McCririck's Damages Suit

Grasshopper

Grasshopper

Senior Jockey
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
16,050
It seems they are in some form of pre-trial hearing, and McCririck is laying out his case for "being sacked for being old".

He clearly doesn't appreciate that he was actually sacked for being a boorish arse who contributed little, and whose tiresome circus-act had long out-stayed its welcome; a man beyond parody.

If I've followed his pitch correctly, his understanding of employment law also seems as threadbare as that bird's nest that passes for his barnet.

I bet 4/9 that he uses the word "Infamy" during his press-conference, when his case is thrown down the front-steps of the Court, with a boot up its hole.
 
What a leech

From Greg Wood:

"Thomas Linden QC, representing Channel 4, said that, according to evidence submitted by McCririck's accountants, the presenter's Channel 4 salary was £152,500 in 2001 and increased in line with inflation until 2006, when it was cut to £90,000. He also received a £100,000 signing-on fee from the satellite broadcaster At the Races when he joined its staff in 2004, in addition to a "service fee" of £100,000 per annum.
McCririck later reverted to a day rate of £2,000 with At the Races, while he also received a number of payments of £5,000 for a column in The Sun newspaper, which were paid by the betting exchange Betfair. The case continues."

Full story here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/03/john-mccririck-employment-tribunal-channel-4
 
Perpetual said:
What a leech

From Greg Wood:

"Thomas Linden QC, representing Channel 4, said that, according to evidence submitted by McCririck's accountants, the presenter's Channel 4 salary was £152,500 in 2001 and increased in line with inflation until 2006, when it was cut to £90,000. He also received a £100,000 signing-on fee from the satellite broadcaster At the Races when he joined its staff in 2004, in addition to a "service fee" of £100,000 per annum.
McCririck later reverted to a day rate of £2,000 with At the Races, while he also received a number of payments of £5,000 for a column in The Sun newspaper, which were paid by the betting exchange Betfair. The case continues."

Full story here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/03/john-mccririck-employment-tribunal-channel-4
Click to expand...

If they are stupid enough to pay him the money, can you blame him for taking it? I would imagine it's actually not that highly paid compared to some TV jobs (though I must admit I have no notion if this is true or not).
 
Don't blame him for taking the cash, (easy money) but f*ck me, £265k+ p.a. in 2004-2006 for being a loud mouthed oaf??

I do think leech is an apt word to describe him. He’s taken taken taken from horse racing/gambling, but can’t think of anything he gives back or offers to the game. A horrible sad man and have to turn the sound down when he’s on. It’s a shame he’s not going to be hit in the wallet for his legal expenses (no win no fee I think) as HAS to lose this case
 
Ridiculous statements about the money he receives. He's not my cup of tea at all and I find his sexist attitudes pretty unpleasant but it's his arrangement with private employers. So what?

Rather more bothered about the talentless "tick box"presenters that infect the BBC (specifically radio 5 smug) who's salaries are directly out of our taxes

It's bad enough having to charge across the room to slam the radio off when that self regarding cnt Colin Murray comes on without having to know that every penny he receives is straight out of our pockets
 
Last edited:
I must say that I am in agreement with this.

Who cares how much a private company pays a TV personality?

It doesn't sound astronomical, either. TV and radio presenters are paid quite a bit of money. If you were to set up a racing media organisation around 10 years ago, one of the best ways to get viewers and attention would be to hire Big Mac. He is (unfortunately) one of the few racing personalities that transcends into the wider public consciousness. My mother (for instance) would only really know Big Mac, Ted Walsh, Frankie Dettori and possibly Aidan O'Brien.

So paying him well to represent your fledgling organisation is a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

I don't think he is an entertaining, informative or interesting presenter. But he is certainly recognisable.
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
I must say that I am in agreement with this.

Who cares how much a private company pays a TV personality?

It doesn't sound astronomical, either. TV and radio presenters are paid quite a bit of money. If you were to set up a racing media organisation around 10 years ago, one of the best ways to get viewers and attention would be to hire Big Mac. He is (unfortunately) one of the few racing personalities that transcends into the wider public consciousness. My mother (for instance) would only really know Big Mac, Ted Walsh, Frankie Dettori and possibly Aidan O'Brien.

So paying him well to represent your fledgling organisation is a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

I don't think he is an entertaining, informative or interesting presenter. But he is certainly recognisable.
Click to expand...

good post B
 
A man whose views could unite and divide, but were still essentially harmless. He wasn't and never will run the country. And most importantly a man who loved the betting ring. I couldn't imagine Big Mac in a dark room playing on betfair! If we want utopian broadcasters of the sport, who pander to the authorities, can't criticise anybody and get pushed around by the powers that be then that is what we'll get, and no moaning when that happens please. I hope he wins his court case just to stick it to the new brigade of weak intellectuals and 'perfect and nice' broadcasters, that don't reflect the real world or the betting man for that matter.

Its a grisly, winner takes all sport and Big Mac reflects that nicely. I love the way people act like tree huggers on here, so superficial.
We've lost all authenticity in racing broadcasting, very few original thinkers left imo. People just repeating timeform figures is about as original as it gets these days. Its looking like a knobs game. At least Big Mac was a knob with an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Chris Cook in The Guardian

John McCririck, who is suing Channel 4 for £3m in damages over the loss of his job as the station's betting-ring reporter, said on Tuesday that he is now "unemployable" and that adjusting to life without regular television work has been "very hard".

"You lose your purpose," McCririck said. "I've worked all my life. I've never missed a day's work in my life, I've never been late for a job in my life, you live to work. I've become a Jeremy Kyle addict."

McCririck was speaking at the end of a preliminary hearing into his case against Channel 4, which alleges that the station was motivated by ageism when it dispensed with his services at the end of 2012. Justice Anthony Snelson has reserved judgment on whether the case should move to a full employment tribunal this year and is not expecting to deliver his ruling for several weeks.

"It is the same with hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly lose their jobs," McCririck said. "I'm now unemployable.

"People are saying to me, if you had your way, you'd go on until you're 90 or 100, [but] it is the ability to do the job. They have brought no one in who can do the job better than I can.

"It's been really stressful, it takes it out of you. I'm not doing any work now. I do odd little bits and pieces but there's no work coming in."

McCririck is claiming £500,000 from Channel 4 for loss of future earnings and £2.5m as a "whopping, punitive punishment" for age discrimination. "It's the only ambition I've got in life," he said, "to make a mark for anyone who fears for their job, [it is] the scourge of our society among older people."

Earlier in the day the hearing heard that Channel 4 had made a payment of £20,000 to McCririck following a decision to reduce the number of days he worked for the station each year.

"Kevin Lygo [the senior Channel 4 executive who authorised the payment] expressed to me that we didn't want a dispute with John," Stuart Cosgrove, Channel 4's director of creative diversity, said in evidence to the hearing.

"And we certainly didn't want a dispute spilling out into the press. At no stage did we ever feel threatened by John but what we did fear was that John's relationship with the press is one where his character attracts attention. We didn't want a public fallout with him."
 
I`d be sure they are glad he is gone, each contact I have had with him he has come across as a pompous oaf, and that is what he is. Gives the game a bad name. With the old school tie connection he may get a few quid but he doesn't deserve it
 
Try this line next time you have a meeting with your boss.

"My experience, qualifications and work have always been exemplary and remain unimpaired,"
Click to expand...

He's doing it for you lot, not the money.

"This is more important than waving my arms around on television and going on celebrity programmes. Prejudice against older people is affecting so many people."
Click to expand...
 
What price do people think McCririck is to win this case?

Being a naturally cautious type, I'll err on the side of caution and say...oh, I dunno.....a billion-to-one??
 
I guess he has the right to make an argument but this is unwinnable regardless of the sums demanded.

Only John Cage could win this.
 
John McCririck's employment tribunal is set to begin on September 30 as the former presenter continues his legal battle with Channel 4.

The 73-year-old is taking his former employer and TV production company IMG Media Limited to a tribunal, alleging his sacking last year was motivated by age discrimination.

McCririck was given the go-ahead to take the case to a final hearing following a pre-hearing review in early June.

A date for that hearing has now been set, with the case pencilled in for seven days at the Central London Employment Tribunal.

In a statement to Press Association Sport, McCririck said: "All I want is my job back. Then my £3million age discrimination case would be settled immediately.

"Ever since I was sacked, after 29 years, in a phone call by Channel 4's sports editor Jamie Aitchison, I have been amazed, yet humbled ,at the support from colleagues, racing pros and, emotionally, the public, both personally and in messages.

"Unfortunately anonymous suits and skirts who control the media, and all business organisations, take pride in not changing their minds.

"Now Channel 4's David Abraham, Jay Hunt, Aitchison and IMG'S Carl Hicks will be answerable in public, under cross examination from my employment specialist barrister Jennifer Eadie QC.

"I realise taking on powerful entrenched conglomerates will be a daunting ordeal, but this could be a landmark tribunal for implementing a crucial part of the Equality Act 2010.

"Millions of employees in their 30s to their 70s with their ability unimpaired dread being replaced by someone of lesser or even equal merit just because of their age.

"A punitive exemplary financial penalty against Channel 4 and IMG would ensure that never again any employer dare use age as justification for arbitrarily destroying working lives."
 
Back
Top