pcbear 10,924 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, K.A.I said: Yeah I said as much the other day in the fact I'm uncomfortable with a club like us maybe scraping the barrel to get any reason to bin him without paying. I get the attraction with it - obviously we've not got a lot of free cash but it doesn't sit right with me, either. We should be doing things right, even for the fact that say (for example) a right top top player becomes available who's maybe a bit of a hot head (not unlike Barton but I can't think of someone's name to use as an example) how do we attract good players when we are under-hand in the way we treat them if it doesn't work out? That's not me sticking up for Barton or slating him either (even though I do want him gone) it's just an observation. In an ideal world there would be a legit, legal and morally decent way to get rid for no cost but that's not the way the world works. I don't think a Joey Barton clone will be heading our way any time soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, pcbear said: I don't think a Joey Barton clone will be heading our way any time soon. That's a relief then Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcbear 10,924 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, K.A.I said: That's a relief then Not wrong, or if anyone is remotely shady the contract should be tailored to suit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger9650 106 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 For all the good that MW has done you do have to question his judgement. Unfortunately like so many other managers his ego let him down with Barton. He thought he would be the one to change the leopard's spots, but they never do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy 735 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, roger9650 said: For all the good that MW has done you do have to question his judgement. Unfortunately like so many other managers his ego let him down with Barton. He thought he would be the one to change the leopard's spots, but they never do. I don't disagree with your post and you may be correct but I still have doubts about whose idea it was sign to sign him in the first place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juniorsparkie 491 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 17 hours ago, Moody Blue said: I find this whole sorry episode very sad....its embarrassing that week after week something happens that extends the suspension. I just want it to end so we can all move on. Well said, the ability to keep dragging this Club into the gutter is fuckin amazing, if we could make money like we make shitstorms we could by Bale wi the loose change. How a fuckin non-entity is now up to nearly 120 pages is beyond me, he says ,she says wtf. There are lawyers involved so all this speculation is exactly that, wind & pish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, Grundy said: I don't disagree with your post and you may be correct but I still have doubts about whose idea it was sign to sign him in the first place. Warburton left/lost his job at Brentford over his refusal to allow signings made over his head based on statistical analysis (something which Warburton is actually a big fan of) but we're to believe his marquee signing of the summer wasn't made by the manager and he then renewed his contract? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcbear 10,924 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, The Dude said: Warburton left/lost his job at Brentford over his refusal to allow signings made over his head based on statistical analysis (something which Warburton is actually a big fan of) but we're to believe his marquee signing of the summer wasn't made by the manager and he then renewed his contract? Warburton wanted him alright ( not many, if any of us were against the signing either) he was the model pro under Warburton's pal Sean Dyce last season, but hey it all turned to shit a bit quick, whose fault? imo Barton for being Barton of old . imagine not being able to cut it in a shit league Joey, toys out the pram to prevent further embarrassment maybe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy 735 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I understand where you're coming from Dude but I just don't think that Barton in any way fits into the template that Warburton set for the type of player he wanted to sign. Could it have been a " marque " signing by the board to appease the fans ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ready1873 3,902 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 On the whole, its a shame its came to this quite predictable mess. Barton is, or was, a quality footballer. Comfortable in possession, disciplined in pitch geography and a neat passer of a football. An ideal acquisition on the face of it, bad his legs have gone but that's another matter. At the end of the day it was a risk that didn't pay off and the sooner he is gone the better in terms of the politics of the club. Don't get me wrong, he may still offer something as a player but I cant see it happening. theredhandofNewcastle, DrLaudrup and Blue Avenger 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evenstevens 914 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I thought he was a terrific signing until I saw him pedalling sand against Killie in the build up to their goal. Said to my dad there and then that although I didnt wish him ill, I hoped something happened to him to keep him out the team as it was obvious he couldn't cope. Didn't see the HOW coming though! But glad it has because we are definitely MUCH better on and off the park without him. Wish I was wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 On 14/10/2016 at 0:54 PM, Sportingintegritymyarse said: Pretty sure given she says it's what has happened, in her opinion, then that's a claim?. Then to back up the reasoning with falsities (I'll give the benefit and not say blatant lies) is wrong. it was implied in a news article I read. Quote So what changed? Maybe there was pressure from Dave King to sign a marquee player. Or were Barton, Hill and Kranjcar more Frank McParland’s men than Warburton’s? http://www.<No links to this website>/sport/football/mark-warburton-realises-importance-real-8956049 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 7 hours ago, The Dude said: That's the thing with it now being a "formal" disciplinary issue. You can't necessarily just use things as a convenient excuse. Especially when Barton had a disciplinary scheduled for Thursday yet his betting charge hearing wasn't originally scheduled until weeks later. Until he's found guilty by the SFA of the betting stuff there's almost nothing we can do about it and if we were to use it as an excuse to bin him before it was dealt with by the SFA it would only bite us in the arse. Why did JB request an extension, is it something to do with the verdict of his SFA hearing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 21 minutes ago, Sweetheart said: Why did JB request an extension, is it something to do with the verdict of his SFA hearing? No. I don't think it was. There's absolutely nothing which has suggested the betting charge has had any part in this. If it did then the meeting would have been cancelled at the clubs request and not the players Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escobar 13,676 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Any news on him today? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearethepeople1 3,897 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, fanaticCR said: Any news on him today? He is a wank not really new news to be fair OhW 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 54,284 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 8 hours ago, Sweetheart said: it was implied in a news article I read. Ah you're now quoting the rhebel as the source. Excellent work. Did the courageous lot there also report that the manager was out of contract? At the time DK stepped in with the marquee signing according to your claim, opinion, suggestion, pose, whatever you deem it to have been. OhW 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,311 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 15 hours ago, The Dude said: It doesn't matter if they were suspended or not. It can't be a disciplinary offence for some and not others. That's how you get the fuck sued out of you. If Barton's bets are excessive (44) then Black's (160 including 3 on his own side) are gargantuan. Of course it can, not for two players under the same contract of employment of course. But perhaps the clubs employment contract changed after the Black betting incident. Why should we have to pay a player who is suspended by the SFA for betting? We may have taken steps to ensure the club is covered should that situation have arisen again. Point is you and I don't know, although you seem very confident you know that Black and JB terms of employment are the same. I think your argument is flawed because of that assumption. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD 7,446 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 8 hours ago, Sweetheart said: it was implied in a news article I read. That's an opinion piece blog. Anyone could write shite and stick it on there. OhW 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,938 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 15 hours ago, The Dude said: It doesn't matter if they were suspended or not. It can't be a disciplinary offence for some and not others. That's how you get the fuck sued out of you. If Barton's bets are excessive (44) then Black's (160 including 3 on his own side) are gargantuan. could argue that its different people running the club now, they may take a harsher, but within legal terms, view of the betting stuff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Big Al II said: Of course it can, not for two players under the same contract of employment of course. But perhaps the clubs employment contract changed after the Black betting incident. Why should we have to pay a player who is suspended by the SFA for betting? We may have taken steps to ensure the club is covered should that situation have arisen again. Point is you and I don't know, although you seem very confident you know that Black and JB terms of employment are the same. I think your argument is flawed because of that assumption. A player's contract will be largely similar other than the remuneration on offer. Any internal disciplinary policy would almost always be same for two employees in an identical role. There wouldn't be a different disciplinary policy implemented for each individual employee. If we have taken steps to 'protect' the club should players be charged with betting offences it would be demonstrable (normally by being explicitly added to any disciplinary policy) but the timings don't bear out that Barton's ban has had anything to do with it. His SFA hearing was originally scheduled for October 27th but his club disciplinary, which was cancelled at the player's request, was on October 13th. If the betting stuff had any part to play in this surely any disciplinary action by the club would need to wait until he'd actually been found guilty of any betting offence by the SFA? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 49 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said: could argue that its different people running the club now, they may take a harsher, but within legal terms, view of the betting stuff Quite possible. Would be easy for them to prove if it's a formal disciplinary issue. I just don't think the timings of it has giving it any credence at all. Disciplinary was scheduled for a fortnight before any SFA hearing. Given it's a minor disciplinary issue with the SFA (he'll probably get a one game ban with maybe another one suspended), is it any bigger of an issue than Warburton being banned by the SFA for reaction at Pittodrie? One thing they COULD do is that he's "brought the brand/company into disrepute" by his actions and the negative publicity, although that can be really hard to use to justify a dismissal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, MasterD said: That's an opinion piece blog. Anyone could write shite and stick it on there. I sometimes do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,311 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Dude said: A player's contract will be largely similar other than the remuneration on offer. Any internal disciplinary policy would almost always be same for two employees in an identical role. There wouldn't be a different disciplinary policy implemented for each individual employee. If we have taken steps to 'protect' the club should players be charged with betting offences it would be demonstrable (normally by being explicitly added to any disciplinary policy) but the timings don't bear out that Barton's ban has had anything to do with it. His SFA hearing was originally scheduled for October 27th but his club disciplinary, which was cancelled at the player's request, was on October 13th. If the betting stuff had any part to play in this surely any disciplinary action by the club would need to wait until he'd actually been found guilty of any betting offence by the SFA? Unless of course the base contract altered due to a previous event, which was exactly my point. Black ban could have been such an event. As for your other point I never said it was anything to do with it. I said your argument that Black wasn't suspended so Barton couldn't be, was fundamentally flawed...and it is Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 7 minutes ago, Big Al II said: Unless of course the base contract altered due to a previous event, which was exactly my point. Black ban could have been such an event. As for your other point I never said it was anything to do with it. I said your argument that Black wasn't suspended so Barton couldn't be, was fundamentally flawed...and it is And if you go back to when I first brought up the point of Black & Simonsen not being subject to club disciplinary proceeding I said that they would need to be able to show they had changed the disciplinary process to include it as an 'offence' (or likely to be). 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.