calscot

The first problem is that while the combined population is over 50m giving a market comparable in size with most of the Big 5, the Scandinavian countries are hardly known as big domestic football watchers - at least at the game where their attendances are low. Another is that starting from a Scottish point of view, some of the games may be less interesting to our fans than the likes of Hearts and Aberdeen, as outside the big three Dutch teams, the others are not exactly box office smashes here. If you look at the top two from each country you get some pretty unknown clubs here. Perhaps Brugge and Aderlecht are just about on the A list, but fans from those seven clubs (including OF) will not be so intently interested in the rest. Although, I'm guessing it would be invitation only and so the clubs may be something like: Rangers, Celtic, Rosenborg, Brann, Malmo, Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Brondby, Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, AZ, Brugge, Anderlecht, Standard Liege - and one other probably from Sweden due to population size. The problem here is that some of our fans have already disrespectfully labelled Malmo as a "pub team"... The big drive is to bring in more money from TV and while I think we could increase that, we can't even get close to the top 4 countries, especially England and Germany, and the the big two in Spain currently are allowed to negotiate their own stratospheric deals. Scotland has very little to bring to the table in this regard. We get 1% of the English fees, despite over15% (I think) of their viewership - this is due to Scots paying for Sky whether our football is on it or not - we have too many people who are equal or more interested in the Premiership, which has an incredible negative impact on our marketability. To me the people who follow English football on Sky are massively responsible for the parsimonious state of our game. It's a bit like local cafe's closing down as everyone goes to Starbucks or Costa - with a big part of the reason being they make better coffee in more comfortable surroundings. The Dutch probably do a lot better than us in that sense - I don't know the impact of the Bundesliga or EP on them. However, I think we will always be worse due to actually being in the same country and covered by the same TV companies. I can't see us getting more through the gates - there is not much room and it's not yet viable to expand - even if the demand improves. Even then and with the tricky financial risk of putting up the prices, we're talking about a maximum increase of a few million - best to put the efforts into TV and commercial income streams. The problem is that big German and English clubs are earning about 200m each from this - I can't see how we can even get close with an Atlantic league.

He was asking if MW was distracted by the Barton situation, which wasn't a direct question, but was related. He then wouldn't take the hint and bullshitted about it being different, and asked for respect when he clearly wasn't showing any.

I think people have interpretted this not quite right. To me, the judge is saying that he has heard that the historian experts have argued it IS an IRA song, but the prosecution didn't do this and so didn't prove it in court in this case. The judge thinks the guy is guilty ("hazard a guess") but the "the case presented in court was not to the standard that one might expect in a case like this." and therefore had to acquit as the there was not compelling enough evidence to find him guilty. It's the prosecution at fault, not the judge.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that kind of merchandise just wrong. Kids should choose their team, understandably in the face of a bit of natural influence from family, but that to me smacks more of brain washing, and if nothing else, a lack of class - worse than wearing a top on holiday. And for me, I really don't get the irresistible temptation to buy stuff with Rangers all over it. I used to buy the tops to play football, and now I've started playing again I have plenty to choose from, although strangely some are pretty crap as sports wear - expensive sports wear too.

How intelligent is he? I've no idea. Losing your cool is more a hormonal thing than intelligence - I believe high levels of testosterone can do that to you... Hence "'roid rage".

I didn't mean just lippy, I included a lack of contrition, arrogance etc which pretty much indicates subordination. You might be right but it's hard to believe when it's highly relevant in sentencing for criminal charges. The point is that there is a case for reprieve to dismissal if a working relationship can be re-established between employee and employer, but not if it's irretrievably broken down. If this were not the case then there would be a lot more sackings as an employer could not afford to be lenient at its discretion - and a lot more tribunals. I doubt that would be the case as he was already suspended. The club would use everything they had to keep it as watertight as possible. As for the betting, we don't know all the details, and after the previous betting issues, I would assume the club policy has hardened on that score. We don't know, but it's very possible. I would personally surmise that he's been given a verbal or written warning for the first suspension and can't see him not getting a written one for the 3 week extension - something must have happened there. He's had a second extension and so you'd have to give some credence to the possibility that he's been through some kind of a disciplinary procedure. Surely, there is some difference in the detail which could make a difference? I can't see how you can automatically equate them - and as said, club policy could have changed. Also each contract for each player is different. There is so many things that could be different, I don't know how you can state that so strongly.

In any case, it will be moot as they will probably come to some deal out of court depending on the strengths of their cases.

I always thought you can be sacked immediately for "gross misconduct". However, I think usually you get a bit of minimum severance, or gardening leave. I think footballers must be slightly different as they have a different style of contract and a lot will depend on the wording.

I agree that you can litigate against victimisation but not just because you were sacked and someone wasn't for vaguely similar misconduct. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of leeway with level of contrition, attitude towards management etc - that itself happens in court where a judge will adjust a sentence based on level of remorse. Or two different judges will give two different sentences. You would really have to prove it's victimisation and not your attitude to your work. I'm pretty sure a person might get away with not being sacked for something if they are very contrite and apologetic and promise to behave in future, while another can be sacked if they are arrogant, lippy and unrepentant. And that's when it's exactly the same. The Black and Barton cases are different - the latter has more than betting on his charge sheet and was already suspended before the betting came out. I think he'd have a very tough case to prove inconsistency or victimisation.

I really don't think it works like that - ever... There is always a lot of discretion. No two employees have the same record nor exactly the same misconduct. There is no black and white about it.

If he's desperate it sounds like he's got a lot of humble pie eating to do.

WRT Black, if someone does something that is sack-able, it doesn't mean you have to sack them - it depends whether the management want to work with you any more - and other related factors. If they do then they can invoke disciplinary action instead, and warning of future behaviour. If they don't then they will invoke the dismissal. Other factors are things like sell on value, football politics etc.

I think the betting gives pretty good grounds for dismissal - and the radio stuff. However, there is a massive presumption that they won't be able to come to some kind of mutual agreement and that Barton will not waver from his full remaining contract.

Vogts, Burley, Levein and Strachan have certainly done their bit to make watching Scotland a depressing chore... We've not been blessed with savvy managers in charge of our national team - McLeod, Roxburgh and Brown did well to get us to the finals, but imagine what we would have done with a better manager at the time. Although to be fair I wasn't that impressed with Stein and Ferguson was surprisingly poor. The best manager that I've seen for Scotland in my (football conscious) lifetime, was Walter Smith, but due to our low seeding and lesser quality of player, his task was far too great in a group of death - yet he still only missed qualification by a whisker with some bad luck.

I always thought it was a shame we didn't have two Walter Smiths - one for Scotland and one for us after Le Guen.

Are you saying he was incontinent?

I'm sure we could work around any rules - BUT both clubs would have to agree. I think it makes sense, although you get the people who don't miss an away game that won't agree. As I've said before, the flip side is that about 10k more Rangers fans get to see the game without having to buy the inclusive season ticket. So it is better to have more of our fans seeing it, or better for our more committed fans to see it more often? Remember the former can still be committed fans who just can't get to every game for a multitude of reasons.

I was a tiny bit embarrassed when an English mate asked me who we were playing... :blush: It no longer feels like *my* team. Although I'm probably sufficiently weak in that if we started to do really, really well, I might jump on the bandwagon.

I think the premise is that if you're in the game you can have contacts that might conspire with you to try to influence a game for someone to win a bet - and perhaps you will reciprocate sometime...

I remember when Roxburgh and Brown were getting the pelters... Halcion days now.

I think when asked the question they should be shown recordings of Celtic fans saying it, along with the add-ons, and also show them the banners at the OF game as well as the effigies, pointing out the significance of the orange cloth. After that, any fair minded person would deem it deeply offensive - that the media don't, while being extra sensitive to stuff like the mythical sash pitch pattern (which was tartan and in itself was overtly sectarian against the OO), is pretty shocking.

I don't really see the point of flying a flag of your country in a game against another team of your own country. In Europe it's different - where a Scottish flag would be appropriate but not really the union flag - especially as the English and Welsh won't let us join a British league. I think doing so is a bit like usurping the flag of your nation for yourself which is pretty arrogant - and what England did with the union flag which made it so unpopular in Scotland for a while. There is an argument that the country is correct and the colours correct for both flags... One other argument is that when we play against Celtic - they are flying a flag of a different country and have an anti-British and Scottish sentiment, so flying both flags at those games have more of a point, and I find it very strange that other teams are not offended by their enmity towards our populace, and fly the flags also. But it doesn't work in the rest of the league except perhaps against Hibs - and a lot of our singing repertoire then, makes it look as if we are defined by them - something we are always accusing them of. IIRC when I was young, the predominant Rangers flags were actually French - just for the colours, maybe with an RFC motif on the white part. Mine certainly was. I don't get flying flags from other places that are to do with that place - like the Red Hand of Ulster... We're a Scottish team, so while not being Scottish and following the team is fine, I don't think it's appropriate to fly a foreign flag, as it kind of insults the home nation of the team - if you support an English team would you take a Scottish flag to the game? I don' think that would be appropriate, nor a St George's Cross to a Scottish game. The same goes for players wrapping themselves in their foreign national flags when they win something - it's not really that bad but it is just wrong in my eyes. There is a time and a place.

I do think paki is a bit of a strange one - it comes from the Persian, "pak" which means "pure", or "clean", with the country adding the Hindi, "istan", meaning "land". So the word is calling them pure or clean with an i at the end - from the "istan", as a way of shortening a word, where we also love nicknames to end in a "y" sound. However, the problem with it, is probably to do with what people have already said - adding the expletives, but also as I said earlier, in the way it was said - spitting the word out with venom and contempt - the way they do with "hun". Which is why I was totally bemused by the ludicrous furore over, "My paki friend", unless he said it that way - which to me was a real occurrence of PC gone mad. I didn't like Green but that was nothing. So to draw a parallel, the hate crime part of "hun" is the way the say it, along with the phrases like, "kill all huns", "hun scum" and "hun [expletive]", which puts it in the same category as "paki" for that but kind of worse due to the additional pejorative connotations. Now if, as they ironically keep saying, that it is just a word for football fans, then maybe it would not come under the current groupings for which hate words are deemed criminal; however, the use of "minihuns" for other clubs with a legacy of protestant leanings, plus the stuff in NI, plus the FTQ and "kill all protestants" singing, completely debunks that one. So in conclusion, hun is obviously a hate word, and also pejorative and sectarian, and therefore breaks the law. The problem in court is that judges follow the media driven narrative and this type of argument never seems to be made clear, as far as I can tell from the (media skewed) reports.

To answer the original question, I personally think Warburton should give him one more chance - BUT, with the conditions that he has to bite his tongue (and keyboard); show respect to the management, team, club and fans; train well; and work his way back into the team from the bench. I don't know if Barton would go for that, or if he would be able to actually make himself do it, but I think it's a reasonable and fair way to go. A bit of humility and hard work goes a long way - and is the hallmark of many a great leader.

It's the squint saltire near the tally that bugs me the most...