ritchieshearercaldow 22,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Probably only talking about his book and nothing else but maybe they'll try getting something BTW only started this thread to inform any Bears if they want to listen or even interested. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amato 3,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said: Probably only talking about his book and nothing else but maybe they'll try getting something Is he genuinely scheduled to be on? What time? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Get the impression he doesn't give a fuck, he's probably loving the attention, using it to plug his book Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Amato said: Is he genuinely scheduled to be on? What time? No idea m8, him and some other guy on, talking about his book. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,016 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Of course he is!!! He just can't help himself, just doesn't give a flying fuck. Wanker.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reformation Bear 6,453 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Whether by incompetence (which would not surprise me) or design the Club statement is vague. "Neither party will make any further statement or comment on this issue" The reason it appears vague is what is the issue that is referred to? Is the issue the 3 week suspension? Is it the events that occurred leading to the decision to suspend? Is it both? Point is, unless both parties left the meeting with crystal clear understanding on what was meant by 'issue' then it may leave scope for one party or the other to comment because its not considered to be included in the scope of the 'issue'. Maybe they were wise and signed a joint note defining precisely what could and could not be discussed - Rangers will have known full well that Barton has a book release and media appointments related to that and is bound to come under questioning from reporters about todays events. The Club statement is too shorthand in its notification that neither will discuss the 'issue' - it does nothing whatsoever to make it clear to the media what is off limits for discussion. Incompetent or deliberate? Are they in fact looking for the media to bait Barton into talking about an aspect which Rangers then bleat in protest that Barton has breached the agreement about not discussing the 'issue'. I still do not think the Club is handling this competently. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFCstuart 317 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Apparently it's a pre recorded interview. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,560 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Listening late last night they said next week they would have all these guests on on the afternoon and his name was among them. It could well be recorded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Hold it Bears, just said he's not on until Wednesday Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amato 3,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Jim White should get him on his show and ask him "Joey, how come you're such a fanny?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,010 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 Changed the title. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,556 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 37 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said: Whether by incompetence (which would not surprise me) or design the Club statement is vague. "Neither party will make any further statement or comment on this issue" The reason it appears vague is what is the issue that is referred to? Is the issue the 3 week suspension? Is it the events that occurred leading to the decision to suspend? Is it both? Point is, unless both parties left the meeting with crystal clear understanding on what was meant by 'issue' then it may leave scope for one party or the other to comment because its not considered to be included in the scope of the 'issue'. Maybe they were wise and signed a joint note defining precisely what could and could not be discussed - Rangers will have known full well that Barton has a book release and media appointments related to that and is bound to come under questioning from reporters about todays events. The Club statement is too shorthand in its notification that neither will discuss the 'issue' - it does nothing whatsoever to make it clear to the media what is off limits for discussion. Incompetent or deliberate? Are they in fact looking for the media to bait Barton into talking about an aspect which Rangers then bleat in protest that Barton has breached the agreement about not discussing the 'issue'. I still do not think the Club is handling this competently. Not sure what you expect the club to say? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.