Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

... unless he agreed to have his £55k a week salary halved.

Apparently he is reluctant to accept the cut.

So ... a few points here ...

1. Sam "give me money Mr Gartside & I'll show you how I can build a team" Allardyce decided that Joey Barton was woth a punt at £6m fee plus £55k a week.

2. The club were willing to spend all this on a high-average player with a history of being temramental & difficult. This was not Tierry Henry, it was Joey Barton ffs.

3. He was already charged with the Ousman affair (which comes to court this week I understand).

4. A footballer maintains a value. If Barton is sacked he will be inundated with offers. The Hull's & Stoke's of the world simply can't afford to ignore his ability ... whatever the risk. I just hope to God Bolton are above that.

5. Newcastle appear to be saying "we'll sack you because of what heinous things you've done ... but not if you take a pay cut !!" Go figure.

Is it all a bit less heinous if he earns less ?

6. The scrote himself is reluctant to accept the cut.


I hope they add another 6 years to his sentence following the next trial.

Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

I think Sam was kinda right signing him, he could have been a good player for them (or anyone) but sometimes players are beyond saving and will destroy their career no matter how hard you try and stop it happening.

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

communistworkethic wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

But the latter would also involve chucking out an asset they paid £6million to acquire.

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

But the latter would also involve chucking out an asset they paid £6million to acquire.

But in the light of Adriano Mutu being ordered by Fifa to pay Chelsea £9.6 million after he was sacked, they might give it a go.

communistworkethic wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

I honestly don't know the intricacies of this one. If his jail-term were to infringe on his ability to perform first-team duties, then possibly so. Mummy might know about European Human Rights legislation covering this - effectively whether it would be legal to terminate the contract of someone because they have a criminal record.

Mummy?

Lord Kangana wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

I honestly don't know the intricacies of this one. If his jail-term were to infringe on his ability to perform first-team duties, then possibly so. Mummy might know about European Human Rights legislation covering this - effectively whether it would be legal to terminate the contract of someone because they have a criminal record.

Mummy?

It's not got much to do with human rights - it can certainly be a term of an employment contract that the contract can be unilaterally terminated by the employer in cases of misconduct, including being convicted of a serious criminal offence! We have all seen that 'don't drink and drive' advert in which one of the hypothetical consequences offered by the schizophrenic barman is the bloke losing his job.

But football is unsual in that the employees are also tradeable assets that have often cost money to acquire.

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:Under employment law I would think that Barton is under no obligation to accept the cut - they'll probably just pay up the rest of his contract and get shut.

God forbid that we should try and sign him. I remember the Lee Bowyer rumours, and e-mailing the club to say I would withdraw my attendance should we sign him. I then recall Big Sam releasing a press statement to the effect that 'fans are not here to dictate the team'. (I hope it wasn't just me he was referring to )

But I'd do the same if we tried to get Barton - a toerag who doesn't seem capable of changing his ways.

surely they could cancel his contract for Gross Misconduct if they so wished? So he has a choice, accept less or accept nothing.

I honestly don't know the intricacies of this one. If his jail-term were to infringe on his ability to perform first-team duties, then possibly so. Mummy might know about European Human Rights legislation covering this - effectively whether it would be legal to terminate the contract of someone because they have a criminal record.

Mummy?

It's not got much to do with human rights - it can certainly be a term of an employment contract that the contract can be unilaterally terminated by the employer in cases of misconduct, including being convicted of a serious criminal offence! We have all seen that 'don't drink and drive' advert in which one of the hypothetical consequences offered by the schizophrenic barman is the bloke losing his job.

But football is unsual in that the employees are also tradeable assets that have often cost money to acquire.

It is a question of Contract Law and not Human Rights legislation.

I would suggest that Barton's behaviour - as a highly recognised Newcastle Football Club employee - as brought his company into disrepute - which would be a disciplinary matter and most likely deemed gross misconduct - ie lead to termination of contract.

I don't however understand why he has been asked to take a reduction in salary?

You won't know of the employment law aspects unless you see the contract.

There is almost certainly a gross-misconduct clause, which would hold good given what he's done, except that it can't be gross-misconduct if you earn one amount but not if you earn less !! it doesn'tb take a Philidelphia lawyer to point that out ... so by offering him this option they lose that justification.

As Mummy says, & I do above, a football player is an assett & it needs the club to be willing to write that value off.

But £6m ... & £55k a week ? You think that was a risk worth taking for an ordinary player with previous ?

sluffy wrote:

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: It's not got much to do with human rights - it can certainly be a term of an employment contract that the contract can be unilaterally terminated by the employer in cases of misconduct, including being convicted of a serious criminal offence! We have all seen that 'don't drink and drive' advert in which one of the hypothetical consequences offered by the schizophrenic barman is the bloke losing his job.

It is a question of Contract Law and not Human Rights legislation.

Well thanks for clearing that up for us, Sluffster!

[quote="bobo the clown"]You won't know of the employment law aspects unless you see the contract.

There is almost certainly a gross-misconduct clause, which would hold good given what he's done, except that it can't be gross-misconduct if you earn one amount but not if you earn less !! it doesn'tb take a Philidelphia lawyer to point that out ... so by offering him this option they lose that justification.

As Mummy says, & I do above, a football player is an assett & it needs the club to be willing to write that value off.

But £6m ... & £55k a week ? You think that was a risk worth taking for an ordinary player with previous ?[/quote]


That font of all knowledge the AntiChrist did

Any wonder he ain't at Ewock Park yet

And some on here still would have him back!!!!!

For free, i'd have him. Keep him locked up and then let him out on Saturday afternoons. He is a very good footballer, whether he's mental or not.

Tombwfc wrote:For free, i'd have him. Keep him locked up and then let him out on Saturday afternoons. He is a very good footballer, whether he's mental or not.

you only think we can get 20 games a season out of him then?

I haven't actually bought my season-ticket yet ... & won't if we do sign this retard.

One bad decision too far, that would be.

My hope is that it's just paper-talk.

mk

I hope the club don't call my bluff on this one.

I've decided to take up the offer of the £299 tickets, and have already popped in my application.

Am now worried that I may have to retract, or compromise my own principles.

bobo the clown wrote:I haven't actually bought my season-ticket yet ... & won't if we do sign this retard.

One bad decision too far, that would be.

My hope is that it's just paper-talk.

mk

Of course it's paper talk. Barton hasn't even stood trial for the Dabo incident yet. He could be banged up for ages. It's also written by serial liar Alan Nixon.

warthog wrote:It's also written by serial liar Alan Nixon.

He also apparently reported the Saha thing.

Basically, if Nixon says anything will happen...it definitely will NOT happen.

"Barton may get sacked".....as in The Count of Monte Christo? ....

TANGODANCER wrote:"Barton may get sacked".....as in The Count of Monte Christo? ....

Hopefully he won't have a knife with him though (if thats what you're driving at)