Jump to content

John Mcginn Sues Saints


Recommended Posts


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

Well if he is he's living in cloud cuckoo land.

Why would we release him and lose out on £270,000?

The answer is simple, we wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you want even jump up and down all you want clearly legal advice has been taken.

Would be surprised if the club could be fined for this as the equipment was not faulty and used for purpose. Pole suck in ground as part of training excursive. So club can counter this and would win.

Its Thompson who will be held accountable for bad behaviour.

I'm very surprised to hear McGinn has taken legal advice , then again this is the Sun Newspaper.

This is John McGinn ace card to get a move away from the club.

Hope the club dig their heels in if the full amount cant be met for a move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you want even jump up and down all you want clearly legal advice has been taken.

Would be surprised if the club could be fined for this as the equipment was not faulty and used for purpose. Pole suck in ground as part of training excursive. So club can counter this and would win.

Its Thompson who will be held accountable for bad behaviour.

I'm very surprised to hear McGinn has taken legal advice , then again this is the Sun Newspaper.

This is John McGinn ace card to get a move away from the club.

Hope the club dig their heels in if the full amount cant be met for a move

Spot on
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people continue to work for employers after taking action against them for personal injuries.

Bit of a non story, tbh. He has every right to claim, but it shouldn't affect anything at all.

It does, however, perhaps give an indication of his mindset towards SMFC right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a discipline & workplace control issue and Saints are vicariously liable for the actions of employees whilst at work. if the spear-chucking was typical of training-ground pranksterism then i'm afraid it is something the club should have thought about and adressed before someone got hurt.

Individuals are also liable though and it could be that the action is deflected, partially or wholly, onto Thommo.

McGinn was at work and doing what he was paid for when he innocently and blamelessy suffered a potentially serious injury. He could suffer ill-effects from that for years to come and is right to look after his interests. He could have fully recovered already or the scar tissue, which can be much tougher and less pliable than the rest of him, could cause secondary tears and tightness at any time.

I hear that ladies who venture south to acquaint themselves with John's John retreat North at the sight of the scar.

For that loss alone, he should get millions.

Or perhaps John should thank Thommo if, in an effort to entice the ladies to his nether regions, he encourages them to view his scar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money seems to be the all and end all for almost all footballers. This country is becoming more like America every day whereby the byword for everything appears to be sue, but it appears in this case and having sought legal advice (NO DOUBT ONE OF THESE NO WIN NO FEE LEGAL COMPANIES ) than John Mc Ginn has been advised he has a case however whatever the outcome his relationship with the club will be acrimonious. I wouldn't be surprised if he is unsuccessful he then takes out a civil case against one of his teammates, namely Thommo, but he should be very wary of going down this line, he might find out he is outraised by whatever club he ends up at. Whatever happens he certainly has done his career no good at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people continue to work for employers after taking action against them for personal injuries.

Bit of a non story, tbh. He has every right to claim, but it shouldn't affect anything at all.

It does, however, perhaps give an indication of his mindset towards SMFC right now.

It's maybe just me. Apologies.

I just don't get what you are on about in the above drivel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing. Is. How can he claim injuries against st mirren. They have done nothing wrong. It was an individual that caused the injury. Nothing to do with the football club

Surely as an employer, the club has ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the employees.

In the care sector, if one of our employees committed malpractice, the Group I work for could be prosecuted... OR a civil lawsuit could be taken out against the individual.

I'm sure tjat insurance covered compensation is preferable to the alternative legal option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people on here who I didn't realise were Perry Masons in training. Beyond our ken has pretty much covered the issue, so there isn't anything major I'd need to add. Just a couple of points to address in response to some misunderstandings posted here.

1. It absolutely IS to do with the club. The incident happened during working time, within workplace premises, and with workplace equipment, at a time when the players were under coaches supervision. The whole incident is very closely linked to the club in a number of ways.

2. When discussing the fact that this happened as a result of a bit of 'dressing room banter gone wrong' may well be accurate, but this would absolutely NOT absolve the club from all blame. Workplace banter, plus other things like swearing, shouting etc. are not treated as a 'one fits all' case by courts. What is looked at is 'what is the norm in that industry / what is normally deemed acceptable behaviour in that line of work'. This is why in some areas of employment (chefs are one specific example I can cite), it cannot be a disciplinary issue when swearing at each other unless it is really extreme. That situation might be viewed totally differently to the same language being used in a customer facing sales role for example. In terms of footballers, dressing room banter is historical, known to clubs, and generally accepted, and so the question is 'could it be said that Thommo went too far, and did something totally unforeseeable?' or was it just bad luck and a freak accident. If it was bad luck, then the question is 'what guidelines or efforts to stop these things going too far did the club have in place?' and the issue should be raised by McGinn with / against the club. If Thommo went temporarily mental on a one man mission to spear McGinn by collecting a number of poles and reeling them off like a submachine gun, then he should be the one targeted by McGinn's lawyers. I doubt it was the latter.

3. Although it is the club being named in the action, McGinn's legal action is really just against the club's insurers.

A lot of people on here are being incredibly unfair to John; he WILL have lost out on income, unless you think he wouldn't have been involved in any of those last few wins of the season. Had he played, he would more than likely have been entitled to be paid a contractual win bonus. I would wonder if the club made a discretionary payment to him to cover that or not? If they did, it MIGHT have negated the legal action. People are talking as though McGinn might be a 50k per week player for whom money is no object. The reality is that he's probably a 50k per year footballer, who might well be relying on pay just to cover ordinary bills. If he has been injured and had his ability to earn money taken away, why the hell shouldn't he be compensated for that???

Oh, and it will be absolutely NOTHING to do with engineering a move away or any other drivel that anyone else would like to mention similar to that, as the level of compsation the club are legally entitled to is in absolutely no way linked to or affected by this legal action.

A lot of people on this thread are acting in a really pathetic and childish manner.

Edited by zurich_allan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing. Is. How can he claim injuries against st mirren. They have done nothing wrong. It was an individual that caused the injury. Nothing to do with the football club

Because it happened in his place of work. An investigation needs to take place to see if St Mirren are culpable in any way. If not he may could sue Thommo. St Mirren could be culpable if they provide no H&S training; their training is inadequate; if they were negligent in supervision; if they were using equipment that did not meet safety standards ettc etc etc

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...