Happy Face 29 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Basically I think he IS a thug. I'm not disappointed he's staying though. Why should Newcastle be the ones to take the moral high ground at a cost of millions when you've got Lee Hughes who served 8 years for killing someone getting out of jail and returning to professional football? Or when you have Cantona drop kicking fans only for his first game back to be turned into the return of the great one by Sky Sports. And other examples too numerous to mention of players who got paid for playing while wearing ankle tags , or having been convicted of drink driving.` Tony Adams, Duncan Ferguson, Jan Molby, Stig Tofting.... All have done time (some for assault) without getting sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Basically I think he IS a thug. I'm not disappointed he's staying though. Why should Newcastle be the ones to take the moral high ground at a cost of millions when you've got Lee Hughes who served 8 years for killing someone getting out of jail and returning to professional football? Or when you have Cantona drop kicking fans only for his first game back to be turned into the return of the great one by Sky Sports. And other examples too numerous to mention of players who got paid for playing while wearing ankle tags , or having been convicted of drink driving.` Tony Adams, Duncan Ferguson, Jan Molby, Stig Tofting.... All have done time (some for assault) without getting sacked. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 For an irate Newcastle fan there are two perspectives, either you think he should either leave the club or you think he should be banned from football. The former is just hypocrisy. The latter is basically saying that Barton should be the first footballer in history to be banned from playing the game for breaking the law (in this way, you can probably be banned for substance abuse etc). The logic of this position is that we want to impose moral codes on players in the same way we would expect a politician to resign. For irate fans of other clubs, only the second perspective makes any sense...until you actually think about it for 2 minutes. Doesnt surprise me that people dont get this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 For an irate Newcastle fan there are two perspectives, either you think he should either leave the club or you think he should be banned from football. The former is just hypocrisy. The latter is basically saying that Barton should be the first footballer in history to be banned from playing the game for breaking the law (in this way, you can probably be banned for substance abuse etc). The logic of this position is that we want to impose moral codes on players in the same way we would expect a politician to resign. For irate fans of other clubs, only the second perspective makes any sense...until you actually think about it for 2 minutes. Doesnt surprise me that people dont get this. Really it depends on who it is and where they play. A bit like Chambers and that 400m sprinter and their Olympic lifetime bans (technically both should be, but one has a genuine chance of a gold medal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Got a link mate? I could do with a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...n.html?ITO=1490 If anyone from the Mail is reading this, 'your paper is fucking shite' - Snake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Got a link mate? I could do with a laugh. It's been spread about, mainly in these http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=340724 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.ph...0653&page=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Got a link mate? I could do with a laugh. It's been spread about, mainly in these http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=340724 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.ph...0653&page=4 "rediculous" If we'd sacked him and they'd signed him, they'd be treating him fairly and giving him a second chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Basically I think he IS a thug. I'm not disappointed he's staying though. Why should Newcastle be the ones to take the moral high ground at a cost of millions when you've got Lee Hughes who served 8 years for killing someone getting out of jail and returning to professional football? Or when you have Cantona drop kicking fans only for his first game back to be turned into the return of the great one by Sky Sports. And other examples too numerous to mention of players who got paid for playing while wearing ankle tags , or having been convicted of drink driving.` Tony Adams, Duncan Ferguson, Jan Molby, Stig Tofting.... All have done time (some for assault) without getting sacked. Did Lee Hughes do 8 years?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I've enjoyed arguing his case on SMB. Their rampant indigniation that we'd consider paying the bloke a penny was something to behold. Basically I think he IS a thug. I'm not disappointed he's staying though. Why should Newcastle be the ones to take the moral high ground at a cost of millions when you've got Lee Hughes who served 8 years for killing someone getting out of jail and returning to professional football? Or when you have Cantona drop kicking fans only for his first game back to be turned into the return of the great one by Sky Sports. And other examples too numerous to mention of players who got paid for playing while wearing ankle tags , or having been convicted of drink driving.` Tony Adams, Duncan Ferguson, Jan Molby, Stig Tofting.... All have done time (some for assault) without getting sacked. Did Lee Hughes do 8 years?! Nah, more like 3 wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He was only sentenced to 6. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) He served three. And he was sacked by West Brom, but Oldham offered him a contract. He also converted to Islam whilst in prison. The first ginger Muslim? Edited July 30, 2008 by luckyluke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He served three. And he was sacked by West Brom, but Oldham offered him a contract. He also converted to Islam whilst in prison. The first ginger Muslim? He went to Prison for 3 year and West Brom sacked him? Thats upstanding morality for you! I wonder how long he had on his contract when he went down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 6 year sentence for killing someone. 6 year sentence for faking your own death to defraud an insurance company. Funny old world, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He served three. And he was sacked by West Brom, but Oldham offered him a contract. He also converted to Islam whilst in prison. The first ginger Muslim? Nah one of Hezbollah's top enforcers is ginger. 6 year sentence for killing someone. 6 year sentence for faking your own death to defraud an insurance company. Funny old world, eh? Totally bizarre, but it'll come down on appeal, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 6 year sentence for killing someone. 6 year sentence for faking your own death to defraud an insurance company. Funny old world, eh? Sorry to hear that mate, you still around a week saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He served three. And he was sacked by West Brom, but Oldham offered him a contract. He also converted to Islam whilst in prison. The first ginger Muslim? Nah one of Hezbollah's top enforcers is ginger. 6 year sentence for killing someone. 6 year sentence for faking your own death to defraud an insurance company. Funny old world, eh? Totally bizarre, but it'll come down on appeal, I bet. I'd guess him and his wife would serve 3 - like Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 6 year sentence for killing someone. 6 year sentence for faking your own death to defraud an insurance company. Funny old world, eh? Sorry to hear that mate, you still around a week saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Football FanCast columnist Chris Mackin cannot understand the reaction to the Joey Barton saga and is backing Kevin Keegan's call. Despite the level of debate rarely rising above the level of taxi driver ramblings, the sheer amount of coverage awarded Joey Barton's release from prison in itself tells a fascinating story. The papers have went positively ga-ga over this one; only the addition of a disappearing canoe or a premium rate phone line scandal could have secured it more reportage. Even the Mirror's very own Cruella De Ville, Sue Carrol, took time out of stern faced moralising and hoarding puppies for their fur (allegedly) to sermonize on the issue in today's column; under the heading ‘Keegan out of Toon with fans' (presumably a stab at a pun despite its dogged refusal to work as a clever piece of word play in any capacity whatsoever) Sue brazenly invited us to consider the ‘groundswell of anger on Tyneside over his return'. ‘Groundswell of anger' may be pushing it. If I'm any sort of reliable representation- and if not and Barton is abused and hounded, at our first home game, I'm prepared to admit I'm out of step with my fellow supporters - you'd have been far more likely to catch Newcastle United supporters recreating the best bits in The Dark Knight or talking about what lovely weather we'd been having recently over this weekend than frothing at the mouth and punching walls in righteous fury over our manager's backing of Barton. It all seems pretty straight forward; Barton isn't the cuddliest of blokes, but he's served his time and his manager seems to think he's earned a second chance. Quite reasonable, I'd suggest, but on the press plough, insisting themselves upon us, forcibly shoving words of discontent into our mouths, we are outraged and appalled and organising mass season ticket burnings for the home friendly against Valencia. On the face of it, it's tricky to work out why exactly this is such a sexy story for the nation's journalists. Certainly in terms of narrative drive the plot is somewhat bereft of a thrilling lead; Baron ambles around in an air of hazy and unrelenting grey mist, all gaunt features and unkempt hair, visually an exact replica of what would happen if you asked a particularly unskilled child to sculpt a Gallagher brother out of Playdough. In terms of Super villain charisma he's hardly likely to be threatening the major comic book franchises any time soon-he makes the slightly stand-offish man who checked your ticket on the train this morning look like The Joker. And it's not as if the tale has followed any sort of well defined and juicy arc- Barton announced himself as a fairly unpleasant individual with a questionable taste in jumpers and drinking companions during his Manchester City career and has stuck rigidly to that premise since the halcyon days of stubbing out cigars in youth players' eyes. There's been no metamorphic fall from grace here, no dramatic rise then plunge, for Fleet Street's finest to document, it's a fairly bland story, all told, and yet they refuse to leave us alone about it for five minutes and go and bug somebody else for a while. So we are left with little choice but to deduce their motives have a more sinister slant to them - namely, they are using the Barton issue as another stick in a long and increasingly monotonous series with which to beat Newcastle United. After all, it's been five and a half minutes since the ‘Ashley selling to Bin Laden- this means Wor' headlines and all the side splitting mirth they generated ("Ha! It's Hee-lairious because it trivialises the deaths of thousands!"). That they're doing yet more sneaky muck raking under the intensely patronising pretence of ‘giving the long suffering Toon army a voice' makes the whole thing at least eight hundred times more irritating-they are an interfering neighbour rudely peering into our garden and passing supposedly innocent comment on a tuft of spouting Wild Garlics. Talking in wildly broad and emotive terms, "Barton Breaks out" this and "90% of the fans think he's a thug" that, the media have been at their passive aggressive and manipulative best throughout this story; so devoid of productive input into the debate has their contribution been they may as well have been standing on one leg with a pencil up their nose quoting random snippets of Monty Python dialogue. For whatever its worth, my take on the issue is give or take, what it was to Lee Bowyer's arrival at Newcastle; I just don't think Barton's talent justifies any moral hand wringing and we're better off not wasting our time with it at all. But if Kevin Keegan thinks Barton deserves another shot then I think it's pretty ace we have such a fair minded and decent bloke managing our team and I'm more than prepared to extend my support to Kev on this issue, if not Barton. And if this puts me at odds with any reactionary and cantankerous Daily Mail columnists desperate for any opportunity to stick their boot into my football club then that makes me feel a bit like a freewheeling anarchist performing ‘God Save The Queen' on ‘Top of the Pops' and sticking to The Man. Which is obviously A Good Thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 So we are left with little choice but to deduce their motives have a more sinister slant to them - namely, they are using the Barton issue as another stick in a long and increasingly monotonous series with which to beat Newcastle United. After all, it's been five and a half minutes since the ‘Ashley selling to Bin Laden- this means Wor' headlines and all the side splitting mirth they generated ("Ha! It's Hee-lairious because it trivialises the deaths of thousands!"). That they're doing yet more sneaky muck raking under the intensely patronising pretence of ‘giving the long suffering Toon army a voice' makes the whole thing at least eight hundred times more irritating-they are an interfering neighbour rudely peering into our garden and passing supposedly innocent comment on a tuft of spouting Wild Garlics. Talking in wildly broad and emotive terms, "Barton Breaks out" this and "90% of the fans think he's a thug" that, the media have been at their passive aggressive and manipulative best throughout this story; so devoid of productive input into the debate has their contribution been they may as well have been standing on one leg with a pencil up their nose quoting random snippets of Monty Python dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12903 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Totally agree with Happy Face fwiw to the thread. The whole moral outrage because the man is vaguely famous is, well, outrageous. I'm not condoning the bloke's actions at all and I fully agree that he should come back and get his head down with his football. He's probably going to have to win a lot of people around based on both his dire performances last season and this carry-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The mackems are only whingeing because they know he's a decent player and they're frightened in case KK gets him going...simple as. As for the papers we all know what their motive is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The post-script to .com's article on the matter is spot on too: "Nike announced on Tuesday that they had terminated their boot deal with Barton - but as it was "only" £40K a year, it's insignificant when compared to the wages he wasn't paid while behind bars for 74 days. Nike's decision was leapt upon by various commentators as a noble act of decency, but it doesn't take much online searching to find campaigns boycotting their products due to their alleged use child labour in Pakistan and elsewhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentFox 0 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 well then... that took forever to read... Not as long as it took them to write Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The post-script to .com's article on the matter is spot on too:"Nike announced on Tuesday that they had terminated their boot deal with Barton - but as it was "only" £40K a year, it's insignificant when compared to the wages he wasn't paid while behind bars for 74 days. Nike's decision was leapt upon by various commentators as a noble act of decency, but it doesn't take much online searching to find campaigns boycotting their products due to their alleged use child labour in Pakistan and elsewhere." But in fairness the mass use of child labour for their products pales into nothingness compared to chipping a mouthy scallys tooth. You'll be claiming McDonald use psychological conditioning on under 5's next. Link to comment 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