Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? No he hasn't. It was suspended. I thought that was almost jargon for ''Get Away With It'' It is in a sense but (I think I'm right in saying) a suspended sentence 'hangs over' the convicted party for an agreed length of time during which it can then be applied should the person in question commit and be prosecuted for another offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Either way who's getting punished by the ban? The player on £60k a week or the club desperately looking for cover for an F.A charge that's 15 months late. It will be challenged and shortened by either way why should we suffer? I totally agree. I personally think he has served his sentence and that should be that. What is the point of the FA punishing him as well? No he hasn't. It was suspended. His suspended sentence was the punishment, it was only suspended in light of the time he had done already. Either way this FA charge on top looks a bit petty and weak willed. I don't think that was the case. The time he'd already done was for an unrelated offence. I.e. the Liverpool city centre / McDonald's incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. Half right, which is an improvement for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That's 5 Barton threads now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That's 5 Barton threads now. The admin on here are a fucking disgrace tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That's 5 Barton threads now. The admin on here are a fucking disgrace tbh. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. Half right, which is an improvement for you. ... but not likely to happen in your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. Half right, which is an improvement for you. ... but not likely to happen in your case. Try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. Half right, which is an improvement for you. ... but not likely to happen in your case. Try harder. Not worth the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? He changed it and pleaded guilty, probably because he was advised any sentence he got would run concurrently/be suspended. So we'll never know what his defence might have been and how good/bad it would have been. But really anything the FA do is basically media driven/"seen to be doing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. And you are racist..... it's a nasty old world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That's 5 Barton threads now. The admin on here are a fucking disgrace tbh. What admin? Starting to get like the SMB this place, 10 threads on the same subject. Haway Thomas, pull your finger out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? He changed it and pleaded guilty, probably because he was advised any sentence he got would run concurrently/be suspended. So we'll never know what his defence might have been and how good/bad it would have been. But really anything the FA do is basically media driven/"seen to be doing". That's exactly what it is. It's a reaction to the ridiculous and hypocritical moral outrage. I think he'll definitely get a ban now because of that. Probably 3-5 matches which, as others have said, only hurts us and not the player in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. And you are racist..... it's a nasty old world. And you are a fool ... but a harmless one. It's a great world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 We can say it's bullshit, but if it says it's "various" that would suggest there's some truth in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 He's a thug ... shouldn't kick a ball this season. And you are racist..... it's a nasty old world. And you are a fool ... but a harmless one. It's a great world. So you like thugs and racists then? I shouldn't be surprised should I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 We can say it's bullshit, but if it says it's "various" that would suggest there's some truth in it. I don't think that suggests anything of the sort in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? He changed it and pleaded guilty, probably because he was advised any sentence he got would run concurrently/be suspended. So we'll never know what his defence might have been and how good/bad it would have been. But really anything the FA do is basically media driven/"seen to be doing". That's exactly what it is. It's a reaction to the ridiculous and hypocritical moral outrage. I think he'll definitely get a ban now because of that. Probably 3-5 matches which, as others have said, only hurts us and not the player in any case. Aye, I assume we'd be able to at least fine him for wages? But really it's just to sate the media (and strangely it seem to be worse because he's here). I just hope they don't really go for it, as technically the ban could be huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13915 Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Haway Thomas, pull your finger out Keep All Joey Barton related topic in Here Obviously discussing it in a news thread with a related story is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They reckon its on a par if not worse than the cantona / Rio offences. He is looking at some serious splinters. The difference being it was settled in the courts though. That's why I find it unnecessarily harsh. If it's true, that is. The daft thing is, I'm not convinced he'd have been found guilty anyway. Eh? He battered a guy infront of about 30 people, how would he have not been found guilty? He changed it and pleaded guilty, probably because he was advised any sentence he got would run concurrently/be suspended. So we'll never know what his defence might have been and how good/bad it would have been. But really anything the FA do is basically media driven/"seen to be doing". That's exactly what it is. It's a reaction to the ridiculous and hypocritical moral outrage. I think he'll definitely get a ban now because of that. Probably 3-5 matches which, as others have said, only hurts us and not the player in any case. Aye, I assume we'd be able to at least fine him for wages? But really it's just to sate the media (and strangely it seem to be worse because he's here). I just hope they don't really go for it, as technically the ban could be huge. I think that would be counter-productive too though. He wasn't paid when he was in prison. I'm not sticking up for him but the last thing we need is a demotivated, pissed-off player getting that cunt of an agent of his trying to manufacture a move again. At present, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Barton blah blah blah what will happen will happen, if we're shit on we're shit on, we should be used to it....itl not be 15 games though ANYHOOOOO baines to leave everton?? id have him hea like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 711 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Arse in for Inler at 10mil, guess we know why he turned us down. I also see Zenit want 24mil for Arshavin now. The way they're going on they'll never sell him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres 0 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Arse in for Inler at 10mil, guess we know why he turned us down. I also see Zenit want 24mil for Arshavin now. The way they're going on they'll never sell him. He's hardly worth 10mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 17034 Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Arse in for Inler at 10mil, guess we know why he turned us down. I also see Zenit want 24mil for Arshavin now. The way they're going on they'll never sell him. He's hardly worth 10mil. We talking about Robbie Keane? 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