|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Aug 2, 2021 10:04:25 GMT
So, As a club we stand firmly against any form of violence, and will dismiss immediately if found guilty, yet employ with a repeating history of guilty violence, I just don't get it!. I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Reform makes him sound like a naughty schoolboy.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,177
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Aug 2, 2021 11:04:23 GMT
I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Reform makes him sound like a naughty schoolboy. Certainly not meant to trivialise it any way CPB! I'm sure you knew that though..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 11:28:53 GMT
So, As a club we stand firmly against any form of violence, and will dismiss immediately if found guilty, yet employ with a repeating history of guilty violence, I just don't get it!. I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Bit odd that he was employed with an ongoing case though wasn't it. I think my point is, with the Stendel case already ongoing, is this a new moral position on Wael's part, or does 'instant dismissal upon being found guilty' form part of Barton's contract?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,177
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Aug 2, 2021 12:19:41 GMT
I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Bit odd that he was employed with an ongoing case though wasn't it. I think my point is, with the Stendel case already ongoing, is this a new moral position on Wael's part, or does 'instant dismissal upon being found guilty' form part of Barton's contract? I certainly agree that it was odd to take a chance with the case going on, past form, etc Barton must have been very convincing! I wouldn't have personally taken a chance. I would imagine that a normal football contract, like most employment contracts, would contain clauses related to behaviour etc., but then you never know with Rovers.....
|
|
TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,366
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Aug 2, 2021 12:27:29 GMT
So, As a club we stand firmly against any form of violence, and will dismiss immediately if found guilty, yet employ with a repeating history of guilty violence, I just don't get it!. I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Yes Chesh, many could go along with past is past and hope for the best, reform and all that, but we employed him with a court case pending, and now we have a second court case pending. I think we are not 'standing as firmly' as led to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Bamber Gashead on Aug 2, 2021 14:03:45 GMT
I reckon Barton will appeal both cases if found guilty just to drag it out and keep himself in a job a bit longer while dragging our name even further into the mire.
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Aug 2, 2021 14:05:20 GMT
I can only think Wael's view was that everyone deserves a second (or in this case 5th or 6th) chance and to reform. Some people grasp the chance to reform, in this case I think the leopard hasn't changed its spots.....and can only end badly. Yes Chesh, many could go along with past is past and hope for the best, reform and all that, but we employed him with a court case pending, and now we have a second court case pending. I think we are not 'standing as firmly' as led to believe. Yes, but we all know that the club doesn't have a zero tolerance approach and, more importantly, so does Barton. He joked in club interviews about his past cowardly assaults claiming that he had gone to prison for assaults less serious than the ones he had just witnessed on the pitch. What kind of impression would you have if that was the first time you encountered the club? And, like you say, he employed an unreformed Barton in the first place. In doing so, he quite clearly condoned violent behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by rideintothesun on Aug 2, 2021 14:06:40 GMT
I reckon Barton will appeal both cases if found guilty just to drag it out and keep himself in a job a bit longer while dragging our name even further into the mire. I'm not sure it can. Does it get lower than suggesting wife-beating is a victimless crime?
|
|
|
Post by Bamber Gashead on Aug 2, 2021 14:14:38 GMT
I reckon Barton will appeal both cases if found guilty just to drag it out and keep himself in a job a bit longer while dragging our name even further into the mire. I'm not sure it can. Does it get lower than suggesting wife-beating is a victimless crime? It shouldn't get lower than that, but it will if we stand by him should he appeal. Imagine the vitriol that will cause our (former) good name.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Aug 2, 2021 14:16:14 GMT
I'm not sure it can. Does it get lower than suggesting wife-beating is a victimless crime? It shouldn't get lower than that, but it will if we stand by him should he appeal. Imagine the vitriol that will cause our (former) good name. The point is surely that, sadly, we may well get to find out as we appear to have entered a whole new dimension of ethical barrel scraping.
|
|
knowall
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 162
|
Post by knowall on Aug 2, 2021 16:01:03 GMT
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME GASHEADS - WE WERE THE CLUB WHO REPORTED OUR OWN CLUB FOR CHEATING - AND NOW? WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE REST
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 16:37:32 GMT
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME GASHEADS - WE WERE THE CLUB WHO REPORTED OUR OWN CLUB FOR CHEATING - AND NOW? WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE REST QUACK QUACK!
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 2, 2021 16:46:48 GMT
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME GASHEADS - WE WERE THE CLUB WHO REPORTED OUR OWN CLUB FOR CHEATING - AND NOW? WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE REST I beg to differ. Sadly we are a lot worse than the rest. Pride. Dignity. Doing things the 'right way.' Gone. Very sad times for the Club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 19:22:51 GMT
@georgiabarton3's Instagram witness statement's gone then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 19:35:55 GMT
HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME GASHEADS - WE WERE THE CLUB WHO REPORTED OUR OWN CLUB FOR CHEATING - AND NOW? WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE REST Hi Roy, hope you are ok. In toxic turd We Trust according to the official flag displayed at the stadium.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 19:51:50 GMT
I've known smackheads more trustworthy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 20:03:40 GMT
Bit odd that he was employed with an ongoing case though wasn't it. I think my point is, with the Stendel case already ongoing, is this a new moral position on Wael's part, or does 'instant dismissal upon being found guilty' form part of Barton's contract? I certainly agree that it was odd to take a chance with the case going on, past form, etc Barton must have been very convincing! I wouldn't have personally taken a chance. I would imagine that a normal football contract, like most employment contracts, would contain clauses related to behaviour etc., but then you never know with Rovers..... My question was, unless this is a new thing that Wael has just decided, then shouldn't Barton's contract contain a clause that he's out the door if found guilty in the Stendel case? I agree that you would expect to see clauses relating to behaviour in contracts, but the Stendel incident had already happened. And even then, it's immediate, so the instant a guilty verdict, if that's the outcome, is handed down he's gone. Only at Rovers, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 2, 2021 20:25:41 GMT
I certainly agree that it was odd to take a chance with the case going on, past form, etc Barton must have been very convincing! I wouldn't have personally taken a chance. I would imagine that a normal football contract, like most employment contracts, would contain clauses related to behaviour etc., but then you never know with Rovers..... My question was, unless this is a new thing that Wael has just decided, then shouldn't Barton's contract contain a clause that he's out the door if found guilty in the Stendel case? I agree that you would expect to see clauses relating to behaviour in contracts, but the Stendel incident had already happened. And even then, it's immediate, so the instant a guilty verdict, if that's the outcome, is handed down he's gone. Only at Rovers, unfortunately. Unless he appeals, as I sense we could be on dodgy ground, employment law wise, if we sacked him and then he won his appeal
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 20:27:37 GMT
Everyone assumes Al Qadi bothered to check.
|
|
|
Post by sethstarkadder on Aug 2, 2021 22:14:08 GMT
It’s all a mess and getting worse.
There’s a bit somewhere where someone says ‘who would you replace him with?’, as if every other club hasn’t found someone who’s not ’like that’ to manage them - including Fleetwood who (surprisingly) went down that rabbit hole and (unsurprisingly) reversed out. Let’s whack ourselves on the head like the guy with the sore head did!
Then somewhere else subjudice got raised. Ah yes. ‘The club can’t comment because it’s subjudice, but...’ and then went on to give its warped opinion of why it really needn’t detain the court for long because [ugh]. Hopeless.
On a similar line, subjudice is about not influencing the court case. So what they then effectively did, in trying to correct the last foul up, was say that if this man changes his plea to guilty, he’d be sacked from a lucrative job he should never have got. No noises-off there then. *
It’s just a question of how many more pratfalls there will be, while we keep squirming and digging, before it inevitably all ends in tears.
All self-inflicted. He’s not even a good manager. What makes anyone think that character profile would make a good manager? So far, he‘s converted ‘approaching the bottom 4’ to ‘adrift at the bottom’ in 2 months flat, and was the worst of 3 managers that season.
* Admittedly, there was scant chance of him changing his plea, even if it does dawn on him that Plod’s account from the night isn’t covered by the vow of silence. And by the way, the answer to the question “why did you kick your wife in the head?” should always start with the word ‘l’, not the word ’She’.
|
|