Today's Yorkshire Post

That was an individual taking action against a single player

What is being suggested here is that Barnsley as a club suing Sheff Utd as a club for compensation. I agree that Hume individually is entitled to take Morgan to court for damages, but in respect of the club suing , I think its a strange thing to do. All clubs run the risk of losing players through injury.

I am uncomfortable with all this blame and sue culture we are living in.

 

Hume would launch an action in the civil courts. The claim would be in negligence. He would have to show that Morgan owed him a duty of care
(as a fellow professional on a football field then this is highly likely to be met), he would then have to prove that Morgan breached that duty of care, on the balance of probabilities. The question would be, did Chris Morgan's actions fall below the standard of a reasonable professional in this scenario. This would be a question of fact based on the evidence but before the court. The court would examine the video footage for example and each side would call an "expert" to put forward their evidence and opinion on the footage.

If this is proven then Hume would have to show a causal link between Morgan's act and his injury (easy). The final hurdle to overcome would be then to show that any losses that Hume suffers as a consequence are reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. This is where loss of bonuses (but not a wage because he is still being paid by BFC) and future loss of earnings become relevant. This becomes more tricky.

If BFC were to sue then it would be along the same path I imagine, however the big difference is that the action would be in damage to "property" and as Hume is not a Chattel (i.e. a chair, table etc) and a person then, at present, it is not possible to bring this action. However, we would have to challenge the legal precedent (which is fairly archaic) that a person can not constitute a chattel in this type of action.

It will be a pretty interesting (but very expensive) case to follow.

 

someone on here made that statement after going to the meeting

can't remember who

 

But I do think that our initial mentioning of....

legal action influenced the (in)decision of the FA.</p>

They did not want to end up in the dock should they have taken further action over and above the laws of the game i.e. the ref had &quot;punished&quot; the offence, which they surely would have done.</p>

 

Who do you think will win and lose at the end of all this?

There'll be two winners: lawayers and insurance companies. And there'll be one loser: the fans.

Say we do take this to court and we win. BFC will get half the compensation figure and the other half will go to our lawyers. Then next season a club sues us as one of their players gets injured in a match against Barnsley, so we use the money we won from Sheff Utd to pay our lawyers to defend us. We lose and have to pay a big sum to the other club, so we're already massively down on the deal, while our lawyers have been paid twice.

Football clubs then realise they have to take out massive insurance policies to protect them against other clubs suing them as it's happening all the time, so there's another expense. Lawyers are getting rich, insurance companies are getting rich, football clubs are really feeling the pinch and have to pass on all this new outlay to the fans who find out that their season tickets and match day tickets have suddenly doubled in price to pay for all the litigation.

I can't believe anyone is celebrating this.

 

Crikey - sounds like the sort of thing that could rumble on for ages - unless United/Morgan settled out of court ?</p>

Or we may decide to try and set legal precedent. Scary stuff.
</p>

 

Yeah sod it, we should should overlook the deliberate elbow and forget about it.

 

I would expect Hume's case to settle early(ish) given that I don't think Sheffield United/Morgan have a leg to stand on and the way offers work in personal injury law make it unusual for cases to proceed as refusal can lead to costs orders. Regarding our case, you're right, it will rumble on for ages. It will be nice to get some compensation for our League 2 promotion push however.

 

Ahh, sarcasm

That's really helpful mate, well done. Nice tone.

If we really want to do something about it we should be lobbying other clubs to get together to overturn the FIFA ruling that once a yellow card is given it can't be overturned. The real injustice here is that the FA didn't act. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to open the floodgates so that every club can sue one another over an injured player.

 

RE: Who do you think will win and lose at the end of all this?

If we won in court then our costs would be borne by the other side, more than likely. I see where you are coming from but I don't think it is a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to what happened.

At present there is only one loser - Barnsley Football Club together with Iain Hume. However, Iain Hume should have a pretty viable avenue to put right this wrong. At present, we do not.

 

Two things I hope will come out of it

1) Clubs will stop inciting (allegedly) players to commit violent criminal acts on a football field

2) The FA and/or football league will amend their procedures to ensure that such acts are punished properly in the future.

And yes you are right, like many on here I am celebrating it. I think it is only right and proper that the person/people responsible for such actions as occurred that day be made to account for their actions/words.

 

you've made some pretty big and erroneous assumptions....

</p>

....regarding the proportion of costs and who would bear them.</p>

 

RE: Ahh, sarcasm

I agree with you about the FIFA ruling, by the way. That is at the root of the problem.

 

Hehe, 'progress'.

 

That's exactly what we should be doing...

</p>

...if the injury is the result of premeditated assult.</p>

 

Oh, I see. Sarcasm is only acceptable when you use it. I get it now.

I don't think 'What we are doing is trying to open the floodgates so that every club can sue one another over an injured player" I think the club is trying to stand by their employee whose career, it would appear, is potentially finished. If doctors aren't actually willing to give him the all clear it's pretty ominous I think.

The club spent £1.2 million on him and if we are to take into account a number of incidents throughout the game, comments by a Sheff U player on television about suggested instructions from their manager on how to deal with tricky opposition players. I think the club are taking the stance that Sheff U both encouraged and endorsed those actions which have been detrimental to the club as a whole throughout the season, not just a couple of points. I think the irony that it's Sheffield United at the end of a potential legal action is beautiful.

 

RE: you've made some pretty big and erroneous assumptions....

Maybe Sheff Utd would have to pay our legal costs, but my point is the lawyers on both sides have to be paid. When we are sued in the future, which we invariably will, if we lose then we'll have to pay the costs of both sides. Either way, a fair percentage of the compensation money is going out of football and in to the hands of lawyers. Money that football clubs cannot afford to lose and has to be paid for from somewhere. That somewhere will be increased admission prices.

 

You make it sound, or try to make it sound like this kind of GBH incident happens in every game Jay. It really doesn't. How many players careers ended at the weekend due to a deliberate assault.

I'll just google it.

 

RE: you've made some pretty big and erroneous assumptions....

Why should we expect to be sued in the future?

I'm trying to think of an incident where an opposition player sustained a career threatening injury and one of our players was held responsible.

 

so these 'experts' would have to convince the court that morgan acted in a way that is below the normal actions of a footballer in that situation. They could simply play any MOTD and see that 'clashes' happen every week. I'm still not convinced that it will be successful. Surely it would open the flood gates. How many players have had a week, month or even season out due to a foul or challenge that went too far. This would also apply to other sports, rugby for example, what is below the norm?

The other side of me also fears this is another deflection from the real reason we are 4th bottom.