Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Mark McCammon in race discrimination claim
- Thread starter Smithy
- Start date
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,625
I can't believe the Argua article states McCammon was on £2.5k a week.
At Gillingham. In 2008. Mark McCammon.
That's £130,000 per year. Basic.
Football has gone MAD.
At Gillingham. In 2008. Mark McCammon.
That's £130,000 per year. Basic.
Football has gone MAD.
BensGrandad
New member
Says he was their top wage earner. Makes you wonder how much they would have paid him if he had been any good.
Last edited:
viscentaye
New member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 328
This - a "right place at the right time" presence but nothing else IMO
Would be surprised if it is found that decisions over his contract were racially motivated!
User removed 4
New member
do me a favour, he was a shit player who they werent willing to waste any more money on, what was his scoring record again?
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Very odd. How could they possibly come to the conclusion that skin colour was an issue here. paul scally is a total c**t to everyone regardless of race.
That is a very good point and really should have been their main point of defence!
It does mention about two other black players and McCammon having to go training in 'treacherous conditions' while some white players didn't have to so maybe that had a bearing on the outcome aswell as the medical argument.
Twinkle Toes
Growing old disgracefully
Although it's a tad late in the day now (regarding today's tribunal outcome), at least the club now has Martin Allen to bring some much-needed harmony to the Gillingham dressing room. 
Last edited:
34064 Fighter Command
New member
So when someone like Adam El Abd or Tommy Elphick are sent for knee surgery to recover from injury you think the club shouldn't pay for it to be done ( overseas ) or for the club to use the services of it's own medical team ( including Dr. Helge Riepenhof, previously Cavendish's doctor at HTC Highroad ) but just tell them to go down to A & E at the Sussex County Hospital?
Dick Knight offered Adam Hinshlewood a new contract whilst still suffering from a potentially career threatening cruciate ligament injury, perhaps we should have just told Adam, ' sorry mate, you're useless to us now, you're on your own..... '
Last edited:
Safeway
M0DERAT0R
I've heard that the other black players were actually loathe to get involved in the case, possibly supporting the argument that McCammon is just a bit of a tosser (as if we didn't know that already).
If we weren't getting our money's worth from any player, I wouldn't give a shiny shite what their skin colour was, I'd be happy for the club to show the same level of committment as the player.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
Or if he was white :longlaugh:
To be honest if Gillingham were prepared to pay that much to him in the first place they deserve everything they get. Surely the person they should not be paying is their scout for not doing any research in the first place. Hard to believe we had him up front last time we were playing in the Championship.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
I haven't read the full details of this but having been involved in some employment tribunals from the employers perspective it seems the Tribunal concluded there was more than enough evidence there was discrimination ie someone being treated unfavourably on grounds of race etc. If GFC were ignorant of this (ignorance is no defence) or worse still knew and allowed it to continue then they hadn't a leg to stand on. Either way it shows a poor management culture. OK the stereotypical manager at a footie club is often seen as the tea cup flinging / hair dryer / blood on the walls disciplinarian type and in return players are expected to man up and accept a bit of stick but falling into the racial discrimination trap is a bit naive. Plus the culture within an organisation is often set in the Boardroom so will be interesting to see whether Scally shrugs his shoulders or comes out and sincerely condemns racism.
Not unusual for even fairly decent employers to lose Tribunals because they are unable to produce objective evidence of how they positively dealt with their employees, so leaves them wide open to claims from aggrieved employees. This speaks volumes about how employees are (not) valued and treated within some organisations.
Not unusual for even fairly decent employers to lose Tribunals because they are unable to produce objective evidence of how they positively dealt with their employees, so leaves them wide open to claims from aggrieved employees. This speaks volumes about how employees are (not) valued and treated within some organisations.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Mark McCammon sues Gillingham for race discrimination | Mail Online
I'm not 100% convinced the grounds were racially motivated, but there does appear to be a case of discrimination, albeit on the face of it at a personal level.
This comes just two weeks after Clarke Carlisle's documentary, and the charges levelled by the FA at John Terry, so it's worth asking the question whether racism still exists in a more subtle form today - does trying to deflect the claim of racially motivated discrimination to being one of a personal discrimination give an excuse for people to try to laugh it off or sweep it under the carpet?
I'm not 100% convinced the grounds were racially motivated, but there does appear to be a case of discrimination, albeit on the face of it at a personal level.
This comes just two weeks after Clarke Carlisle's documentary, and the charges levelled by the FA at John Terry, so it's worth asking the question whether racism still exists in a more subtle form today - does trying to deflect the claim of racially motivated discrimination to being one of a personal discrimination give an excuse for people to try to laugh it off or sweep it under the carpet?
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
To be accused of being racist?
Well as they have been found to have racially victimised him, yes.
But the point I was making was that if they were stupid enough to pay him that sort of money from the start for a contract of that length, then they should pay him in full as per the contract they signed unless they can legally prove he was not fulfilling his duties as an employee (turning up for training etc) as City did with Tevez.
I've got to say that on the medical treatment bit, Mark McCammon's spot on. Clubs DO routinely pay for private medical treatment - of course they do, because they want their players out on the pitch, not sitting around in an NHS queue, where, quite rightly, they are not first priority as a sports injury isn't quite as big a deal as life-saving surgery.