All Barton Chat.

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No-one has made any comparison of their footballing abilities. Just their conduct whilst a Rangers player. 

Agreed - to a degree you can condone a flawed personality of a genius, which Gascoigne is/was - Barton is neither a genius or a flawed personality. He's too unpopular for me and I think for Rangers too.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

its a shambles in more ways than one believe you me !

[Fergie_6 1,078]

2 hours ago, BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT said:

Where's this ?

Rangers.co.uk

[Bears r us 30,798]

2 hours ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

its a shambles in more ways than one believe you me !

Interesting post B D, a bit of inside info maybe. 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

26 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

Interesting post B D, a bit of inside info maybe. 

Time will tell, we are on the road we are on and that's it ! 

[Bad Robot 21,151]

3 hours ago, thehost said:

This board couldn't run a fucking bath. What a farce.

I'm presuming your meaning the suspension of JB but how come it's a farce of the board if there's an HR process to follow?

[Rangersfansmediawatch 1,055]

Rangers board-  Emm hello is that you Joey

Barton- aye who's this

Rangers board- emm it's your employers,can you come and attend a meeting on this date.

Barton- hold on a minute.... Naw i'm a bit busy but i can come in when i'm not busy.

Rangers board- emm aye ok then Joey,Just give us a call when your ready.

[thehost 11,061]

1 minute ago, Bad Robot said:

I'm presuming your meaning the suspension of JB but how come it's a farce of the board if there's an HR process to follow?

HR!!!!Q it's a fucking football club.

 

we obvi7want rid of him but can't pay him off. The board should have thought about it before going down this route. They are not only plotless but clueless.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

4 hours ago, gsa said:

The worst of Gascoigne was physically assaulting his wife. Inexcusable and repulsive. 

Pissing on a teammate is completely revolting however I don't think his intent was malicious.

Barton has a history of assault (including a young teammate), trouble making, attention seeking and generally disruptive behaviour. He's also served time at Her Majesty's pleasure. 

In my opinion Gazza suffers from serious mental health problems, the fame that came with his ability as a footballer probably exacerbated his condition. I'm not excusing his behaviour or condoning it but I certainly don't think he was someone fully in control of his actions. Barton seems more calculating. 

What's his excuse for a decade of attention seeking and strife wherever he has been? 

For you to pass off Gazza and Bartons behaviour as comparable strikes me as odd? 

You also seem to know for certain that all Barton did was argue with the manager? How do you know this? 

 

Just to let you know it was during a party that the young team mate thought it would be funny to set Barton's shirt on fire, so Barton Reciprocated. Not defending him, but the "young team mate" was a little cunt as well by the sounds of it.

[Bad Robot 21,151]

14 minutes ago, thehost said:

HR!!!!Q it's a fucking football club.

 

we obvi7want rid of him but can't pay him off. The board should have thought about it before going down this route. They are not only plotless but clueless.

So we don't have an HR because we're a football club that's just a nonsense.

 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

I'm presuming your meaning the suspension of JB but how come it's a farce of the board if there's an HR process to follow?

There's been a few things. After the initial few days where he was sent away he should have been suspended pending an outcome. By putting timescales on it the club have continually created a situation where as the end of the suspension draws near, the stories built up and then the suspension was extended. 

 

If we're trying to sack him without a payoff for gross misconduct (or something like) then he'd really have been gone by now. Any event that would warrant a sacking, that apparently happened in front of a full dressing room, shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long to have evidenced and then made a decision on. 

 

If its been Barton who has continually delayed the formal disciplinary process, without good reason, then the club are entirely within their rights to proceed without any involvement from the player.

 

Most importantly, imo, if this has just been a verbal thing then it should never have become a formal disciplinary issue. It's not exactly a rare occurrence at a football club, particularly ones where results aren't going right, and if they were all to end in formal disciplinaries clubs would sack at least one player every season. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

16 hours ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:

You're right, we have no idea what's happened.  However, if you read back in this thread you'll see people ready to believe and overreact to any negative Barton story or unsubstantiated rumour.  Yet, Weir apparently throwing Barton across a room is something we shouldn't believe without evidence but many would applaud if it turned out to be true.  The rumour doesn't need to be factual in order to expose the double standards amongst our supporters.

I don't understand the disproportionate level of hatred that exists on here for Barton and can't help but feel the player is getting a very hard time.  There's literally no way back for this guy because the media and fans have turned him in to some kind of evil villain.  Many are hating him without good cause.  Here's a guy that could be one of  our main player assets getting hounded out of the club and no one seems to be bothered.

Agree with the first part about the double standards regarding any potential assault or violent/heavy-handed actions.

The second part I don't agree with. No-one is hating him without due cause at all. If you read a lot of the posts there's reasons for it. My personal reason is the fact he said after he was suspended that he wished he never came here - at a time where we had just been dumped 5-1 off the taigs and really toiling on and off the park. Fuck him. He's done here as far as I'm concerned.

[thehost 11,061]

8 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

So we don't have an HR because we're a football club that's just a nonsense.

 

 

It's got deck all to do with HR it's got everything to do with board negligence. 

[Bad Robot 21,151]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There's been a few things. After the initial few days where he was sent away he should have been suspended pending an outcome. By putting timescales on it the club have continually created a situation where as the end of the suspension draws near, the stories built up and then the suspension was extended. 

 

If we're trying to sack him without a payoff for gross misconduct (or something like) then he'd really have been gone by now. Any event that would warrant a sacking, that apparently happened in front of a full dressing room, shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long to have evidenced and then made a decision on. 

 

If its been Barton who has continually delayed the formal disciplinary process, without good reason, then the club are entirely within their rights to proceed without any involvement from the player.

 

Most importantly, imo, if this has just been a verbal thing then it should never have become a formal disciplinary issue. It's not exactly a rare occurrence at a football club, particularly ones where results aren't going right, and if they were all to end in formal disciplinaries clubs would sack at least one player every season. 

At the minute the cause of the long suspension is all guesswork so we dont know if it's disproportionate to other training ground bust ups so until that comes out. The further delay seems to be all to do with the betting so I still don't see what the board could have done rather than not sanction his original signing.

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

At the minute the cause of the long suspension is all guesswork so we dont know if it's disproportionate to other training ground bust ups so until that comes out. The further delay seems to be all to do with the betting so I still don't see what the board could have done rather than not sanction his original signing.

I don't know where this idea about it being to do with  the betting stuff has come from there's been absolutely no suggestion of that whatsoever. Given neither Black nor Simonsen were subjected to internal disciplinary action over a SFA bet charge and that he had a disciplinary meeting scheduled for October 13th with Rangers (The betting charge isn't heard until November after originally being scheduled for October 27th) it doesn't make any sense that the betting stuff has had any influence on it at all. It's a fairly minor SFA disciplinary offence which will probably get a one match ban. 

 

Edit: the suspension is disproportionate to that of other training ground bust-ups as players are almost never suspended for them unless they come to blows (and sometimes even then they don't).

[Bears r us 30,798]

52 minutes ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

Time will tell, we are on the road we are on and that's it ! 

[Bad Robot 21,151]

18 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't know where this idea about it being to do with  the betting stuff has come from there's been absolutely no suggestion of that whatsoever. Given neither Black nor Simonsen were subjected to internal disciplinary action over a SFA bet charge and that he had a disciplinary meeting scheduled for October 13th with Rangers (The betting charge isn't heard until November after originally being scheduled for October 27th) it doesn't make any sense that the betting stuff has had any influence on it at all. It's a fairly minor SFA disciplinary offence which will probably get a one match ban. 

 

Edit: the suspension is disproportionate to that of other training ground bust-ups as players are almost never suspended for them unless they come to blows (and sometimes even then they don't).

 

Black and Simonsen weren't already on a suspension when they got the SFA charge so it's not like for like. Also it seems the number of bets put on by JB is excessive.  

JB said himself he was out of order but again we don't know if it's disproportionate to others so I'll wait it out before I criticise individuals or the club.

I do think it's beneficial for him to be out the way until after Sunday though.

Im guessing but I think the training ground stuff continued into the managers office 

[K.A.I 36,183]

17 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't know where this idea about it being to do with  the betting stuff has come from there's been absolutely no suggestion of that whatsoever. Given neither Black nor Simonsen were subjected to internal disciplinary action over a SFA bet charge and that he had a disciplinary meeting scheduled for October 13th with Rangers (The betting charge isn't heard until November after originally being scheduled for October 27th) it doesn't make any sense that the betting stuff has had any influence on it at all. It's a fairly minor SFA disciplinary offence which will probably get a one match ban. 

 

Edit: the suspension is disproportionate to that of other training ground bust-ups as players are almost never suspended for them unless they come to blows (and sometimes even then they don't).

The betting thing just seems like a convienent excuse to keep him away. This never happened with Black (albiet different management set-up and board room regime/owners)

We either want him gone or we want him to stay. Just sort it one way or another i.e do the decent thing and get him in to sort a package that suits us both or get him back into training to start getting fit and intergrated again.

This limbo stuff is no good for any party.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

 

Black and Simonsen weren't already on a suspension when they got the SFA charge so it's not like for like. Also it seems the number of bets put on by JB is excessive.  

JB said himself he was out of order but again we don't know if it's disproportionate to others so I'll wait it out before I criticise individuals or the club.

I do think it's beneficial for him to be out the way until after Sunday though.

Im guessing but I think the training ground stuff continued into the managers office 

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. 

 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

32 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There's been a few things. After the initial few days where he was sent away he should have been suspended pending an outcome. By putting timescales on it the club have continually created a situation where as the end of the suspension draws near, the stories built up and then the suspension was extended. 

 

If we're trying to sack him without a payoff for gross misconduct (or something like) then he'd really have been gone by now. Any event that would warrant a sacking, that apparently happened in front of a full dressing room, shouldn't have taken anywhere near as long to have evidenced and then made a decision on. 

 

If its been Barton who has continually delayed the formal disciplinary process, without good reason, then the club are entirely within their rights to proceed without any involvement from the player.

 

Most importantly, imo, if this has just been a verbal thing then it should never have become a formal disciplinary issue. It's not exactly a rare occurrence at a football club, particularly ones where results aren't going right, and if they were all to end in formal disciplinaries clubs would sack at least one player every season. 

I get the impression there is much more to come out in this story. It might also be just a storm in a tea cup that the club have exacerbated with these continual suspensions and dug a hole they needn't have.

As you say if it indeed was a gross misconduct in front of all those witnesses, then he would be gone already.  

The speculation will continue in the mhedia and that isn't good, with the feeding frenzy that will follow when it all comes into the public domain, as it inevitably will.

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

The betting thing just seems like a convienent excuse to keep him away. This never happened with Black (albiet different management set-up and board room regime/owners)

We either want him gone or we want him to stay. Just sort it one way or another i.e do the decent thing and get him in to sort a package that suits us both or get him back into training to start getting fit and intergrated again.

This limbo stuff is no good for any party.

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. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

I get the impression there is much more to come out in this story. It might also be just a storm in a tea cup that the club have exacerbated with these continual suspensions and dug a hole they needn't have.

As you say if it indeed was a gross misconduct in front of all those witnesses, then he would be gone already.  

The speculation will continue in the mhedia and that isn't good, with the feeding frenzy that will follow when it all comes into the public domain, as it inevitably will.

It's a storm in a teacup which Warburton looks to have decided he'd rather cut his losses over than have to possibly deal with again in the future. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

10 minutes 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. 

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.

[Grundy 732]

I think the club has decided that whatever Barton has done it merits him being sacked. I know it's not necessarily representative but I'd guess the majority on here want him gone as well.  I said previously it could be that Mark Warburton has told the board it's him or Barton, make your mind up. If I'm anywhere correct, and I accept I may well not be, I think we should all be hoping we can get rid of him as cheaply as possible and backing the club in their efforts to do just that.

When we signed him I thought we were getting a changed, more mature, Joey Barton, but unfortunately he has proved the truth in the old adage of " a leopard never changes his spots ",  His previous misdemeanours have already been posted on here, once a horrible uncaring selfish thug, always the same. I don't believe for one minute that Mark Warburton was the main mover behind his signing but hopefully he can be the main mover in getting rid of this piece of shite who should never have been near our club. Rant over.

[East Enclosure Row N 2,823]

Where a company does not have sufficient staff numbers to justify their own HR department, it is common practice to use one of a number of consultants who are freely available to do this. It happens every day. The same thing goes for health & safety consultants, environmental, quality management etc etc across a vast number of businesses.

 

However - having said that - Rangers must have a couple of hundred members of playing and non playing staff. Some of the playing staff and transfer contracts will be extremely complex (win and appearance bonuses, sell on fees, etc etc) so I'd be very surprised if Rangers didn't have their own HR team?