Mick Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 how ? he can not fulfill his side of the contract through his own doing. bizzarely had he been put away for the dabo incident,because that was before he signed for us and we knew the case was imminent,he may have had a case. as it it i dont see what case he has. The Dabo incident wasn't a one off, he was always likely to re-offend, that would probably be his defence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 how ? he can not fulfill his side of the contract through his own doing. bizzarely had he been put away for the dabo incident,because that was before he signed for us and we knew the case was imminent,he may have had a case. as it it i dont see what case he has. The Dabo incident wasn't a one off, he was always likely to re-offend, that would probably be his defence. but it's not a defence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 but it's not a defence We'll just have to wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 but it's not a defence We'll just have to wait and see. i suppose so. the problem for the club is that they may well have insured against him getting put away fro the "dabo" incident. but this isn't the case now and have the choice of keeping him or taking a £5.8mill(?) loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 how ? he can not fulfill his side of the contract through his own doing. bizzarely had he been put away for the dabo incident,because that was before he signed for us and we knew the case was imminent,he may have had a case. as it it i dont see what case he has. The Dabo incident wasn't a one off, he was always likely to re-offend, that would probably be his defence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 He's like the scouse Biffa Bacon. Biffa Barton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nufc_geordie Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. that is one of the funniest lines ever on here. i know if i was sent to prison i'd get sacked from my job as i'm unable to fulfill my side of the contract. i know because it has happened (but not to me) and even the unions solicitors refused to try and keep him his job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 The fact is the guy is a nutter, plain and simple. Even ignoring the cigar stubbing incident, the altercation in a hotel bar and the severe beating of a team mate, we saw 2 separate on-field incidents last season that tell us he's a fucking loon - a chest-high studs up challenge on an opposition whose name i forget and another incident towards the end of the season that i can't recall either (FFS, I must be getting old) but i remember it being pretty awful. Add to that the incident in Liverpool for which he is now serving time and we have more than enough evidence to tell us that we should wash our hands of him, even if it means losing £5.8m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. Good post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. It's probably beeing looked at by the clubs legal people. But as someone above said Mutu's actions put himself out of action for a whole season whereas Barton's Mcdonaldgate incident could see him miss only a few matches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. It's probably beeing looked at by the clubs legal people. But as someone above said Mutu's actions put himself out of action for a whole season whereas Barton's Mcdonaldgate incident could see him miss only a few matches. surely it's the principal rather than the timescale ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. It's probably beeing looked at by the clubs legal people. But as someone above said Mutu's actions put himself out of action for a whole season whereas Barton's Mcdonaldgate incident could see him miss only a few matches. surely it's the principal rather than the timescale ? I honestly don't know - I can't claim to have any detailed knowledge on the subject. But it seems to me that its a question of quantum .i.e how much the players breach has contributed to the loss in value. I would have thought that if you are attempting to base an action on a drop in value the fact that a player misses a whole season because of his wrong doing has a greater impact on the value of the loss than a wrong doing that results in only a handful of games missed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... In most jobs you can't sack somebody because they've gone to prison if you can get in a replacement until they are out again. A school teacher, a police officer, a doctor and jobs along those lines are different. I don't know how that would fit in with being a footballer as the club could probably argue that he's setting a bad example which kids may follow. I tried to sack somebody who got sent to prison for sticking a glass in another person’s face, I couldn't sack him and had to keep his job open until he returned. If Barton has lied to the club about the Darbo case and claimed innocence then that may be grounds for sacking him if he’s found guilty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Ignoring the rights and wrongs of who has done what, and the fans reaction to the sentence, I'm pretty certain that the club will be able to sack him. We now have some shit hot lawyers, who will have been asked to ensure that (a) imprisonment represented serious misconduct and can lead to termination of the contract, and (b) an offer to reduce the wages by half would not stop that contract being determined if that offer were refused. There is no way on earth that such an offer would have been made unless Freshfields had signed off in advance that it wouldn't affect the ability to determine the contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedudeabides Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 then again he couldn't complain about getting sacked either I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I would have thought he would have had some sort of future good behaviour bond built into his contract in all honesty. Although knowing Newcastle........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Linked with Bolton in a loan move today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Linked with Bolton in a loan move today Full story... 15 June 2008 Bolton going for a Barton Jailed Joey on the move By Alan Nixon Bolton Wanderers boss Gary Megson is ready to rescue Joey Barton from his Newcastle United nightmare with a season-long loan deal. Megson is interested in giving the jailed midfielder the opportunity to play on in the Premier League after watching his rift with the Toon widen. Barton refused to take a £30,000-aweek pay cut last week when Newcastle gave him a "sign or else" ultimatum but the row is likely to sour his relations with the club so much that he will leave. And Newcastle chiefs are also keen on easing him out of St James' Park after botching their bid to sack him - which looks more like a financial move than a moral judgement. Bolton chief Megson is investigating how to take Barton on loan, with the clubs probably sharing his £63,000-a-week salary. They will also have the option to buy him if the loan deal is a success. The 26-year-old, who joined Newcastle exactly a year ago for almost £6million, was an England cap 12 months ago and if Wanderers can bring him into their more settled environment he could be a major capture. The midfielder is currently serving a six-month sentence for assault and affray, but could be released early to go back to Newcastle for pre-season training. However the Geordie move to sack him has made that difficult - and now Bolton are poised to step in. Megson is happy to take a risk on Barton despite the baggage he brings with him. The former Manchester City bad boy has had a career plagued by controversy, including stubbing out a cigar in a team-mate's eye. So, we want him to take a £30k per week pay cut if we keep him, but Bolton want us to share his wages if they take him on loan??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Paying £31,500 a week for a player not playing for us doesn't sound to attractive to me. Especially when we have the option to sack him or possibly get him to drop his wages anyway. I say we compromise, Barton takes a pay cut to £45,000 and Bolton pay the same £31,500 share they're rumoured to be considering at the moment. Leaving us to only pay him £13,500 per week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Or we just sack him. And then sue him to reclaim some or all of the transfer fee we paid for him, like Chelsea are doing with Mutu. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now