IF we went down this route and I cant imagine we will, the club could be in line to pay Barton a massive amount of money if he wins the no doubt appeal that he would put into effect after we sacked him. Not a good idea in my eyes. A hefty fine and make him publically apologise to the fans and lets just get on with another year in the Prem.
Barton is challenging the second off the ball incident against Kompany but has admitted the first against Aguero. Forgive me for being a cynic but is this a poor attempt at damage limitation so that he serves less of a ban just in case he is off-loaded to another club? Who would want to buy a player who may be out of the game for 12 matches? There may be more clubs interested if he is only going to serve a 6 or 8 match ban. What grinds my gears is the thought of him being paid his wages while effectively sitting on his arse for two or three months. If we can't sack him can we fine him his wages for the whole of the period of what ever his ban ends up being? I can see him returning to play for QPR for purely financial reasons. Who would want to prove a point and sack him at a cost of the remainder of his contract? I wouldn't be surprised if he stays until the January 2013 window and is let go at a discounted rate, it would be up to the new club to negotiate his wages.
Happy to oblige. A very serious breach of contract allows the other party to terminate it immediately without paying any compensation at all. In employment contracts very serious breaches are referred to as gross misconduct. A well drafted contract will give the employer the right to do so in certain specified circumstances such as fighting, stealing, or acting in a way that brings the employer into disrepute. However the category of gross misconduct offences is very wide. Provided that it is very serious and it destroys the employer's trust or faith in his employee to behave properly in accordance with his obligations towards his employer in the future, the employee can be sacked immediately. What I do not know is whether JB's contract has unusual written terms in it which would prevent the usual principles applying. Under the law of contract, the parties are generally free to agree any terms they want provided that they do not agree on something that is illegal such as to murder someone. If the terms are written, we would not be able to get round that. I would be surprised if sports contracts exclude the normal legal principles relating to gross misconduct. I also suspect that we were in a stronger negotiating position than Mr Barton when the terms were agreed. He needed us more than we needed him. But the club's lawyers will need to to see the written contract before they can come to any safe decision. It is likely that the contract is for a fixed term. There is unlikely to be any provision for terminating the contract early by giving written notice. Therefore if we cannot class his actions as gross misconduct, he would be entitled to damages representing what he would have received if the contract had been allowed to continue until its natural end. That is what the owners will be concerned about. They can always sack him but if they get it wrong, they will have to pay him off. As we know that won't be cheap. As he has not been with us for long, he would only have the right to claim unfair dismissal as well if he could prove that he was sacked because of an act of whistleblowing or discrimination or a variety of other situations which take it out of the normal situation. That is unlikely. The laws of discrimination do not yet apply to cover such characteristics as red hair, blue eyes, Scouse tendencies, three legs or, in JB's case, a dangerously short fuse.
Thanks Yorkshire. So unless he has something strange in his contract looks like the club is in a strong position. Would still imagine that they would prefer an 'exit by mutual agreement' if possible, but Barton is so bloody minded this may not be achievable.
Stan, I agree. That is what is very likely to happen. The one aspect of all this that nauseated me was his tweet post match in which he said that another player told him to take at least one of theirs with him. Firstly, I do not believe that for one minute but he has said it now. If he does not go he will have to work with that player and his team mates again. More importantly that accusation brings the club into disrepute. Principles usually count for very little in legal battles because of the risk that you will lose, collateral damage to your reputation and most importantly, the legal costs involved. That is precisely why so may employers settle cases even though they were morally justified in doing what they did. I doubt whether this case would be any different for those very understandable reasons.
Interesting that Nick de Marco is representing Joey Barton at the FA hearing. Club lawyer and on the team that kicked the FA's arse over the Faurlin charges. And he specialises in employment law. Not sure what to make of that.
Not optimistic that this will end with a Barton free Rs Roller? Think it depends on Sparky genuinely not wanting him around.
I don't see him being gone myself. I'd agree re:Sparky. Are you watching The Who on Sky Arts 1? "Won't get fooled again", very apt!
Ha! No I'm reverting to total juvenilia with a Family Guy fest, pondering what kind of idiot scheduled my daughter's rounders match for 9 tomorrow morning, meaning I have to get up a least 2 hours earlier than ideal
It would satisfy me if he is gone. I'd rather they don't spend a lot of dough on getting rid of him so a sacking could be just the ticket
