That was for games he was involved in Smid and they make that clear with their integrity remarks in the statement.
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BlueNose (U6456)
posted 10 minutes ago
I absolutely have no trust in Dave King or the rest of the board. ------------------------------------------
Given where we are now compared to where we were 18 months ago I find that an incredible statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough coop. I wasn't sure of them in the first place, although not going to lie, the relative stability within the club has been nice.
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 18 seconds ago
POVI think the incident at Auchenhowie is no longer relevant, as I say that was never a disciplinary matter. He was only asked to stay away a couple of days and there was no suggestions he was going to be suspended.
The disciplinary action only started after he went on radio and to the papers to discuss the situation and some wider issues. Then the betting issue came up.
The training ground incident I don't think has anything to do with current goings on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must have some bearing on the decision as to whether he stays or goes. It's one of the many black marks he's racked up. Put it this way I don't think it's done his case any favours.
comment by Laudrup:can't be true it's on Twitter (U12366)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BlueNose (U6456)
posted 10 minutes ago
I absolutely have no trust in Dave King or the rest of the board. ------------------------------------------
Given where we are now compared to where we were 18 months ago I find that an incredible statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He misses the easdales and the agm in a facking gazebo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh aye, totally.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 42 seconds ago
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially if it took a couple of hours!
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 1 minute ago
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 3 minutes ago
NNH - It says he was sacked as he was in breach of contract. I don't imagine his contract would say that betting is ok as long as it is not involving his own team, the contract will be around Association rules.
I don't know what is in Barton's contract but if Rangers have any stipulations around betting and he has broken those then dismissal is a very realistic outcome should the club take that route.
Magnum - Black is irrelevant as the club will argue it was different owners and a different manager. You can only speculate that different people would have made the same decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Black didn't have the other disaplinary issues that Barton has, disaplinary issues deemed bad enough to suspend him
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 3 minutes ago
NNH - It says he was sacked as he was in breach of contract. I don't imagine his contract would say that betting is ok as long as it is not involving his own team, the contract will be around Association rules.
I don't know what is in Barton's contract but if Rangers have any stipulations around betting and he has broken those then dismissal is a very realistic outcome should the club take that route.
Magnum - Black is irrelevant as the club will argue it was different owners and a different manager. You can only speculate that different people would have made the same decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Different owners? When did that happen??
Different board, yes. Different manager-yes, but he doesn't influence HR policy. Same club/company-that will be Barton's argument. The only bit you may be correct on is dependant on what's in his contract.
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
Hmmmm 6 weeks to deal with a training ground bust up and a wee interview on radio.
I highly doubt that mate.
Personally I believe it was to try reach a mutual agreement. Barton is standing firm on the advice he has been given and Rangers are hoping he will drop the ball whilst suspended.
Only my opinion of course.
Will someone please show Laudrup how to spell disciplinary, and that you don't spell it how it sounds in his head?!?
Different board, yes. Different manager-yes, but he doesn't influence HR policy. Same club/company-that will be Barton's argument. The only bit you may be correct on is dependant on what's in his contract.
Good point, you can't knock Stevie's argument by stating the board have no involvement with this case and then blame the previous ones for a similar case a few years ago.
Can't have it both ways
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 24 seconds ago
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
Hmmmm 6 weeks to deal with a training ground bust up and a wee interview on radio.
I highly doubt that mate.
Personally I believe it was to try reach a mutual agreement. Barton is standing firm on the advice he has been given and Rangers are hoping he will drop the ball whilst suspended.
Only my opinion of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree with that. He should know by now why he's been suspended, and they've already mentioned the betting incident. Oor Joey wants his dosh!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
What if it's the same HR team in place? That's what you were getting at earlier so surely it doesn't matter who is on the board as like you said, they won't be involved.
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 13 seconds ago
Of course it is different, you can't say there is a precedent if the company you work for is under different ownership and management.
Rangers could also argue that in the case of Black it was the first example of that happening and they have tightened up since if he got the benefit of ignorance.
It is all speculation but I struggle to see how Barton could argue that there is a precedent if he has a different contract under different owners and management at a different time.
As others say, Rangers could also argue it was a first case against Black whereas Barton was already under suspension and on a last warning when this came up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep saying different ownership-it's not. It's a different board. And unless they have rewritten the disciplinary code then it's irrelevant. I did caveat that earlier.
Your last point is exactly what I said earlier as well.
As far as I am concerned, if the club want to sack Barton, they are going to have to go through all the legal processes etc. and it coud take bloody ages to do so.
The short term option, is to terminate his contract, pay him off, and just get him the hell out of dodge.
I think its pretty obvious that the only reason the club are not doing that, to save all this garb, is that it will cost an arm and a leg to simply pay Barton off, money we dont have.
At the end of the day, HR department talk and all the rest of it aside, the board have to take responsibility for tying the club up into a watertight contract with this cant in the first place, only to end up in a situation like this a few months down the line.
This is a guy with a history of disruption at previous clubs, and a guy who was clearly going to have to be given a higher wage than most of the other players to come here....surely to god some sort of get-out clause could have been built into his contract to give us some sorr of coverage in the event that he started playing up and we wanted rid, and if that couldnt be done, it was a major risk comitting to the level of wages he is no doubt getting, without any sort of coverage or additional breach of contract terms.
I mean its not like the current board dont have any experience of being tied into a contract they are desperate to get out of, but cant, is it??
At least they never signed the other one, but they entered into this one willingly with Barton
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of the detail, the betting case is the crux of this matter hence the delay. And, if he's found guilty he'll be oot.
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of the detail, the betting case is the crux of this matter hence the delay. And, if he's found guilty he'll be oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine the detail could be quite important!!
Ok Mr. Facken Pedantic .....I don't know the actual detail but the betting case etc etc ...Happy ?
Sign in if you want to comment
Transparency we were told
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 28/10/16
That was for games he was involved in Smid and they make that clear with their integrity remarks in the statement.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BlueNose (U6456)
posted 10 minutes ago
I absolutely have no trust in Dave King or the rest of the board. ------------------------------------------
Given where we are now compared to where we were 18 months ago I find that an incredible statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough coop. I wasn't sure of them in the first place, although not going to lie, the relative stability within the club has been nice.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 18 seconds ago
POVI think the incident at Auchenhowie is no longer relevant, as I say that was never a disciplinary matter. He was only asked to stay away a couple of days and there was no suggestions he was going to be suspended.
The disciplinary action only started after he went on radio and to the papers to discuss the situation and some wider issues. Then the betting issue came up.
The training ground incident I don't think has anything to do with current goings on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must have some bearing on the decision as to whether he stays or goes. It's one of the many black marks he's racked up. Put it this way I don't think it's done his case any favours.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by Laudrup:can't be true it's on Twitter (U12366)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BlueNose (U6456)
posted 10 minutes ago
I absolutely have no trust in Dave King or the rest of the board. ------------------------------------------
Given where we are now compared to where we were 18 months ago I find that an incredible statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He misses the easdales and the agm in a facking gazebo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh aye, totally.
posted on 28/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/10/16
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
posted on 28/10/16
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 42 seconds ago
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially if it took a couple of hours!
posted on 28/10/16
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 1 minute ago
If it was the case Rangers are simply waiting on the outcome of the betting charge then it would seem strange to drag him into Ibrox for a meeting to tell him he will remain suspended would it not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 3 minutes ago
NNH - It says he was sacked as he was in breach of contract. I don't imagine his contract would say that betting is ok as long as it is not involving his own team, the contract will be around Association rules.
I don't know what is in Barton's contract but if Rangers have any stipulations around betting and he has broken those then dismissal is a very realistic outcome should the club take that route.
Magnum - Black is irrelevant as the club will argue it was different owners and a different manager. You can only speculate that different people would have made the same decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Black didn't have the other disaplinary issues that Barton has, disaplinary issues deemed bad enough to suspend him
posted on 28/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/10/16
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 3 minutes ago
NNH - It says he was sacked as he was in breach of contract. I don't imagine his contract would say that betting is ok as long as it is not involving his own team, the contract will be around Association rules.
I don't know what is in Barton's contract but if Rangers have any stipulations around betting and he has broken those then dismissal is a very realistic outcome should the club take that route.
Magnum - Black is irrelevant as the club will argue it was different owners and a different manager. You can only speculate that different people would have made the same decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Different owners? When did that happen??
Different board, yes. Different manager-yes, but he doesn't influence HR policy. Same club/company-that will be Barton's argument. The only bit you may be correct on is dependant on what's in his contract.
posted on 28/10/16
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
Hmmmm 6 weeks to deal with a training ground bust up and a wee interview on radio.
I highly doubt that mate.
Personally I believe it was to try reach a mutual agreement. Barton is standing firm on the advice he has been given and Rangers are hoping he will drop the ball whilst suspended.
Only my opinion of course.
posted on 28/10/16
Will someone please show Laudrup how to spell disciplinary, and that you don't spell it how it sounds in his head?!?
posted on 28/10/16
Different board, yes. Different manager-yes, but he doesn't influence HR policy. Same club/company-that will be Barton's argument. The only bit you may be correct on is dependant on what's in his contract.
Good point, you can't knock Stevie's argument by stating the board have no involvement with this case and then blame the previous ones for a similar case a few years ago.
Can't have it both ways
posted on 28/10/16
comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 24 seconds ago
It was probably the other matters he was being disciplined for in that meeting and is further suspended for the betting charge.
Hmmmm 6 weeks to deal with a training ground bust up and a wee interview on radio.
I highly doubt that mate.
Personally I believe it was to try reach a mutual agreement. Barton is standing firm on the advice he has been given and Rangers are hoping he will drop the ball whilst suspended.
Only my opinion of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree with that. He should know by now why he's been suspended, and they've already mentioned the betting incident. Oor Joey wants his dosh!
posted on 28/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/10/16
What if it's the same HR team in place? That's what you were getting at earlier so surely it doesn't matter who is on the board as like you said, they won't be involved.
posted on 28/10/16
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by Smid (U13415)
posted 13 seconds ago
Of course it is different, you can't say there is a precedent if the company you work for is under different ownership and management.
Rangers could also argue that in the case of Black it was the first example of that happening and they have tightened up since if he got the benefit of ignorance.
It is all speculation but I struggle to see how Barton could argue that there is a precedent if he has a different contract under different owners and management at a different time.
As others say, Rangers could also argue it was a first case against Black whereas Barton was already under suspension and on a last warning when this came up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep saying different ownership-it's not. It's a different board. And unless they have rewritten the disciplinary code then it's irrelevant. I did caveat that earlier.
Your last point is exactly what I said earlier as well.
posted on 28/10/16
As far as I am concerned, if the club want to sack Barton, they are going to have to go through all the legal processes etc. and it coud take bloody ages to do so.
The short term option, is to terminate his contract, pay him off, and just get him the hell out of dodge.
I think its pretty obvious that the only reason the club are not doing that, to save all this garb, is that it will cost an arm and a leg to simply pay Barton off, money we dont have.
At the end of the day, HR department talk and all the rest of it aside, the board have to take responsibility for tying the club up into a watertight contract with this cant in the first place, only to end up in a situation like this a few months down the line.
This is a guy with a history of disruption at previous clubs, and a guy who was clearly going to have to be given a higher wage than most of the other players to come here....surely to god some sort of get-out clause could have been built into his contract to give us some sorr of coverage in the event that he started playing up and we wanted rid, and if that couldnt be done, it was a major risk comitting to the level of wages he is no doubt getting, without any sort of coverage or additional breach of contract terms.
I mean its not like the current board dont have any experience of being tied into a contract they are desperate to get out of, but cant, is it??
At least they never signed the other one, but they entered into this one willingly with Barton
posted on 28/10/16
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
posted on 28/10/16
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of the detail, the betting case is the crux of this matter hence the delay. And, if he's found guilty he'll be oot.
posted on 28/10/16
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My POV-will change name for food. (U10636)
posted 1 second ago
comment by meuandcoop - Green & Whyte=Shyte (U5293)
posted 40 seconds ago
The previous betting cases will have influenced the clauses in new player's contracts,that will be why they are waiting. He'll be sacked if found guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it not be more likely that there's just a bit in the contract linking it to SFA and/or SPFL rules?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of the detail, the betting case is the crux of this matter hence the delay. And, if he's found guilty he'll be oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine the detail could be quite important!!
posted on 28/10/16
Ok Mr. Facken Pedantic .....I don't know the actual detail but the betting case etc etc ...Happy ?
posted on 28/10/16
hunner
Page 4 of 6
6