Lee Barnard's trial is scheduled to begin tomorrow in the crown court. I suspect if found guilty (of ABH), they'll make an example of him and he'll go down, possibly for 6 months. Presume the club will stand by him if he does go down, not certain on the owners/chairmans attitude If so, as things stand, this would leave us with the front two that finished last season until the New Year with maybe Guly to move forward when (!) Connolly gets injured again Besides being a great and witty chant, I've been thinking why I and it seems most others really enjoyed belting the chant out with gusto, wow it was loud. Have decided it must be the rebel in me LEE BARNARD BARNARD HE'S SHORT BUT HE'S ****ING HARD HE'S WANTED BY SCOTLAND YARD LEE BARNARD BARNARD Presume Barnard is back in training again after his injury, havn't heard anything
Club, even if they wanted to, can do nothing unless he's convicted. They'd be up before a tribunal otherwise. In a recent case, a convicted murderer took his employer to court for not following correct procedure when sacking him (for once, common sense prevailed and it was thrown out). If (and I repeat if) LB is convicted it comes down to how much the club want to take the moral high ground. The moral high ground shifts according to how much the club want to keep him.
IF he is guilty and he gets sent down, the club should take the moral high ground and, if legal to do so, dismiss him. I love his all action style as a player, but I can not condone those actions if they are true as rumoured. This may be controversial and very probably hugely unpopular, but I am a father of two kids age 9 and 10, trying to bring them up knowing right from wrong. They know what he has been accused off and how can I support my son hero worshipping him IF he is convicted. There are always mitigating circumstances, but fundamentally I believe the club should portray the correct club image regardless of his value as an asset.
I appreciate your point fatletiss and agree with it somewhat...however Barnard although a good player for us is a replaceable player. Would your opinion be the same if it were Lallana in this situation? Or if it were (supposedly £10m rated) Chamberlain, I can't see the club keeping to its moral image and dismissing a player that they could potentially make a lot of money out of.
I understand that; and I'd hope that my view would stay the same. It's the moral that is key here. I have thought this for a while but not posted as I wanted to be clear in my mind that this is what I believe. I went through the dilemma of " what if he was a postman - would/could/should he be sacked. I do believe that, if legal, then dismissal would be correct thing if guilty and if imprisoned.
My personal position will depend on evidence presented in court. It's all supposition before then. I agree with fatletiss...if guilty of a violent, unpleasant crime..he should be dismissed. But nothings decided or proven yet.
Fair enough! Good on you for sticking to your guns, i don't think many clubs would if their top players were in a such a situation. If Barney is proven guilty and does go down, i would expect the club (like you say, if its legal) to dismiss him. As a club, with NC i think we have a very rigid set of morals that would not be forgotten or excuses made. But i guess we shall see what happens, hopefully Barney is innocent and the club don't have to go down that road!
Yep hopefully he's found innocent Dave Whelan at Wigan sacked Marlon King when he went down and I think they had paid a few quid for him.
He's not Joey Barton or Marlon King. Shouldn't think the club will do anything too heavy. The offence wasn't a calculated assault on a fellow player or one of the club staff, so don't think there's grounds for the club to take serious action. If he goes down, they'll probably let him out after a couple of months with good behaviour.
Other sackings include Adrian Mutu for drugs reasons, it's pretty complex and still in various courts but they pretty much wrote off a £10m+ transfer fee there.
With respect, Mutu had a global ban placed on him so the club are hardly going to carry a player that isn't allowed to play. I don't think you can compare this to Mutu, he tested positive for cocaine and the club were paying him a lot of money to play at his best which I'm sure he struggled to do with a nostril caked in marching powder. Lee Barnard was playing his heart out for us in the run up to his most recent injury. I think the club, if he is found guilty obviously, should be seen to reprimand him but I can't forsee a full dismissal. Fingers crossed he is innocent though, and the victim's severe head injuries were not a result of Barnard's injuried right hand...
The players value, who he is , or of what standing should not come into the equation. If the lad is guilty then assuming the crown court have all the facts will then sentence him. Now if he gets a community sentence what are you going to ask for then. That he is dismissed from his contract with Saints? Or if he is sent down for a couple of months out in two or three months so that by about October ish he is free to play football for who ever will take him on. No fee to find just the fact of whether the guy still has it to score goals. How many of the clubs in the Championship are going to turn down a free scoring forward for nothing. Do you really want that to happen. Or is it better to say ok you have done your time but if the right offer comes along we will let you go and actually make some money out of you. Or finally, you have done your time behave yourself and lets see if we can rebuild your career. Now it depends on how you look at things in reality.......do you decide things as a business man "what is right for the club" do you decide "on ethics" or "morality". Anything other than a business decision for me will give someone else an advantage they shouldn't get. Someone will ask, but what does that say to the youngsters. Well in answer to that, it shows that someone has been punished for a crime. Allowed back into a community and allowed to rebuild their life. The fact he has been punished tells the youngsters there is a price to pay for their folly. It can be emphasized how lucky the lad has been. Also how charitable the people of Southampton has been including the club. Now in that is more than one lesson perhaps. Finally what about the lad himself, do you honestly think it is going to be easy to live down the fact you have been found guilty of this type of a crime? Do you think it will not effect his life? I can almost hear the cries of "so it should" or "why shouldn't it?" Ok he is now a criminal lets treat him as one for all time. So he acts as one. Or should we be saying lets try and ensure you don't go down that road again by giving you every chance not too.........just a thought!!!!
Great post Beddy, I agree with everything you say. Southampton F.C. has a role in the community, not just to uphold the moral high ground, but to show that people can be rehabilitated. If Lee is guilty, he will be punished in some way by the court. It is then up to the club to play a large part in rehabilitating him.
Irrespective of the potential custodial sentence pending, Saints are too light in the attacking department. We need one more target man to keep the pressure on Rickie. In a couple of seasons I can actually see Rickie dropping back to play a more "letiss" role anyway.
I don't necessarily think we should be pre-empting the judicial process here. If he is not guilty (and he has not been proven so yet), then its wrong (and libellous) to assume he is. I have full confidence in the court to make the correct finding. Unless its trial by jury (not sure, has he been committed?), when it comes down to whether its a jury of Saints fans or Skates.
I considered all this, Beddytare when thinking over the allegations. I still stand by my original post that IF found guilty he should be dismissed. I am going to give some thought to your comment on the community service rather than a prison sentence, as I hadn't considered that. My initial thought is the same outcome. I can't agree with your comment about "business decision" and giving someone else an advantage. Let's be the club that says we won't accept players commiting that type of offence and let someone else benefit - fine. If I were a Coventry fan, I'd be uncomfortable with Marlon King playing for my team. I really can't accept the argument that someone else would want a goalscorer at our expense; I'd rather be talking to my mates with some pride and letting them know that my club puts responsibility first. I understand the "rehabilitation" argument too, but he happens to be in a postion that is in the public spotlight and he is idolised by young people watching him play. I would rather let someone else rehabilitate him and be able to turn to my son and point out the missed opportunity Barnard's actions may have prevented him from having. Next, I'll be accused of breaching his human rights!
