£1 million down - Gus MacDonald

I thought the old phrase was "buyer beware".

 

Is this the same panel that found Bambo Diaby guilty of drug taking. This is the biggest crock of sh.it I've ever heard

 

Mcgeehan 3 match ban?

 

Case has been sorted.

 

Ridicolous. So we owe a million and lost a player

 

I'm clearly missing a piece of this jigsaw. Actually a few pieces or even the whole box. In fact, what I appear to have hold of is a sandwich because this makes no fk*cing sense at all.

 

We’re all square. IF we owe them for Angus (ludicrous idea, obviously) we can offset that against the value they’ve had from Wilks and his phenomenal goal scoring record since going there.

I wonder if they still owe us money in that deal as well?

 

Probably not, because we didn't tell them that he had a cold at some point in 2018.

 

Doesn’t the judgment become public knowledge? If so I guess we shall find out


Edit : it’s here https://www.efl.com/siteassets/imag...nal-award-barnsley-v-hull-tue-16-feb-2021.pdf

 

Interesting how some people can conclude the Tribunal is not fit for purpose based solely off the result. I've read the full judgment (redacted so as to remove the sensitive medical information). The key points are:

In the transfer agreement we warranted that we "made a full and honest disclosure to Hull’s medical staff of the Player’s past and current medical history (including but not limited to all injuries suffered, medical conditions/illnesses (physical and/or psychological), surgical procedures and treatments) that could in any way affect his fitness and/or ability to play professional football for Hull."

The club doctor was aware at the time of the transfer that it was improbable that the player's symptoms were explained by a diagnosis of [REDACTED] (implied to be a minor condition, perhaps iron deficiency). The player had undergone extensive tests which at the time were inconclusive, however the symptoms themselves could have affected his fitness and ability to play professional football. MacDonald had an earlier history of pulmonary embolism and the ongoing clinical investigation could have affected his ability to play football at least until such a time as a definitive diagnosis was made. One of his symptoms had not been seen by a sports doctor in his 20 year career and was described as "a highly unusual event of incredible significance"

Our failure to disclose the above was in breach of the contractual warranty. There was a lack of communication between the management and the club doctor which led to the information failing to be disclosed. There is no suggestion that this was in any way deliberate.

As a result of the breach BFC was liable for damages of £477k plus interest etc, assessed by reference to an analysis of the losses Hull suffered from the transfer less the benefit. BFC was also ordered to pay Hull's legal costs of £432k and the arbitration fees.

 

In that case we probably have to take it on the chin or risk losing even more in legal fees.

 

So we sell a player he later gets ill hull take us to court and we have to now pay them 1million pound. So we lost a player and money aswell. The most barnsley transfer ever. Get a counter claim in.

 

No. Read the decision, or at least my summary.

 

Ouch. That's an extremely expensive failure on our part to officially communicate information already known to us.

 

What a killer. Last thing we need in the current financial climate.

 

Hull had the option to question the player on his health and access to his medical record or at least should have .
Imo it’s they who have been negligent in their medical inquiries after all that’s what they are supposed to be about , the players health.

 

Reading all 90 odd pages of that my summary would be that we are completely incompetent when we have to face a charge or panel. Dr Rush seems to have just guessed at everything he said as been completely dismissed each time. It appears we failed massively to do our homework and to properly prepare for the case which is remarkably similar to our unprofessionalism and lack of planning on the James MacLean racism hearing too. A worrying pattern. However I still can't for the life of me understand the figure arrived at and it seems not to have taken into consideration his cancer diagnosis at all. Their losses are significantly higher during the period he was out with cancer but financially they have put those losses down to the undisclosed medical issues not cancer.

 

I've just read through the redacted final award which was posted above.

It looks like we messed up initially by GG allowing Hull to write up the transfer agreement "to save time" due to the deadline approaching. Hull included a clause which they have claimed against as BFC failed to disclose everything medically about Gus which was available.

BFC's Dr. also knew nothing about the transfer until after it was completed, so did not provide any medical evidence to Hull prior to the transfer, again a "breach" of the clause put in by Hull.

I feel Hull did use Gus' cancer as a reason to not pay the final instalment of 200k, the tribunal, I feel have acted reasonably with their findings and the award, as Hull actually claimed much more.

I'm sure BFC will take this on the chin as a "lesson learned" and I bet nothing like this will happen again.

 

Doesn't matter. If we give a warranty that says we've disclosed everything material in that regard then we're bang to rights if we don't. Hull can say they didn't question the player because they didn't need to in light of our warranty.