Epic Fail. This is a great statement. Nevermind the legal ramifications he would face for not following process, he's going out of his way not to undermine his manager in public.
Why shouldn't a criminal who has served his sentence be able to play football again? What's the difference in moral terms between that and going back to a normal job? Or do you want all criminals to never be able to work so they continue to commit crimes?
Fair point Lancs, although I wasn't trying to suggest that he shouldn't be able to work again (although I realise my point was poorly made), or even play football. I'll try and elaborate a bit. Suarez-Found guilty by an FA hearing, but not a criminal conviction. Terry- If found guilty, I would expect him to receive a life-time ban, and for Chelsea to sever any ties with him. If any of us were convicted of racism in the workplace, I don't think we'd expect to still be employed. From an FA point of view, if they let him play it makes a complete mockery of their 'kick racism out of football' campaign. Evans-Ok, so he's still found guilty on appeal, and if he does his full 5 years, he comes out aged 28. Yes, afterwards his 'slate' is effectively clean. As it's not a football related crime, he shouldn't be banned from the sport. However, consider the public reaction if a club was to sign him. The club would take a beating in the papers, I can't imagine the clubs fans would be happy, sponsors wouldn't want to be associated with a rapist. Why would a club go through the hassle to sign a player who had potential 5 years ago, and hasn't trained properly since? Ok, so he's cheap and he might turn into a half decent player again, but I think it reflects very badly on any club who takes him on, if they're prepared to neglect all that for, as RobbieBB puts it, 'success on the field'. On the topic of criminals working again, I have no problem, although I'd love to see some statistics on the number of convicted rapists who then go on to lead a 'normal' life in a decent job. Sorry this has gone pretty off-topic!
it's all on topic I think. When the time comes then a club will have to weigh up the PR cost vs what the player brings on the pitch. There are plenty of unsavoury characters in any walk of life and I'm sure many of us will work with rapists and wife beaters who never got found out. In any case, here's throwing a slightly different light on it: if you're a teacher and you hit a child you'll never work as a teacher again, if you're a doctor and you behave inappropriately with a patient you may be struck off. For me, to be a footballer, you have to be a sportsman. Barton has been making it worse for himself on twitter and claims that he wanted to take a Man City player with him. Now for me, that's even worse than the guy having an anger problem and losing his head. As far as I'm concerned, he should now be struck off by the FA as a professional footballer. However, you can't just make up the rules for one incident so it depends what the law says and what the FA's own disciplinary rules and procedures say.
The FA said that because the attacks on Aguero and Kompany came after the first red card they were not under the Referee's jurisdiction. By extending that logic the police could charge Barton with assault, despite their unwillingness to get invlolved with on-pitch violence. A criiminal charge could allow QPR to sack Barton without paying millions in compensation.
Barton should have been arrested by the police, that would have put an end to any speculation. In my opinion QPR are not behaving very well, I caught a bit of an interview on 5live last night with someone from the club who flatly refused to condemn Bartons actions, he was hiding behind words and behaving like a politician. If a couple of Man City fans had decided to run onto the pitch, (as tensions were running high anyway and could concievably have happened) there could have been a full scale riot. Come on, employment law states that fighting and aggressive behaviour in the work place are Instant dismissable offence's. I had a incident like this last year and we sacked the person on the spot, you don't need an inquiry or verbal warnings etc, it's straight out of the door. It's not as if there's no evidence is there? ILD OTBC
As a QPR fan I hope you are right and that Barton does get sacked, but I think you have simplified the problem a little. With all due respect, I suspect (do correct me if I'm wrong), that the employee fired at your workplace was not earning something between £30k-£80k per week. If QPR act rashly and sack Barton without going through due process, we could be liable for millions of pounds for unfair dismissal. If we come out and speak against him, and through due process later manage to sack him, he might then have grounds to complain of constructive dismissal. I feel that the club is being understandably cautious, but as I said at the start, I hope you're right and that he can be sacked.
Couldn't the ref show barton a second red etc, I have played games on saturdays and sundays and seen it happen then the players has basically been sine die.
Sorry, but the law does not and should not be based on what you earn, but your actions in the work place. In the case I was refering to, we didn't have video evidence or 52 different camera angles as proof! Just 2 witnesses who were prepared to testify what they had seen. We did end up at a Industrial Tribunal, but it only took 2 hours for the judge to find in our favour. I would like to see a contract where it say's it's a non dismissable offence to attack someone in the work place! I understand your concerns about being sued, because that little toerag will probably try that route, but constructive dismissal, he doesn't have a leg to stand on! As I said previously, I was disappointed that your club couldn't come out and condemn him and his actions. Lets just hope you do eventually come to the correct decision. ILD OTBC
Ilovedelia, I think the law should not be based on what you earn...sadly I'm less convinced than you that the law doesn't make allowances for how much you earn! Perhaps I'm overly cautious.
