They may as well bring a suit against us for putting mushroom soup on the menu on Thursdays.

Cryne, however, does not agree with the idea of blaming other clubs for loss of income in the manner that the Blades pursued compensation from West Ham.

"I am not sure the Sheffield United route on Tevez is something we would be interested in following," he said. "We would not blame Iain Hume's loss for relegation but we would seek compensation for that loss. I don't believe you can 100 per cent blame Carlos Tevez for Sheffield United's relegation

Right. So now you've said that the club isn't to blame, and losing one player couldn't cost you relegation. Well, precisely what is your bloody point then?

"We have lost money and we have lost an important player," he said. "It is the financial loss of not being able to call upon a £1m player and the costs we have had to pay on his replacements (that matters)."

And that happens to every football club in the land. Live with it.

It is understood that Hume is also considering a civil action against Morgan, depending on the extent of his losses.

"At the moment, he is still being paid his wages and has only lost out on bonuses," said Cryne.

"If he never gets back from his injury, he would take action for sure, because he would have lost his career. In that case, he would be likely to win."

The only sensible thing I've read in the whole article, and I hope for all concerned it doesn't come to that.

 

[shorehamview]

So basically Barnsley Football Club's argument is that they were pretty shit with Iain Hume, but fucking dreadful without him. So they should be getting an out-of-court settlement of a pair of fingers, a large raspberry and a big packet of Fuck-Off Tablets then.

 

[Tyke]

That about Hume's absence being the reason why they're stuggling.....what's that saying again, one player doesn't make a team?

ha ha ha ha ha ha Facking fantastic

according to you lot it was tevez who sent you down he's just one man int he

 

[Linz]

ha ha ha ha ha ha Facking fantastic

according to you lot it was tevez who sent you down he's just one man int he

No... we proved that a club broke the rules which had financial implications from which we suffered a loss.

Now, this "breaking rules" bit might be a problem for Barnsley.

The FA looked at the challenge and said that no further action was necessary. Despite the booking, they could have added further sanctions had they felt the challenge was deliberate or dangerous. They reviewed the evidence Barnsley put forward and decided not to act.

The Police, despite Barnsley's bleatings, are more concerned at locking up Kipper Jackson for launching cream buns at them than knocking on Chris Morgan's door.

Cryne even admits that they'd need a change in the law before they got any satisfactory outcome. Good luck!

A few questions I have:

Was Hume not insured?

Have the insurance company turned round and told Barnsley to stop being daft?

And is this not just contradicting himself?:

"I am not sure the Sheffield United route on Tevez is something we would be interested in following," he said. "We would not blame Iain Hume's loss for relegation but we would seek compensation for that loss. I don't believe you can 100 per cent blame Carlos Tevez for Sheffield United's relegation. We won't go down that route because I think it would be quite wrong. They had it in their own hands.

 

[Bladesman]

They were not scoring enough or winning games when he was playing so it would be very hard to prove.I still think Barnsley staff have been negligent.

Personally I hope they don't go down purely for the fact I wouldn't want Morgs to get any more bollocks than he has already had, TV showed he was behind Morgs and we all know he's hard but fair and would NOT go out to hurt another player.

1 win their first 10 games I think with a fully fit Hume in their team I think.

 

[shorehamview]

1 win their first 10 games I think with a fully fit Hume in their team I think.

Exactly. They went from wank to really wank.

What will the Dingles be moaning about next? Catching the clap off their mum?

 

[Hartyblade]

This is actually outrageous.

You have to think if they win there case and receive a nice supplement off us, then it's just going to cause an outcry from other clubs that are going through the same emotions as the dingles, just because one of the players has been injured.

Bloody hell next we shall see everton sueing the pitch for injuring Our Son Jagiekla for screwing his knee ligament up which will DESTROY there chances of winning the FA Cup, this is just f*cking insane and stupid.