Jump to content

John Mcginn Sues Saints


Recommended Posts


McGinn is a dafty who is taking very bad advice from his lawyer.

Why? If I was injured at work as a result of a fellow employee's negligence and suffered time off as a result, I'd claim against the company as well. Ultimately the company itself is responsible for the health and safety of every one of it's employees. This system is in place to protect workers up and down this country from unreasonable working conditions and John McGinn, like you or I, is an employee of a company who was injured at work through negligence.

The dafty is the person who goes 'ach well, no harm done' whilst limping about with blood pishing out his leg. The company (in this case the club) won't, or rather shouldn't hold it against McGinn for doing exactly what he's entitled to. The insurance premiums will still be in place next year, like every year and will continue to be an ongoing expense of the club.

No harm done, apart from a few daft folk on here who are blinded by complete unwavering loyalty and seem to think that because he's a footballer, he should operate within a different set of laws and 'man up'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't get it. At my last place of employment there was a daft boy in the finishing department with a hundred Rangers tattoos, who caused trouble at Manchester. I couldn't stand the wee knobhead. Still, if I walked up and planted a left hook on his pus, I don't see how either he or his lawyers could have an issue with the company we both worked for. I would be in trouble, but how the company would be sued is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't get it. At my last place of employment there was a daft boy in the finishing department with a hundred Rangers tattoos, who caused trouble at Manchester. I couldn't stand the wee knobhead. Still, if I walked up and planted a left hook on his pus, I don't see how either he or his lawyers could have an issue with the company we both worked for. I would be in trouble, but how the company would be sued is beyond me.

I don't know about the case of intentional assault and what the standing would be there but a company has a care of responsibility to any employees or visitors on it's site. Clearly H&S guidelines weren't being followed here and if the rules were adhered to, Thommo would have been bagged there and then.

PS: His name wasn't Henry by any chance was it?

Edited by djchapsticks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if john could not play again can we sue thommo for loss of compensation we are due ,if he fails a medical and we are out the cash ,

Eh?

We aren't due any compensation given that he hasn't actually moved club or had a medical anywhere. There's also no guarantee that he will move, so how can you sue for money you might or might not get one day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't get it. At my last place of employment there was a daft boy in the finishing department with a hundred Rangers tattoos, who caused trouble at Manchester. I couldn't stand the wee knobhead. Still, if I walked up and planted a left hook on his pus, I don't see how either he or his lawyers could have an issue with the company we both worked for. I would be in trouble, but how the company would be sued is beyond me.

The company would almost certainly have a policy to prevent workplace violence. The reason you didn't do it is either because you didn't want the sack or you are a shitebag

Horseplay is another matter, if tolerated the company can be seen to condone this type of nonsense. Thommo mis-used company equipment and in another company he would have lost his job. The club COULD be at fault for not controling the training ground more effectively. it will take an examination of the facts to establish this and no-one will examine them if there is no claim.

But for heaven's sake, the company insurance will be in place to compensate people who suffered a workplace injury and McGinn was NOT AT FAULT. He is due compensation commensurate with any harm suffered and needs to make a claim to get his process going. it is company insurance so the trail starts-guess where? WITH THE COMPANY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the case of intentional assault and what the standing would be there but a company has a care of responsibility to any employees or visitors on it's site. Clearly H&S guidelines weren't being followed here and if the rules were adhered to, Thommo would have been bagged there and then.

PS: His name wasn't Henry by any chance was it?

Nah, his name really was Bigoted Sevco Knobhead. The sort of typical knuckledragging braindead neanderthal kafflik hating bawbag who headed off on holiday each year wearing a Sevco top and a King Billy tattoo on each forearm. He actually got the RFC crest with five stars tattooed on his back - it covered his entire back, a huge tattoo. Pleases me no end that the cnut's club died.

Annnnyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) You have no idea of McGinn's motivation unless he has personally told you and b ) he no longer has a contract with St Mirren so he cannot 'rot in the reserves'.

Clearly Mcginn is trying get released so clubs don't need to pay a fee no player bigger than club I'd let him rot in the reserves

Edited by Sonny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company would almost certainly have a policy to prevent workplace violence. The reason you didn't do it is either because you didn't want the sack or you are a shitebag

Horseplay is another matter, if tolerated the company can be seen to condone this type of nonsense. Thommo mis-used company equipment and in another company he would have lost his job. The club COULD be at fault for not controling the training ground more effectively. it will take an examination of the facts to establish this and no-one will examine them if there is no claim.

But for heaven's sake, the company insurance will be in place to compensate people who suffered a workplace injury and McGinn was NOT AT FAULT. He is due compensation commensurate with any harm suffered and needs to make a claim to get his process going. it is company insurance so the trail starts-guess where? WITH THE COMPANY!

No, the reason I didn't do it is not bacause I didn't want sacked, or I am a shitebag. The reason I didn't do it is I don't go around assaulting people, Sevco wankers or not.

No apology required, even though I probably do deserve one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Mcginn is trying get released so clubs don't need to pay a fee no player bigger than club I'd let him rot in the reserves

As previously pointed out, J McG is out of contract and can sign for anyone he chooses from a list of clubs that want him, can pay his wages and can pay us compensation. Or he can choose to take an offer from St Mirren to stay on for another spell. His claim has no bearing on his status at or outsidethe club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously pointed out, J McG is out of contract and can sign for anyone he chooses from a list of clubs that want him, can pay his wages and can pay us compensation. Or he can choose to take an offer from St Mirren to stay on for another spell. His claim has no bearing on his status at or outsidethe club.

With the third option being that he chooses not to re-sign, no club is willing to pay compensation for him and we retain his registration therefore freezing him out of football. Much like the situation when we had to wrangle Aaron Mooy away from Bolton as we needed someone to generate the power for the floodlights.

Rotting in the reserves isn't an option. I'm not sure it's something clubs even really do anymore either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the reason I didn't do it is not bacause I didn't want sacked, or I am a shitebag. The reason I didn't do it is I don't go around assaulting people, Sevco wankers or not.

No apology required, even though I probably do deserve one.

You've clearly had a sense of humour lapse today

No apology offered, but you left the door WAAAAYY open to that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should it affect any relationship between club and player? I handle claims like this from time to time and the outcome is very often delivered with a smile and a handshake (though rarely an apology), especially when there has been real and proven harm to an employee who carries absolutely no blame. it would be immature, mean spirited and irresponsible of any employer to sour the relationship with someone who was a good employee affected in this way.

John Hillcoat took legal advice to get released from his contract when he was a junior player and was welcomed back to the club several years later. It will only be ill-informed supporters who think there is some disloyalty or acrimony here-everyone else will be business like and professional about the whole thing.

FFS, is the guy just meant to take something like that

The club will undoubtedly close this out with dignity and maturity, i wish some of the posters on here would do the same

You're a lot more clued up in these legal matters than me and if McGinn taking the club to court is the correct procedure, then so be it. He should be compensated if he has lost money. It will be great if it's sorted out with everyone's dignity intact.

Still don't think the club, Thompson and McGinn will enjoy it being dragged through the media again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...