SCALLY SHOULD RESIGN NOW

[Rimshot]

With the news that both PDPS and the club have been fined £75,000 for 'racial victimisation' comes the predictable rant from our esteemed chairman along with notice of his intention to appeal. Another lot of solicitors' fees down the drain no doubt along with our reputation. At the end of this debacle we'll be in the order of £250,000 out of pocket with the club's name dragged through the mire.
If this were any other employee of the club they would be summarily sacked. Scally should go now but of course he won't. As ever it's the rest of the world that is wrong. Shame on him, confirmed as a disreputable racist for a second time.

[mark8364]

Have you read the whole report???????????? He is not a racist...the FA report said there was no evidence to suggest he was! Don't make up stuff to fill your own agenda! The issue wasn't dealt with properly that is true, but the club were cleared of racial discrimination! What I find staggering is there was no comeback on McCammon for falsely accusing Andy Hessenthaler and Nicky Southall of being racist! No counter claim against McCammon for calling Jack Payne ''a little white boy'' Isn't that racist?

[Garawa]

I did think the whole thing ultimately came down down to errors and not about being guilty of it. I thought I also read that the bill was picked up by insurers and not the club (or something along those lines).

I guess the whole thing left a nasty taste and the desire to counter-claim and drag it again wasn't enough. That said it has all been handled appallingly and I presume the FA needed to prove they were being tough on "racism".

[mark8364]

It's pretty ironic though that the only actual racist comment from the whole incident was McCammon calling Jack Payne '' a little white boy"

[Rimshot]

Mark, with respect I don't really think you understand the issues and the law. This is fundamentally about the processes involved; not any statements made personally by Scally or anyone else. The ruling confirmed that Scally and GFC applied different standards and policies to players based on their colour, To draw a comparison if you were shown to have rented rooms to people based on their skin colour that would be enough, you wouldn't have had to advertise that fact on posters or said it face to face.

There's no insurance policy that I know of which indemnifies you against breaking the law and ruining your reputation by the way. This is now the third time GFC has been ruled against on racial issues - when are you going to stop being an apologist for this deeply unpleasant individual ?

[Garawa]

I would agree if that was the case but, and I may be well off the mark, I believe it is all a very grey area. One article from the BBC says the case was based on the fact McCammon was "refused treatment for an injury, docked wages and was fined for not turning up to training". McCammon says it was because he was black and the club were found guilty. However my understanding was the club wasn't found guilty of racism and instead lost the case because of an error by the solicitors who footed the bill (if I am confusing this with another case please correct me)! Furthermore the statement "We see no evidence which supports a conclusion that there was any actual race discrimination against Mr McCammon” suggests it was the club's failure to adequately prove it wasn't because of the colour of his skin rather than McCammon proving it was and that would be the fault of the solicitors.

I found this on the Employment Tribunal website which possibly backs up the clubs position and states

"The ET did not find either party's version of events reliable but held that the claimant had proved facts from which it could conclude that the dismissal was because of the protected act. The respondent had failed to show that it was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of a protected act and further that the accusations were either false, or that the claimant did not believe them to be true".

This statement basically says both were economical with the truth but the club failed to prove what occurred was not because of skin colour. Quite frankly how could they? If you sack someone who was useless they were not white British how possibly could you prove it WASN'T because of race? It's impossible! Perhaps the solicitors failed to adequately defend that accusation and pay the fines? Also the case hinged on the fact he was made to come in for training. The tribunal mentions injured players were not required to and neither also was Jack Payne, however despite saying they were unable to, Weston, Gowling and McCammon came in after being ordered to "along with all other members of staff". It is here the "little white boy" comment was used. I've given individual staff members the day off before, who hasn't, but the fact everyone else came in suggests they weren't singled out especially and that this proved to be a lie.

It is messy and embarrassing and the club have handled things badly but I don't see how we are guilty of racism and without saying so due to insufficient proof, neither do the employment tribunal!

[Rimshot]

The key facts were related to different treatment of white and black players, specifically MM. No doubt Scally's attitutude hasn't helped but don't make the mistake of thinking that tribunals and courts rush to judgement in cases of racial discrimination. Very few are held to be proven and I believe we are the only league football club in the country to have been found in breach of this law.

Typically our Chairman goes on complaining and protesting, instead of committing himself to fair dealings. MM may well have been a difficult and truculent individual to deal with but can you imagine what it must be like to work for Scally and fall out with him?

We don't have a great reputation as it is, does it matter? I suspect that when it comes to refs decision making, co-operation on policing, support from sponsors and businesses, involvement from schools and youth organisations, media friendly coverage,player loans and transfers then it probably does. Would you be more or less likely to take your family to a club branded as racist?

[baronnight]

We were not found guilty of racial discrimination either by the tribunal or the FA, both said there was no evidence to support black/white players being treated differently.

Just before this case went to tribunal the law changed or was updated to say that anyone who makes a complaint regarding sexual, racial, religious, gender discrimination even if proved unsupported could not be sacked for making the claim. The solicitor acting for GFC had failed to pick-up on this and made reference to the false claim on the letter of discharge thus leaving the club open to unfair dismissal claims. Unfortunately this is termed as racial victimisation and the press only see the word racial and make up the rest.

[Garawa]

Thanks for that Barron, I thought it was something along those lines and it was this then where the solicitors failed and picked up the tab.

[Rimshot]

I suggest you read the judgement and the reasons for us being fined. It is simply denying the facts to pretend we've done nothing wrong and that this is simply errors of process. Swallowing Scally's propaganda guys ...I thought by now you would know him better than that.

He pulled the same stunt with Pulis, lost the case and presented it as if he had won. He is a serial litigator and invariably loses.

If we had done nothing wrong we wouldn't be getting judgements against us from a series of different bodies.

[Garawa]

"Swallowing Scally's Propaganda"? My quotes came from the Employment Tribunal website!

[Rimshot]

"'The employment tribunal held that Mr McCammon had been unfairly dismissed and that his dismissal was an act of race victimisation by both his employer and its Chairman Mr Scally."
For goodness' sake, if they hadn't found against us there would be no fines, no appeals, no further rulings by the FA. !!!