Jump to content

Recommended Posts

He is a lost cause.

 

I guess he regret this when he gets older. f***ing moron!

 

The sad thing is he probably won't. He's earnt a fair wage with us the past year or so for doing f*** all. Can see that being good enough for this little wankstain.

 

He might be too stupid to grasp what he have wasted.

As for him being a "gangster" i think he will waste the money before he is 40.

 

Unbelievable stuff really, think about how many less naturally gifted players who would die to get a shot in the PL, sickening!

 

Thing is that there probably are less talented players in the Premiership playing now, but because this guy is a clown he is missing a golden opportunity. I'd be happy to sack the fool now. Time to move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder what wage he is on, can we not free transfer him? Not many people get blessed with the chance of being a professional footballer, something we'd all love to have and he's pissed it up against the wall. What a joke of a person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot will depend on the terms of his contract.

 

If he is found guilty then we could try and sack him. He would then no doubt bring a claim for unfair dismissal. There are two ways for this to be done really. Firstly, procedural e.g. the club hasn't followed protocol by giving him the right number of written warnings, verbal warnings etc. The second is substantive. It is a bit more complicated than this in reality, but it comes down to a range of reasonable responses test. In other words was the club acting reasonably in dismissing him. This is usually quite difficult for a claimant to prove as it simply has to be a reason that any other reasonable employer in the world could potentially use to sack someone, however, this may be complicated by the fact that we have not sacked others (Barton) for similar offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest BooBoo

What's the point in bail conditions that if you break them...nothing happens? All the judge has done is give him the same ones again :undecided:

 

Its a breach fair enough but you can't really lock people up for simply being in a city centre. Unless there was a further aggravating feature, bail would unlikely have been opposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

I thought this might happen. I've seen him in town a few times. What a complete, tumbling dickweed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's dumb, and then there's Nile Ranger.

 

My word. The guy is set for life, even if he doesn't fully apply himself. Just play football until you're 22-23 and you're more than set for life. How on earth do you get to where he is? Monumentally moronic. Quite staggering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest BooBoo

In this case the condition to bar him from the city centre was to allay any fears that he would commit further offences. Yes he's breached his condition by being in that exclusion zone but unless he's been misbehaving then it would be too onerous to remand him. It's likely he got told this was his last chance to comply with bail, but in reality even if he did the same thing gain, he'd probably escape custody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's dumb, and then there's Nile Ranger.

 

My word. The guy is set for life, even if he doesn't fully apply himself. Just play football until you're 22-23 and you're more than set for life. How on earth do you get to where he is? Monumentally moronic. Quite staggering.

 

Exactly, why can't we just sack him and be rid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point in bail conditions that if you break them...nothing happens? All the judge has done is give him the same ones again :undecided:

 

Its a breach fair enough but you can't really lock people up for simply being in a city centre. Unless there was a further aggravating feature, bail would unlikely have been opposed.

 

Well, I know you're the one who knows this stuff so I'll bow to your knowledge :)

 

What I'm confused about is...the condition of the original bail was he was not to set foot in the city. But he broke this and therefore broke the bail conditions. But all the judge seems to have done is re-apply the same conditions. So I'm confused to the point of them in the first place. Seems he can just go back into town and he'll only go back to square one :undecided:

 

I'm missing something...I'm sure :blush:

 

As Otter says, he has done nothing wrong bar being in the exclusion zone as set by his bail. Bail conditions are there to lessen the likelihood of a repeat of the same offence, so Police have an immediate power of arrest before he gets close to another fight or whatever. Whilst there appears to be no punishment for the breach, it is something which will be considered at his court date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the precedent we set with Barton not so long ago would give Ranger a good case against the club if they were to sack him?

 

Of course it would, the club could still have Ranger for each individual offence committed by him but would they be sackable offences?  The football club must have a disciplinary procedure as hundreds of people are employed and they will all be covered by the same rules and they must all be given the same treatment.

 

For instance if somebody you work with has been off work 10 times this year and nothing happened to them then you would have a good case against your company if you were disciplined and had only been off work 8 times.

 

A disciplinary procedure must be seen to be fair, not only to those who are disciplined but also to the ones who never do anything wrong.  Using the above example, why should somebody be allowed to be off 10 times when you are never off?

 

If Ranger is breaking club curfews then is it fair that the club should do nothing?  It’ll not seem too fair to the players who don’t go on the drink when asked not to.

 

I was all for the club disciplining Carroll and Barton and don’t see how they can sack Ranger for what looks to be lesser offences than allegedly committed by the other two. 

 

The easiest way to sack him would be to claim that he was bringing the clubs name into disrepute, his defence would probably be that he hadn't done anything as bad as Carroll or Barton and he would probably have a fair point with that.

 

He's almost certainly now a lost cause at this club and we might have to pay his contract up to get rid of him unless another club was stupid enough to take a chance on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll end up knee capped, in prison, a drug addict or something else, whichever way he'll end up a mess and broke. His life is written, he's made his choices, it'll only get worse and when it gets to that stage I'll piss myself laughing.

 

Utter lowlife wanker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...