All Barton Chat.

[Gibby FERNHILL loyal 6]

Says on sky sports news he is suspended indefinitely WTF deal way it things like this just messes this up

[LegendofCoop 18,093]

23 minutes ago, bornabear said:

They're on a hat trick for paying folk to stay at home.

First was Ally, now it's Joey.

Fucking brilliant.

Barton is the hat-trick. McDowall also saw out the remainder of his contract tending to his garden.

[HG5 12,199]

6 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

I would hope it does not last that long mate, but I reckon Barton is saying he wants to get back playing and that puts the ball back in the boards court. If they do not have a reason to sack him that would win in a court case then it is a case of who blinks first and that might go on a long time. 

That's the worry....

[Smile 26,624]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

You're right. They should definitely say that.

What contracts?

 

 

Lots of contracts were spoken about last season, is that not why we were took to court. Contracts and details were finding themselves onto various facebooks and sites.

Why do we keep getting caught out paying for our employees to sit in the house.

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

Think it's clear he's not going to play for us again then.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,389]

What a fuck up, the club's a fuckin mess.

[scottyc06 6,927]

So I'm guessing we want rid of him but he's digging his heels in wanting the rest of his contract paid! 

They need to either bite the bullet with this one or put him in the reserves/out on loan and end this fucking saga!! 

Its an absolute embarrassment for the club! 

[Bears r us 31,319]

3 minutes ago, HG5 said:

That's the worry....

For sure 

[Smile 26,624]

2 minutes ago, scottyc06 said:

So I'm guessing we want rid of him but he's digging his heels in wanting the rest of his contract paid! 

They need to either bite the bullet with this one or put him in the reserves/out on loan and end this fucking saga!! 

Its an absolute embarrassment for the club! 

 

 

The cunts on the board dont care about the club they care about how much they can make while on the board. You only have to look at their response to the cup final or the Motherwell game.

[BlueboyG 5,481]

See tbh , we all need to shut off from this Barton thing, its going nowhere fast, we were pish with him and were pish without him so it makes no odds, let the club deal with him whatever way they see fit, this thread should be locked until there is something to report.

[The Dude 20,027]

41 minutes ago, Misteral said:

The betting hearing is on 17 November. If found guilty and fined by the SFA the board will probably have grounds to dismiss him immediately for gross industrial misconduct, despite the fact that previous players were not. That's my take on why the suspension is continuing (if it is) and would save us money in the long term. 

Too many knee jerk reactions here; Play him or sack him. If only life were that simple.

Unless the club has demonstrably changed their internal procedures to include betting as a disciplinary offence they won't be able to touch him on it. 

[Misteral 2,948]

25 minutes ago, sugar_free_pizza said:

then barton takes them to court and with the help from the pfa and the legal egals from england he has a great chance of winning with more dosh not being spent on players

they've backed them selfs into a corner with this one

Why would he have great chance of winning? What do you know that the rest of us don't?  The club are unlikely to fire him if they thought that, and they've had a few weeks to consider his and their position. Anyway, you need to be working for an employer for two years before you can claim unfair dismissal unless the dismissal is automatically unfair under the protected characteristics listed in The Equality act 2010. Can't see that being the case here,

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I don't believe the Club could safely sack him unless some other misconduct 'issue' happens or has already happened which, when added to other charges then equate to enough to dismiss.  If they could have safely sacked him then they would have done so by now.  

Its clearly not a suspension as a punishment but a suspension as a precaution pending more investigation / consideration and as such the Club does not appear to have made its mind up on what to do otherwise why continue with the suspension.  If the next step for the Club hinges on the outcome of the betting charge then even with that I guess you'd have to presume that the contract Barton signed made it clear that being found guilty of breaking SFA rules would be serious enough either on its own or when added to other offences that it would be safe grounds for sacking.  But then its also possible I suppose that even with that the grounds to dismiss may not be decisive enough for dismissal without the risk of Barton taking recourse to legal proceedings to fight his case and the risk of winning a large compensation and the whole thing being played out in the public domain.

It may be that with this continuation of the suspension the so-called 'issue' (as the Club described it) is a case that Warburton, and by extension the Club, will not work with Barton again.  An unwanted employee whose 'issue' was not so fundamental as to warrant immediate sacking but who is nevertheless not welcome back at the place of work.  Potentially dangerous territory if it could be construed that the Club is acting in a deliberate way to unjustifiably ostracise him in order to orchestrate his eventual departure.    

If Warburton and the Club don't want him and want to avoid a messy, expensive legal case played out over a long period of time and under the glare of media reporting then it seems to me it primarily all comes down to how much money Barton gets by way of compensation for a contract to be mutually terminated and a binding commitment by both parties to stay silent on the 'issue'.   And then for both to move on.    

It's a pity its taking so long to resolve.   The more it goes on the more it risks making the Club look like it doesn't know what to do to bring it to a satisfactory end.  All for an 'issue' that might possibly have been dealt with in a better, quicker and less public way.   Bust ups between players and managers happen but its hard to recall any that took this sort of prolonged inaction to resolve.

[Smile 26,624]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Unless the club has demonstrably changed their internal procedures to include betting as a disciplinary offence they won't be able to touch him on it. 

It will be hard to get him on betting as most players bet anyway which Barton will know, plus we have let two players off before.

[Bluekev 47,050]

I don't think King or Murray will say anything judging by this pic just taken of them

 

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,389]

So basically if the Sky report is right he's sitting taking a wage that we could use to pay someone else, is this the way it works ?

 

[BLUEDIGNITY 34,078]

22 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

I would not trust King or Murray with a fucking piggy bank BD. useless, absolutely useless. 

200% Bud, empty Blazers ! ??

[cushynumber 25,178]

The more I think about this situation the less I am particularly bother with it. Yes, we have a player dispute but clubs have them all the time. The only reason this is really newsworthy is because it Joey fuckin Barton. Take the name out the equation and its humdrum stuff. 

 

Its just all a bit meh for me.

 

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, Smile said:

It will be hard to get him on betting as most players bet anyway which Barton will know, plus we have let two players off before.

It's a minor offence which will get a small ban. Warburton got more for Pittodrie than Barton is likely to get for betting. Would people cite that as cause to dismiss Warburton?

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

So basically if the Sky report is right he's sitting taking a wage that we could use to pay someone else, is this the way it works ?

 

Yep. Exactly how it works. Club should have dealt with it by now.

[Smile 26,624]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It's a minor offence which will get a small ban. Warburton got more for Pittodrie than Barton is likely to get for betting. Would people cite that as cause to dismiss Warburton?

It will amount to nothing, to me something must have happened that has went too far for the Manager to take with Barton but we may have to wait for the new book to find out.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,586]

its funny that people expect this board to handle the situation properly, remember this was the mob that didnt even know our trademarks were in ashleys hands until someone posted it on the internet

they are a clusterfuck of clowns we have in charge

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,389]

Just now, The Dude said:

Yep. Exactly how it works. Club should have dealt with it by now.

Crazy, they should get him back, he must be good for something 

[cushynumber 25,178]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Yep. Exactly how it works. Club should have dealt with it by now.

Yet if it was a cut and dried as that they would have. Everyone involved cannot be a complete imbecile. There must be more to it that complicated the issue sufficient to warrant this approach.

[Inigo 33,324]

13 minutes ago, Smile said:

Lots of contracts were spoken about last season, is that not why we were took to court. Contracts and details were finding themselves onto various facebooks and sites.

Why do we keep getting caught out paying for our employees to sit in the house.

Which contracts? Which employment disputes were being talked about? What statements were made?