Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that you're hungover today
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmmm
Why would he negotiate?
Sorry but unless Rangers have a contract with him that is quite different from the norm I just don't think they can fwck him off is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 38 seconds ago
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandaza
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best chance is with the fact he spoke out after being warned not to. Depends if there was a written agreement of course.
Unless he has physically threatened a member of staff i tend to agree on your other points though.
Most likely i would think would be some mutual agreement being announced shortly with no figures quoted.
Sandaza's dismissal wasn't due to a fall out - it was because he said yes to a possible move away (entrapment phone call)
Sandaza basically was complicit in the act of tapping up - albeit it wasn't real.
There was no way back for him at Rangers. Could certainly argue his actions brought the game into disrepute.
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing "
Wtf are you on about?
I was having a sensible conversation with lauders until you dived in with size 12's on.
Go away.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing "
Wtf are you on about?
I was having a sensible conversation with lauders until you dived in with size 12's on.
Go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract
Anyway. I reckon I'm right. He'll negotiate some sort of package - released as mutual termination agreement in press, hopefully sign a *non disclosure
Is that the right term?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 1 minute ago
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract "
Please share with us where I've said Rangers are wrong.
Meanwhile I'll carry on chatting to others so no rush 👍
lauders. Not sure mate. I'd imagine his lawyer will just tell him to sit tight. And in that scenario Rangers would have to make the first offer which is a weakened position.
I'm not sure he'd bother playing that game. I accept he'd be able to but whether he would actually take that route I'm not sure
If he was Scottish or had been been staying here for years, no chance of same money, no likelihood of another club, no interest from the crazy markets abroad, no other career work to speak of, plenty years ahead of him in the game etc. Then id agree but as it is i don't think he'd be interested in sitting tight.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I think that's today's football more than Rangers, lex.
Player power. Has pros and cons but ultimately it's employment law
And there's the rub
Player power.
If he does the honourable thing he'll move on after shaking hands and put it down to a blip.
He just doesn't come across as that kind of guy though. And he still maintains he's done nothing wrong and doesn't know why he's apologised.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 1 minute ago
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract "
Please share with us where I've said Rangers are wrong.
Meanwhile I'll carry on chatting to others so no rush 👍
lauders. Not sure mate. I'd imagine his lawyer will just tell him to sit tight. And in that scenario Rangers would have to make the first offer which is a weakened position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 48 minutes ago
Barton will have a field day if Rangers try and sack him.
It's not exactly like there's no precedence is there?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
And?
Which bit of that is saying Rangers are wrong?
Fwck me; have you been spending these last few minutes looking for that?
Jesus wept. I feel for you. That is fwcking desperate in the extreme.
Can I ask you something and I'm good either way with whatever answer you give.
Do you fancy me?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I have no idea what will happen. But I think Rangers and Barton will be in agreement it hasn't worked and it's time to call it quits. I don't think he'll be sacked, I think he'll be allowed to find a new club to save face and avoid more time in the courts.
But I have no inside info at all. Just an opinion
Sign in if you want to comment
Barton
Page 2 of 4
posted on 9/10/16
Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that you're hungover today
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
Hmmmm
Why would he negotiate?
Sorry but unless Rangers have a contract with him that is quite different from the norm I just don't think they can fwck him off is all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see
posted on 9/10/16
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 minutes ago
Ginger you need to try and move away from " everything rangers do is wrong" because it's not, legally since Dave king moved in Rangers have been pretty sound "legally""
Shut up you fool. I'm having a sensible conversation with zero wummery since the "brought it on yourself" tongue in cheek comment.
Good with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 38 seconds ago
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandaza
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Every employee and football player will have a contract that includes a disaplinary code, bringing the game into disrepute is all part of that, Rangers as a company will be fully aware of these codes, it's pretty straight forward as far as I can see"
You have as much knowledge of his or any other players contract as I have; which is the square of fwck all.
As I said, I'm basing my thoughts on precedence. He's not the first to have had major fall outs with management and team members. He won't be the last. I've not seen anyone being sacked for that or for betting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best chance is with the fact he spoke out after being warned not to. Depends if there was a written agreement of course.
Unless he has physically threatened a member of staff i tend to agree on your other points though.
Most likely i would think would be some mutual agreement being announced shortly with no figures quoted.
posted on 9/10/16
Sandaza's dismissal wasn't due to a fall out - it was because he said yes to a possible move away (entrapment phone call)
posted on 9/10/16
Sandaza basically was complicit in the act of tapping up - albeit it wasn't real.
There was no way back for him at Rangers. Could certainly argue his actions brought the game into disrepute.
posted on 9/10/16
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing "
Wtf are you on about?
I was having a sensible conversation with lauders until you dived in with size 12's on.
Go away.
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
Well that's pretty good but just stop the big bad rangers stuff, Rangers have a board of directors made up of a group of businessmen with differering skills, they know exactly what they are doing "
Wtf are you on about?
I was having a sensible conversation with lauders until you dived in with size 12's on.
Go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 9/10/16
Good man
posted on 9/10/16
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract
posted on 9/10/16
Anyway. I reckon I'm right. He'll negotiate some sort of package - released as mutual termination agreement in press, hopefully sign a *non disclosure
Is that the right term?
posted on 9/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 1 minute ago
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract "
Please share with us where I've said Rangers are wrong.
Meanwhile I'll carry on chatting to others so no rush 👍
lauders. Not sure mate. I'd imagine his lawyer will just tell him to sit tight. And in that scenario Rangers would have to make the first offer which is a weakened position.
posted on 9/10/16
I'm not sure he'd bother playing that game. I accept he'd be able to but whether he would actually take that route I'm not sure
If he was Scottish or had been been staying here for years, no chance of same money, no likelihood of another club, no interest from the crazy markets abroad, no other career work to speak of, plenty years ahead of him in the game etc. Then id agree but as it is i don't think he'd be interested in sitting tight.
posted on 9/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/10/16
I think that's today's football more than Rangers, lex.
Player power. Has pros and cons but ultimately it's employment law
posted on 9/10/16
And there's the rub
Player power.
If he does the honourable thing he'll move on after shaking hands and put it down to a blip.
He just doesn't come across as that kind of guy though. And he still maintains he's done nothing wrong and doesn't know why he's apologised.
posted on 9/10/16
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Laudrup (U12366)
posted 1 minute ago
You have been on both threats going on about how wrong rangers are in this, then you go on about not having a single insight into his contract "
Please share with us where I've said Rangers are wrong.
Meanwhile I'll carry on chatting to others so no rush 👍
lauders. Not sure mate. I'd imagine his lawyer will just tell him to sit tight. And in that scenario Rangers would have to make the first offer which is a weakened position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 48 minutes ago
Barton will have a field day if Rangers try and sack him.
It's not exactly like there's no precedence is there?
posted on 9/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/10/16
And?
Which bit of that is saying Rangers are wrong?
Fwck me; have you been spending these last few minutes looking for that?
Jesus wept. I feel for you. That is fwcking desperate in the extreme.
Can I ask you something and I'm good either way with whatever answer you give.
Do you fancy me?
posted on 9/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/10/16
I have no idea what will happen. But I think Rangers and Barton will be in agreement it hasn't worked and it's time to call it quits. I don't think he'll be sacked, I think he'll be allowed to find a new club to save face and avoid more time in the courts.
But I have no inside info at all. Just an opinion
Page 2 of 4