[peterswellman]

Taken from Football365.com - Home - Football365 News - Transfer News, Gossip, Football News And Views, England, Champions League And Premiership, Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool

Barnsley owner Patrick Cryne insists the club will still pursue legal action against Sheffield United over Iain Hume's injury even if they are not relegated to League One.

Hume joined the Tykes from Leicester last summer but has not featured since suffering a fractured skull following a challenge by Sheffield United defender Chris Morgan five months ago.

Seventeen MPs have signed an Early Day Motion asking the FA to take action against Morgan and Barnsley are currently seeking legal advice.

"We are looking at the legal hurdles in the way of seeking to recover damages from Sheffield United. Our action will not be dependent on whether we are relegated," Cryne told the Yorkshire Post.

"Our argument is, simply, that we paid a lot of money for Iain Hume in transfer fee and wages and we have lost his services through a violent, reckless, or intentional act.

"His loss to Barnsley FC had a serious impact on our season."

Well if it was against anyone else other Sheffield United I would think it's wrong but after their behaviour over the Tevez affair they deserve it.

 

[peterswellman]

So for every injury as a result of a tackle, clubs should have the right to sue eachother? No football would ever be played because everybody would be in court full time.

Sheffield United did nothing wrong either, they were relegated because West Ham fielded an ineligible player. Sheff should have stayed in the Prem and West Ham should have been relegated.

They bitched and moaned about it. Put it simple they had their fate in their own hands and they just simply weren't godo enough. Tevez or not. They behaved so petty afterwards. they deserve everything they get in my eyes.

 

[peterswellman]

I really don't understand what you think Sheff Utd did wrong

Basicially they didn't win enough of games or collect enough of points to stay up.

 

[peterswellman]

They did, but another team cheated to gain more points, as was proven in a court of law.

They had it in there own hands though. They could have easily stayed up. Didn't they even beat West Ham? They had the chance to finish off the job and couldn't do it.

 

[peterswellman]

The point is Dave that West Ham cheated to avoid relegation and Sheffield United had every right to kick up a fuss. the courts agreed, the league agreed, the FA agreed and almost everybody else in football agreed. Every other club that has fielded an ineligible player has either been deducted points or kicked out of the cup, West Ham should have been given the same punishment but the league bottled it because West Ham are a big club and Sheff Utd are not.

They were punished though Zuco. It was a record fine at the time and I think it still is.

Tbf, if it was really reinstation they wanted they didn't try very hard. The corporate guys got greedy and just thought of the money. It came down to £10million in teh end over 5 years. Talk about sheer greed. It wasn't like they were fighting the good fight. They were fighting for their pocket and simple greed. I lost some respect for them over that. If they rejected the money and demanded to have some stucture put in place where they have another crack at the PL. Then that would have been fair enough. Especially if every club like you said agreed with them, they would have no problem. Alas, they just wanted money at the end of the day.

 

[peterswellman]

To be fair Dave, 10 million is pennies compared to the money they would have got for staying in the Premiership. West ham didn't have a leg to stand on, Sheffield united were 100% in the right and have no blame in this whatsoever.

Oh don't get me wrong mate. I know. It's probably costs United £30 million.

But why did they go chasing the money? If I were United, I would have given up after the points deduction wasn't given. Saying that I would want my club to fight tooth and nail for our status. They only started truly fighting when it came down to how much money they could earn. That's the thing I think is wrong.

 

[peterswellman]

They fought to get as much money as possible that they'd lost as a result of being relegated. They did absolutely nothing wrong.

Why didn't they fight tooth and nail for their status? I would want my club to say 'stick the money'. We want our status or nothing. Being in the Premiership should have been the only concern. Not the amount of money they could recieve from it. A one season 21 PL teams season would have been the fairest. Four relegations with only three up.

It was only one player. Like I said, if they were good enough they would have stayed up because they really had their own fate in their own hands.

 

[peterswellman]

No amount of logic will help me win this argument. You've clearly made your mind up so I'll leave you to it.

I guess not.

 

[peterswellman]

this is not logical. it was westham's fault. and what if the 4 dont include sheff united and westham? the club at the 17th position would be kicking out a great fuss.

your logic is flawed.

Why? it would be just for one season and surly if like Zuco said all the clubs agreed with Sheffield United then let them have that extra spot. Not flawed at all, just one way of dealing with it. The bolded parts work.

I don't understand by the way, whats the difference between Liverpool fielding Mascherano and West Ham field Tevez that year? Poor paperwork?