Costly day in court for Barnsley

I did try to wade through the document but gave up as it is mind-numbing. But, am I right in thinking that basically, Hull City sent over their draft contract for the purchase, which normally the selling side do, Barnsley accepted the draft, but failed to notice the clause 9 (J) (Which is not a clause they have in their standard contract) which stated the sellers side should disclose all the player medical history, which they failed to do?

If so, then someone's head has to roll in Barnsley.

 

Clearly Barnsley's legal advisors are culpable if that is the case. Not easy to get money back from lawyers with their culture of "in my opinion" get-out clauses.

 

It seems that there are generic Premier & EFL transfer of player 'contracts'. In this instance (and here's a rarity for you) Ehab deserves praise for inserting the key (to the whole case) clause 9 j within the transfer doc - which basically said (to Barnsley) if there any health issues about Angus we don't know about someone will get a slap.

It appears that the phrase 'always read the small print before signing anything' is not well known in Barnsley. It also appears that all those involved on Barnsleys side at the time of the transfer, are no longer employed by them. Make of that what you will.

So by the time the final £200k was to be paid by City, Angus was having health issues (which thankfully he recovered from as we know), and City said **** that for a game of soldiers and refused to pay.

Ultimately the Panel found in City's favour on the basis on clause 9j, i.e. crucial medical info had not been disclosed, but not necessarily deliberately withheld, which may have put the transfer in question.

Interesting also to read that AMc was on £1.5k a week at Torquay, which increased on transfer to Barnsley to £6k minimum, increasing to £7.25k per week with City. However, (twice in one post) credit to the Allams in the way the contract with AMc was written, apparently salary would have risen in we got promoted to the Prem, but would be cut by 40% automatically on relegation. Perhaps that is standard for all players City sign (and so it should be in my opinion) if they don't perform they shouldn't still be rolling in cash.

Now all they need to do is sort out the Leeds, Man U and Liverpool **** shows.

 

From memory the council were afraid if houses were built there, the new householders would complain about the existing industry around them. My son-in-law used to DJ at Jazz Bar, on Lowgate, after a few years the properties above were converted to flats. The new residents complained about the loudness of the music to the council, they made the bar turn the sound down. Unfair, but...

 

Fifty yards up the road on the left is another housing estate opposite the old clothes factor.

 

Oh I might read it then.
I could do with a good night's sleep.

 

That's not the full application. It covers the other side of the road to the north too. It's not that much nearer than the existing housing, and hardly different to many other areas in the great scheme of things.

There's little if any 'heavy' industry in Hull.

 

The housing estate is across the road. It is not in the middle either, it is on the edge of an industrial estate, the main road to the housing estate runs alongside it.
Also if it was 'in the middle of an industrial estate' wouldn't it make the apartments difficult to let ?

 

And a school and a day centre for the disabled and people with learning difficulties. Case in on the road junction.

 

Thanks for that, and credit to the Allam's including such a clause.