JohnMc 2,473 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The whole thing is a disgrace and the fact that Warburton didn't even have the respect to turn up to be part of the discussion is shambolic. How in gods name can you have a disciplinary meeting without hearing what both sides have to say when they are face to face. Whether Barton is right or wrong doesn't change the fact that Rangers are making a mockery of the whole thing. It looks like they want an apology from Barton and he is refusing. If he feels he is right then he has the right to refuse but then the board should have had them both round the table. Maybe the board should just knock both their heads together as it looks like 2 stubborn mules facing up to each other and Rangers football club and it's fans are real injured party. Was Warburton expected to turn up Pete? To accuse him of a lacking respect is a surprise if we don't even know if he's part of the process or not. Warburton isn't his employer, he's his line manager, HR and legal people will be handling this now, Warburton will be asked, and expected, to turn up when the need arises. in my experience of employees being suspended there will be some sort of review period for the suspension, it can't run indefintely. Yesterday's meeting was propably a box ticking formality and all sides know that. It seems fairly clear there is no way back for Barton. Personally I'm pleased the club aren't just paying off his contract and hopefully he'll move on in January in the normal way of things. I assume Warburton doesn't want Barton around the squad and the players, first team or youth, so this is the only legal way to see it through to January. Barton has already played for two clubs this year, there might be an issue with him playing for a third and that might be what's preventing him being released and moving to another side before January. The '3 club' rule usually applies to a season rather than a calendar year but perhaps lawyers are concerned about its interpretation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragosani 60 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The whole thing is a disgrace and the fact that Warburton didn't even have the respect to turn up to be part of the discussion is shambolic. How in gods name can you have a disciplinary meeting without hearing what both sides have to say when they are face to face. Whether Barton is right or wrong doesn't change the fact that Rangers are making a mockery of the whole thing. It looks like they want an apology from Barton and he is refusing. If he feels he is right then he has the right to refuse but then the board should have had them both round the table. Maybe the board should just knock both their heads together as it looks like 2 stubborn mules facing up to each other and Rangers football club and it's fans are real injured party. This is indeed shambolic. Its embarrassing for the fans, the players & the club. The fact our board cant see this is pathetic. it wouldn't surprise me if we offered to release him and he's declined on the grounds of !fighting for his place. and now the board are hoping our beloved SFA (the champions of truth & justice) will find him guilty! Then we can take the moral high ground and fire him. This whole situation stinks! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,198 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 They would need to give him warnings. A verbal warning and then 3 written warnings. I doubt that they are at that stage yet. Would breaking the rules of the regulatory body (SFA) not be considered gross misconduct though and therefor gives the club cause ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Seems to me that to give a week's suspension for the training ground bust up means there was obviously a verbal warning which he didn't heed and then a first written one, giving him the punishment. The fact he's had his suspension extended another three weeks after his radio appearance and twitterings suggest a second written warning, and then another for the second extension which could be for the betting. So, if that's all they need, I would expect them to be well covered - and if it's add to a lack of contrition then I think he's made his bed. His crime sheet is pretty long for such a short time at the club. However, they probably don't want a court battle and might be interested in negotiating a more mutual exit by January - if anyone wants him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Would breaking the rules of the regulatory body (SFA) not be considered gross misconduct though and therefor gives the club cause ? The problem people give there is that we didn't sack previous offenders. However, it is an entirely new board and management, who have criticised the previous running of the club, so I can't see a case for inconsistency there. They could also have changed the club rules and/or contract wording since the previous offences. However, as I said above, his rap sheet is pretty long and so it's not the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragosani 60 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The problem people give there is that we didn't sack previous offenders. However, it is an entirely new board and management, who have criticised the previous running of the club, so I can't see a case for inconsistency there. They could also have changed the club rules and/or contract wording since the previous offences. However, as I said above, his rap sheet is pretty long and so it's not the same. Its a good point about a different board. However you could argue that with our majority shareholders problems in the past with the south African tax bodies and the millions of pounds, paid in settlements/penalties to them that our moral stance is a bit tenuous? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The longer it goes on the better Barton is looking. Our inability to decisively deal with this. Leaves the club looking bad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) I'm taking the board's and the managers position on this, firstly let's go back to the start of this debacle. I for one couldn't believe our luck getting a player of the (so called) quality and profile of Joey Barton, i thought this was too good to be true. He was supposedly taking a big pay cut to come to Rangers, a reformed character, fit and focused we were told? He never had a preseason with Rangers so we never really saw what the club was buying, only what we were told, However it quickly became apparent when he finally showed up he wasn't 100% fit, then his twitter patter started noising up Brown and CO. Now if you are going to noise up the opposition you have to be very sure of your abilities, save to say Joey's ability let himself down on that score. What i'm getting at is this, i think the club were told a plausible story about Joey Barton, the old saying there's no fool like and old fool comes to mind here, we were sold a pup. With his twitter rantings, gambling, unfit and general substandard play for a player of his again, so called quality, reformed, new-man reputation. The straw that broke the camels back on this saga was the training ground incident, whatever went on, enough was enough. In Joey's short career at Rangers, the manager and the board already had enough of Joey Barton show and his baggage train. Under normal circumstances getting shot of a disruptive player takes time and patience, however Joey is the architect of his own downfall here, he shot himself in the foot, the club are only trying to clear up his mess. Edited October 28, 2016 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,198 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Its a good point about a different board. However you could argue that with our majority shareholders problems in the past with the south African tax bodies and the millions of pounds, paid in settlements/penalties to them that our moral stance is a bit tenuous? It isn't about a moral stance though, if they CAN use the SFA rules (no gambling on games) then it is a legal stance, not a moral one - certainly in terms of employment law. Are you suggesting that because King had tax issues in SA that as long as he is our Club custodian then we will never be able to take the moral stance on anything ? I ask because Barton's situation is irrelevant to King's, and I'm not sure on what grounds you are linking the two. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,198 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The longer it goes on the better Barton is looking. Our inability to decisively deal with this. Leaves the club looking bad. But therein lies the problem. If the Club are waiting for the outcome of the SFA case regarding gambling then there is nothing they can do but wait, it prevents them from being decisive, through little fault of their own. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.