Sorry Flyer, Read it again. Only a serious breach of contract will suffice. That says it all to me. Assaulting 3 players, only one of which was seen by the ref, and then blaming his team mates for egging him on to take one of theirs with him was not regarded as serious enough to get rid of the twat. He committed gross misconduct. As such instant dismissal without any prior warnings was fully merited. Perhaps his tweet (if he already knew the outcome)is. If so it would be ironic if his gob rather than his fists cost him his job. The board bottled it. Pure and simple.
Live and die by the Swords eh! I know you like to pick up on hypocrisy so I'll ask what the difference is between a man elbowing and kicking another man and someone racially abusing another man and also sleeping with a man's wife. By your own logic, the fact that there's no long term damage must mean that there's no case to answer. Seemingly one has you calling for the victim to be beheaded while the other has you claiming the moral highground and condemning the perpetrator. Or is it the suspension? If JT gets 3 months (doubt he will) then would that, and only that, put him on a par with Barton because of the impact to the club. Can't see either has grubbied the name of their respective club any more than the other (well actually I'd put JB marginally better). Keep it up mate - you do make me smile.
Sorry Yorkshire but I think you're missing the point. IF this agreement, "The Club has also reached agreement with Barton that if he seriously breaches the Club's disciplinary procedures again, the Club reserves the right to terminate his contract.", were in place BEFORE the City game Barton would have been fired by now. From now on he's threading a fine line and the club wont hesitate to cut it.
They couldnt sack him, they did as much as they could but now they have him publicly agree that he leaves if he does one more bad thing. Its as much as they could do. It was even written about weeks ago. You cant sack someone if the contract doesnt allow it. Hence why they now have the agreement in place. To be fair Barton did not have to agree to that either.
The wife thing is irrelevant really don't you think? I couldn't care less about player's personal relationships, let alone another Club's players. However, I want to make it clear, I'm not a defender of John Terry. I couldn't care less about him. Hes not our player.But the fact that you even conflate physical assault and a verbal exchange as on a par with one another shows how crazy society has gotten. The crucial thing here is this: Barton got himself sent off in a do or die game for us. What did John Terry do to fu*k with Chelsea's chances of winning the game other than make a grown man behave like a petulant child? Besides, why would we give a sh*t about John Terry? He has nothing to do with us. We should constantly attack and berate our own players for their conduct. What the fu*k has anyone else's players got to do with us? It was the same when some of our Muppets were running after Tevez instead of directing all their anger at Barton. Wake up and cop yourselves on.
Let's keep the on-field/off-field thing clear shall we. Off the playing field, if you want to call it physical assault then you're bringing the law into it which would then make the verbal exchange a racially motivated offence which is also illegal. Both are morally wrong (in my own view as well as the law's). Terry's behaviour off the field in his time at Chelsea is dubious, not so much Barton at QPR (although his life has been cluttered with events to that point). On the pitch, the only difference you offer is that Barton plays for QPR and could have cost us our status in the Premiership. Fact is he didn't and the effect of his on-field problems are no greater in extent than either Diakite or Cisse (in terms of games that potentially cost us 3 points). In terms of Terry's impact on the game, you're basically saying that he's OK because the ref didn't hear it (because he definitely would have been sent off otherwise). I say wake up and cop yourself off...
Hear what? Have you tried, convicted and sentenced him? Bizarre statement to make from a man who claims to have some knowledge of the legal system.
I'd go with Yorkshire every time on this stuff, he's a professional. But why did the Board bottle it? Because they actually want him to stay? Because even though they would have won they didn't want the publicity of an appeal in the courts from Barton, where he would doubtless have spilled the beans on average behavior of spoilt kids lucky enough to be paid to play football? Or because they regard him as some kind of chattel, with some residual value on the market? Beats me.
I said I didn't have knowledge of the legal system (I'm no legal eagle was my quote). I am aware of it's existence though. You can try that tactic but, by your own admission, Ferdinand should have just drawn a line under it - under what? Have you tried and exonerated him? This is rather fun isn't it?
Nope. It says "if he seriously breaches the Club's disciplinary procedures again", meaning another conduct like the one at the Etihad will get him the sack. Now the club and player have and agreement, should this occur again he will be fired. If they have had this in the first place he would have been on the dole by now.
Far worse. The idiot knew his actions would get him sent off and jeopardize his side's very PL existence. The rules of the game are quite clear. You can't elbow and kick people and stay on the pitch. Terry and Ferdinand didn't break any rules. Verbals are permitted although I agree its wise to keep them to a minimum.
Swords, if you're intent on sticking a pointed stick into a hornets nest, get your facts right mate. Racist verbals are not permitted by the FA, that's why Suarez got banned. There is nothing Anton could do about the court case, even shaking Terry's hand and saying he had no problem would not stop the CPS action, which was instigated by a 3rd party complaint, not Anton.
If you can find anything set of rules relating to football or UK legislation that doesn't include a section on racial abuse then I'd back down instantly. Haven't read the under 9s/playground rules but I have a feeling they'd probably get you a suspension. Barton had one, extended moment of red mist. I'm sure Terry will use the same "heat of the moment" thing in his defence.
Norway, it's my understanding that gross misconduct is fairly standard in English employment law, and attacking someone during the course of doing your job and representing your employer would fit the description. Perhaps it's different in Norway. The board have chosen not to exercise their right to terminate his employment I.e. bottled it.
I think you might find that there's a queue of people willing to do either today. Personally, I'm sure you look nothing like a Cornish pasty and am not one to resort to violence.
Was Barton actions in the man city game really that outrageous? When you compare them to Suarez biting, Cantona kicking, balotelli stamping etc lots of footballers behave like 9 year olds. The worst thing for me was the way he let down the team by being sent off. He has been giving a fair punishment lets move on
You're right, Flyer. It's the best the club could get. Joey either performs and behaves himself, or his out. He's done a Mea Culpa on his tweets, which I suppose is encouraging (must be a Jimmy Carr fan), but I still think we'll have trouble with him ahead. Ah well, deal with that "if and when..."
