All Barton Chat.

[The Dude 20,027]

7 minutes ago, Misteral said:

The specif offence will breach of SFA rules regarding betting. It's not the club's job to investigate breaches of SFA rules, that's for the SFA to do. The club's job is to decide what to do if a player is found guilty. They decided not to sack Black or Simonsen which is their prerogative. The club will have choices within its disciplinary procedures which will probably include (though I don't know) the power to sack him. I think they are waiting to do so if he's found guilty. 

Then why organise several meetings before his hearing? The timeline simply doesn't make a shred of sense. If we're waiting for that then we organise a meeting on Nov 18th. Not October 13th then October 27th. That's just nonsensical.

 

EDIT: Even if found guilty he would likely need to go through the clubs internal disciplinary process unless it's expressly stated a breach of certain 3rd party rules could result in dismissal. There needs to be a relevance to his role to simply bin him for it. (a bin man nicked for drink driving could reasonably be sacked without going through internal proces, a bin man nicked for breach of the peace would be much harded to sack)

[Inigo 33,338]

Just now, Smile said:

As i said look about after a meeting by members of the board with Ashley on the retail deal(contract)  suddenly sos released a statement about the deal and not to purchase strips, did they just pull that from the air.

I'm sure there is many more but as i say you cant help a blind man see when he wants to be a blind man..

You can help a man that can see by actually showing him something.

If the Board said anything in relation to contract disputes in the past that could have left them open to legal difficulties, then that would be stupid. Ergo, the opposite may well be the correct course of action this time. No?

An I emphasise IF, because I don't know what the statement SoS released was because you haven't posted it. So how it compares to this, I can't say.

[Smile 26,624]

10 minutes ago, Inigo said:

You can help a man that can see by actually showing him something.

If the Board said anything in relation to contract disputes in the past that could have left them open to legal difficulties, then that would be stupid. Ergo, the opposite may well be the correct course of action this time. No?

An I emphasise IF, because I don't know what the statement SoS released was because you haven't posted it. So how it compares to this, I can't say.

 

 

 

You want to remain Blind i can see that or me to wipe your arse for you like a small child. Look for various board members who had private details of shares posted in great detail on the sos site who gave them that info.

I wonder. You believe what you want which is your prerogative. 

[Smile 26,624]

13 minutes ago, Misteral said:

Aye, ok Judge Rinder.  Go to court on what grounds? Win for what reasons?

We have let two players off before unless as Dude say's we have changed it in the Employment contracts then we would be on a winner but we would still have to wait on the SFA case.

[The Dude 20,027]

15 minutes ago, Misteral said:

Aye, ok Judge Rinder.  Go to court on what grounds? Win for what reasons?

He's on a fixed-term contract so would have slightly different options than a permanent employee (folk in a normal job) would. He could potentially raise an unfair dismissal claim if he's unhappy with the reasons given despite having not been employed two years but it would be much harder if the club can make a reasonable business case for the dismissal/unfavourable treatment.

 

EDIT: He could also, possibly, raise breach of contract if the club hasn't followed the mechanism in his contract for early termination.

[Misteral 2,952]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Then why organise several meetings before his hearing? The timeline simply doesn't make a shred of sense. If we're waiting for that then we organise a meeting on Nov 18th. Not October 13th then October 27th. That's just nonsensical.

Who knows? Maybe they are teasing him or or trying to find out where he stands. TBH, I really wonder why so many people are getting their knickers in a twist about this. Barton fucked things up with the manager and also the SFA. The club are actually playing things the right way IMO and hopefully it will save us money in the long term. But we shall see. All this talk about ' what an embarrassment this is' and 'we demand answers to this now' and 'we want and end to this now' is pretty laughable. It will be over when it's over and hopefully we achieve the best possible outcome on Barton's departure. 

[Inigo 33,338]

Just now, Smile said:

 

You want to remain Blind i can see that or me to wipe your arse for you like a small child. Look for various board members who had private details of shares posted in great detail on the sos site who gave them that info.

I wonder.

You're not going to have much success if you're going to make statements then expect people to just accept it. Evidencing what you say is not wiping anyone's arse, it's doing your own work in order that your argument has some kind of credibility. You know that the normal state of affairs is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence. You MUST know this.

Feel free to provide us with a link. In the meantime, clearly, given your apparent stance on what you seem to be claiming are comparable previous information leaks on contract disputes, you must think the Board are correct in not commenting this time.

 

[Spectre 1,663]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He's on a fixed-term contract so would have slightly different options than a permanent employee (folk in a normal job) would. He could potentially raise an unfair dismissal claim if he's unhappy with the reasons given despite having not been employed two years but it would be much harder if the club can make a reasonable business case for the dismissal/unfavourable treatment.

 

EDIT: He could also, possibly, raise breach of contract if the club hasn't followed the mechanism in his contract for early termination.

Your edit is correct and it would be a similar argument, but he could not, as a matter of fact raise an action for unfair dismissal (accepting none of the exemptions apply, which they clearly don't)

[Smile 26,624]

Just now, Inigo said:

You're not going to have much success if you're going to make statements then expect people to just accept it. Evidencing what you say is not wiping anyone's arse, it's doing your own work in order that your argument has some kind of credibility. You know that the normal state of affairs is for the person making the claim to provide the evidence. You MUST know this.

Feel free to provide us with a link. In the meantime, clearly, given your apparent stance on what you seem to be claiming are comparable previous information leaks on contract disputes, you must think the Board are correct in not commenting this time.

 

 

You are sucking on my teet for an internet win like a small child you have previous for this. As i said Inigo seek and ye shall find.

[Inigo 33,338]

13 minutes ago, Smile said:

 

I wonder. You believe what you want which is your prerogative. 

Woops, missed this edit.

No, I believe what I can see is proven.

[Inigo 33,338]

Just now, Smile said:

You are sucking on my teet for an internet win like a small child you have previous for this. As i said Inigo seek and ye shall find.

Trolling. The last refuge of the scoundrel... or the guy that's struggling in a debate.

[Smile 26,624]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Woops, missed this edit.

No, I believe what I can see is proven.

 

 

Look then, it like saying i don't believe elephants exist  they do not if i cant find them.

[Misteral 2,952]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He's on a fixed-term contract so would have slightly different options than a permanent employee (folk in a normal job) would. He could potentially raise an unfair dismissal claim if he's unhappy with the reasons given despite having not been employed two years but it would be much harder if the club can make a reasonable business case for the dismissal/unfavourable treatment.

 

EDIT: He could also, possibly, raise breach of contract if the club hasn't followed the mechanism in his contract for early termination.

You're right in terms of fixed term contracts but I would hope the club would fire him for fair reasons based on his conduct and would also follow the correct procedure as per the company rules. If they do, I doubt Barton would have much legal recourse. I think that is what will happen if he's found guilty by the SFA. Mind you the SFA might find him not guilty or dismiss the charges just to fuck us over. They are not our greatest fans. 

[Smile 26,624]

11 minutes ago, Misteral said:

Who knows? Maybe they are teasing him or or trying to find out where he stands. TBH, I really wonder why so many people are getting their knickers in a twist about this. Barton fucked things up with the manager and also the SFA. The club are actually playing things the right way IMO and hopefully it will save us money in the long term. But we shall see. All this talk about ' what an embarrassment this is' and 'we demand answers to this now' and 'we want and end to this now' is pretty laughable. It will be over when it's over and hopefully we achieve the best possible outcome on Barton's departure. 

 

I think it's if we are ever in the media it's always a negative story on Rangers and this board have created quite a few.

[dummiesoot 16,268]

57 minutes ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

200% Bud, empty Blazers ! ??

Sadly mate,there is no end in sight to us being led by a bunch of incompetents or thieves.

 

Just to clarify, the thieves are those that ran us previously.

[Inigo 33,338]

2 minutes ago, Smile said:

Look then, it like saying i don't believe elephants exist  they do not if i cant find them.

The onus is on you. You made the point. 

 Elephants. 

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, Misteral said:

Who knows? Maybe they are teasing him or or trying to find out where he stands. TBH, I really wonder why so many people are getting their knickers in a twist about this. Barton fucked things up with the manager and also the SFA. The club are actually playing things the right way IMO and hopefully it will save us money in the long term. But we shall see. All this talk about ' what an embarrassment this is' and 'we demand answers to this now' and 'we want and end to this now' is pretty laughable. It will be over when it's over and hopefully we achieve the best possible outcome on Barton's departure. 

The club really havent played this well at all they've let it drag on and on when it should have been dealt with sooner. If the club had grounds to sack him, he'd be gone. If the betting stuff had any part he wouldn't have been in for an hour today. That it became a disciplinary issue in the first place is beyond ridiculous and doesn't reflect well on MW imo. Barton's charge with the SFA is no bigger an issue the MWs for being aggressive to a referee. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if a player approached MW in that way he'd be on a formal disciplinary too.

[Smile 26,624]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

The onus is on you. You made the point. 

 Elephants. 

 

 

I thought it was kind of funny, as i said have a wee look i even remember details of greens contract and shares being released they had to have got that somewhere the boy cleaned Cookers for a living, not that I'm against that but feel it makes my point.

He was hardly mr spreadsheet himself.

[Inigo 33,338]

1 minute ago, Smile said:

I thought it was kind of funny, as i said have a wee look i even remember details of greens contract and shares being released they had to have got that somewhere the boy cleaned Cookers for a living, not that I'm against that but feel it makes my point.

Definitely willing to hear how that was wrong and how it could have left us open to litigation. But happy to accept that you think the Board are doing the right thing this time in not releasing statements. 

[Smile 26,624]

Just now, Inigo said:

Definitely willing to hear how that was wrong and how it could have left us open to litigation. But happy to accept that you think the Board are doing the right thing this time in not releasing statements. 

I will wait on you discovering the Elephant first, obviously, you will have to see it first hand.

[The Dude 20,027]

13 minutes ago, Spectre said:

Your edit is correct and it would be a similar argument, but he could not, as a matter of fact raise an action for unfair dismissal (accepting none of the exemptions apply, which they clearly don't)

You sure? I was under the impression fixed term had the same protections but with slightly different rules around eligibility for tribunal and early conciliation.

[The Dude 20,027]

6 minutes ago, Smile said:

I thought it was kind of funny, as i said have a wee look i even remember details of greens contract and shares being released they had to have got that somewhere the boy cleaned Cookers for a living, not that I'm against that but feel it makes my point.

He was hardly mr spreadsheet himself.

Wasn't stuff from Green's contract part of him being sued by Rangers

 

[Inigo 33,338]

Just now, Smile said:

I will wait on you discovering the Elephant first, obviously, you will have to see it first hand.

Already have. Pretty sure it's well known and beyond dispute. Unlike most things involving Rangers...

[JWAC 2,353]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The club really havent played this well at all they've let it drag on and on when it should have been dealt with sooner. If the club had grounds to sack him, he'd be gone. If the betting stuff had any part he wouldn't have been in for an hour today. That it became a disciplinary issue in the first place is beyond ridiculous and doesn't reflect well on MW imo. Barton's charge with the SFA is no bigger an issue the MWs for being aggressive to a referee. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if a player approached MW in that way he'd be on a formal disciplinary too.

Are you an expert on employee tribunals or even knowledgeable on any internal discussions of Rangers FC? The actual penalties for betting regulations in the SFA handbook aren't clear but what is clear is they "aren't allowed". You don't have any knowledge of what happened at the training ground either.

You don't know whether MW is in anyway responsible or Barton in that respect or even "the club", just the usual opinionated shite you see on here all the time. But you're sure the club are either just trying to fuck the fans over or are incompetent. Stick to your shitey blogs.

[Smile 26,624]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Wasn't stuff from Green's contract part of him being sued by Rangers

 

 

 

Could have been but i think we all know contract details have found a way into the public domain before. I think we know it something that has always happened even using useful journalists.