Bartons Hearing

[ClaretTony]

He couldn't have been charged by the FA when still registered as a Rangers player. They don't have jurisdiction - the Scottish FA do.

Once he was registered as a player in England, then the English FA could charge him.

You would think that but he wasn't re-registered with our FA until we signed him which was after the charges brought.

[minnieclaret]

You would think that but he wasn't re-registered with our FA until we signed him which was after the charges brought.

Is it possible he came back under FA jurisdiction when he started back training with us?

[ClaretTony]

Is it possible he came back under FA jurisdiction when he started back training with us?

No. When we signed him it was subject to international clearance. But he served his SFA suspension with us so presumably our FA could charge him with any subsequent suspension potentially served in another country if there was an agreement.

Ian Wright was suspended by SFA when he was at Burnley and he missed three games.

[pureclaret]

I wonder if joey has taken any bets on who will be ill next.

[pureclaret]

DSR
Miss read your reply, sorry, but I was quite please at first
You put ''What we need is to get a couple of wins and then get the hearing in as soon as possible.''
I read it as '' What we need is to get a couple of wines and then get the hearing in as soon as possible. only one letter diff but I was going to volunteer to help out.

[IanMcL]

He would be fired up playing Liverpool.

[dsr]

DSR
Miss read your reply, sorry, but I was quite please at first
You put ''What we need is to get a couple of wins and then get the hearing in as soon as possible.''
I read it as '' What we need is to get a couple of wines and then get the hearing in as soon as possible. only one letter diff but I was going to volunteer to help out.

It's your lucky day - I don't drink, so you can have both the wines!

[whentheballmoves]

It's not the best birthday present I've received today, but I'll take it!

[vinrogue]

It's not the best birthday present I've received today, but I'll take it!

Happy birthday Martin

[ottclaret]

As with Andre Gray case, I am perplexed on two fronts :

- why the Club has to suffer for player misdemeanors – I’m sure Andre/Joey didn’t ask for permission from their clubs to do what they did? Surely it is the player that should be hit hard – financially or subject to the laws of the country, if not banged up, allowed to play?

- why the current club have to suffer when the offences took place when neither player was at the club (Andre certainly – maybe Joey was at it last season whilst with us, but it was mainly whilst with several other clubs)?

If not, then surely the club the player was registered with at the time of the offences should be punished, instead of the club they were at when the offences came to light?

[Imploding Turtle]

As with Andre Gray case, I am perplexed on two fronts :

- why the Club has to suffer for player misdemeanors – I’m sure Andre/Joey didn’t ask for permission from their clubs to do what they did? Surely it is the player that should be hit hard – financially or subject to the laws of the country, if not banged up, allowed to play?

- why the current club have to suffer when the offences took place when neither player was at the club (Andre certainly – maybe Joey was at it last season whilst with us, but it was mainly whilst with several other clubs)?

If not, then surely the club the player was registered with at the time of the offences should be punished, instead of the club they were at when the offences came to light?

For crying out loud. We signed Barton knowing that he was facing trouble with his betting. And as for Andrew Gray if we didn't know about his tweets, which any idiot could search through, then we should have.

We signed both of them, in fact we sign all players, knowing that their public conduct could lead to them being banned for any number of games. For us to turn around and complain that it's the club being punished, when we knew these thing or these penalties, is frankly ridiculous and embarrassing.

[Stayingup]

Delayed indefinitely. Then an sppeal. Be with us all season. Great.

[Stayingup]

For crying out loud. We signed Barton knowing that he was facing trouble with his betting. And as for Andrew Gray if we didn't know about his tweets, which any idiot could search through, then we should have.

We signed both of them, in fact we sign all players, knowing that their public conduct could lead to them being banned for any number of games. For us to turn around and complain that it's the club being punished, when we knew these thing or these penalties, is frankly ridiculous and embarrassing.

Are you serious about knowing someones tweets from four years ago. Particularly someone called Andrew Gray. Whoever he may be.

[ottclaret]

As usual you miss the point - I am asking WHY is it so?

Read the post, answer the point being raised, and, if you are able to shed light on the subject, please do so.

Otherwise, butt out.

[Enola Gay]

As usual you miss the point - I am asking WHY is it so?

Read the post, answer the point being raised, and, if you are able to shed light on the subject, please do so.

Otherwise, butt out.

Because fining millionaires some pocket change isn't much of a deterrent, they don't have access to time travel to ban them at the time the offences took place and waiting until they retire to ban them would be pretty pointless?

Probably worth pointing out here that Barton was charged over bets made between 26 March 2006 and 13 May 2016. In other words, including the time he was at Burnley in his first stint.

[Sidney1st]

As with Andre Gray case, I am perplexed on two fronts :

- why the Club has to suffer for player misdemeanors – I’m sure Andre/Joey didn’t ask for permission from their clubs to do what they did? Surely it is the player that should be hit hard – financially or subject to the laws of the country, if not banged up, allowed to play?

- why the current club have to suffer when the offences took place when neither player was at the club (Andre certainly – maybe Joey was at it last season whilst with us, but it was mainly whilst with several other clubs)?

If not, then surely the club the player was registered with at the time of the offences should be punished, instead of the club they were at when the offences came to light?

So you're suggesting the FA fine/punish the following clubs that Barton has played for?

wp_ss_20170308_0001.png (93.09 KiB) Viewed 7826 times

Good luck pushing that one through.

[ottclaret]

Because fining millionaires some pocket change isn't much of a deterrent, they don't have access to time travel to ban them at the time the offences took place and waiting until they retire to ban them would be pretty pointless?

Probably worth pointing out here that Barton was charged over bets made between 26 March 2006 and 13 May 2016. In other words, including the time he was at Burnley in his first stint.

Agreed - fining them pocket change isn't going to hurt them - so make it large enough so that it will hurt them! Then bans wouldn't be needed.

I wasn't sure of the time span of the offences, but I still think that punishing the player and not the club - whichever club! - is the way it should be.

[ottclaret]

So you're suggesting the FA fine/punish the following clubs that Barton has played for?

wp_ss_20170308_0001.png

Good luck pushing that one through.

No - that is really the whole point of my first post. But why should the club (again, any club) have to suffer for actions of a player when they were not under their jurisdiction?

[Jakubclaret]

As with Andre Gray case, I am perplexed on two fronts :

- why the Club has to suffer for player misdemeanors – I’m sure Andre/Joey didn’t ask for permission from their clubs to do what they did? Surely it is the player that should be hit hard – financially or subject to the laws of the country, if not banged up, allowed to play?

- why the current club have to suffer when the offences took place when neither player was at the club (Andre certainly – maybe Joey was at it last season whilst with us, but it was mainly whilst with several other clubs)?

If not, then surely the club the player was registered with at the time of the offences should be punished, instead of the club they were at when the offences came to light?

I can see the basis of that argument & agree to a certain extent with you why the hell later down the line should we as a club be penalised. For me it's a grey area but unfortunately that's the way it is. To avoid these kind of problem recruitment needs to be more in depth in terms of suitability to unravel so to speak or maybe a better phrase unearth these skeletons out of the closet. Regarding Barton & the knowledge pre-signing it must have been determined it was worth going ahead.

[Sidney1st]

The whole point of your first post isn't making much sense.

Punishing a player enough to hurt him financially would require the fine, in some cases, to be millions.

That simply isn't going to happen and legal challenges would put a stop to it soon enough.

Stopping them playing is more of a punishment, although probably not enough.

Your issue is you're looking at what it does to Burnley and not the bigger picture.

Do you remember Le Tissier kicking the ball out of play from kick off?
He did that as part of a bet.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you serious about knowing someones tweets from four years ago.

Yes. Of course we should be checking the social media of those we're signing because what they post on there could interfere with their job.

[Jakubclaret]

Yes. Of course we should be checking the social media of those we're signing because what they post on there could interfere with their job.

As it transpired it did. Benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing so there say.

[ottclaret]

Ok - I'll boil it down...

why does the Club have to suffer for player misdemeanors - if it is a serious offence, fine 'em millions to act as a deterrent.

why does the current club have to suffer - it had nothing to do with them. Even with hindsight.

If an offence comes to light, punish the player, as above, whether he is still at the club or not.

A ban will only be a punishment if it prevents a player playing in a Cup Final/World cup finals etc. (and no, that is not what I am advocating).

Jetting off to Dubai and enjoying spending the fine they weren't given is not going to have much effect, IMHO.

[Sidney1st]

The football league cant get Qpr or Leicester to pay their fines for breaking FFP rules, so I can't imagine why on earth you think they'd be able to fine players millions.

As has been pointed out Barton broke the rules whilst he was our player first time round.
You're ignoring this though for some reason.

As for Gray, what he said was pretty disgusting and if you're suggesting that he shouldn't have been banned when it came to light then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

Fining Gray wasn't going to be much of a deterrent, banning him from playing just as he'd got to the top flight was probably far more effective, along with the courses he had to attend.

[ottclaret]

I've tried to take it away from just being about Burnley/Gray/Barton, but you seem to be ignoring that.

However, my original post did mention that Barton may have been at it last season - you may want to read it properly. I have no problem with him being fined as much as the authorities of the game have the ******** to go after, if he has broken the rules - whichever club he was at. (I'm not sure if his offence is purely a 'footballing' offence, or a 'criminal' one - perhaps somebody could enlighten me.?)

As for Gray, I may be mistaken, but his offence was a criminal act, as far as I know it was not football related. Again, if you bother to read my original post, if, under the laws of the land, he had been banged up for the, as I will agree, pretty disgusting comments made, then he would obviously not have been able to play football - whichever club he was at. Again, I have no problem if that was the outcome, even though the club would suffer.

I am indeed suggesting he should not have been banned from playing football, if not incarcerated, but, as I am saying he should have had a much harsher punishment, I am quite happy looking at my ugly mug in the mirror. I hope his attending a course had the effect you think it did.

Again, the deterrent is the size of the fine - which should not have been imposed by the football authorities, but by the courts. If the courts could not get him to pay the fine, then they could have imposed a custodial sentence.

[Vegas Claret]

problem solved

[Dazzler]

Just read that the new date could well be at the end of the season.

Joey's own comments.

[Sidney1st]

Do you understand the issue of bringing the game into disrepute?
That's what Gray did.

Barton broke the rules re gambling, although its not fully known which rules hes actually broken.

They broke the rules of the game ergo Gray got banned from playing and Barton could also get banned.

Now you're saying the courts should be the ones dishing out the fines?
So you want Gray punished twice?
As for what effect attending a course had, I'm not really that bothered if it changed his opinion or not.
If he's homophobic then that's what he is and a course wont change it.
He's done it and spoken the right words in the media to allow it to all calm down.
He probably did have his eyes opened a little bit, but that sort of attitude doesn't change over night.

[dpinsussex]

Would rather sign a bloke who has had a few bets over a number of years rather than a rapist or a paedophile
I assume those respective clubs would feel hard done to too !
Perspective

[ottclaret]

Gray brought himself into disrepute. Can't see what it had to do with football. Fine him in criminal courts or bang him up. No sympathy. Who said punish him twice? Stop making things up that aren't there.

Barton - again, punishment needs to hurt HIM, whichever bodies rules he has broken.

Again, please try to open your eyes to the bigger picture - not just Burnley. Sure, I started it about our two players - this is a Burnley forum, but I have tried to widen the issues across the footballing world, and different scenarios.

[ClaretEngineer]

I wonder if the FA, Barton and Burnley have come to some sort of behind the scenes deal? Whereby he calls time on his career at the end of the season to avoid a lengthy ban, and these delays and appeals are just superficial.

It may just be that the impending ban is so severe, and with him being at the end of his career in the PL, that the FA will allow him to see the season out.

One possibility. However far fetched it may seem

[Sidney1st]

You're talking about massive financial punishments being handed out to players.

Clubs flout FFP rules and challenge them in courts....

Other clubs get handed a £20k fine for crowd trouble....

What you're screaming for won't happen, because the FA are strong enough to implement and enforce their current rules & punishments.

You mentioned the law courts punishing Gray so it would've been a double punishment, one from football and one from the law court.

Barton has broken the rules over a long period of time possibly.
If he was handed a fine bigger then a club gets for crowd trouble, or conveniently forgetting drugs tests how is that fair?

When you come up with a workable system then come back and tell us.

The bigger picture is something I've tried to point out to you, but you can't wrap your head round it for whatever reason, you're just upset Burnley are being 'punished' for something their employee has done.

I know of a bloke who's just been handed 2 yrs in prison for defrauding his former employer of at least £90k, but its certainly more that they struggled to prove.
Does this not punish his current employer?
Do you think its fair on his current employer that he's gone to prison?

That's the logic you're seemingly using for Gray & Barton.

[FCBurnley]

Yes. Of course we should be checking the social media of those we're signing because what they post on there could interfere with their job.

If that applied to everybody then you would never work again

[Paul Waine]

As with Andre Gray case, I am perplexed on two fronts :

- why the Club has to suffer for player misdemeanors – I’m sure Andre/Joey didn’t ask for permission from their clubs to do what they did? Surely it is the player that should be hit hard – financially or subject to the laws of the country, if not banged up, allowed to play?

- why the current club have to suffer when the offences took place when neither player was at the club (Andre certainly – maybe Joey was at it last season whilst with us, but it was mainly whilst with several other clubs)?

If not, then surely the club the player was registered with at the time of the offences should be punished, instead of the club they were at when the offences came to light?

Hi ottclaret,

I think it works like this: footballer falls under rules of FA to be eligible to play professional football in England, football clubs also are subject to rules of FA for same reason. If player A breaks the rules he (or she, it is International Women's Day) the FA can punish player. This punishment can include suspending from playing in a number of games. Football club have also accepted these rules - and clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their players in some circumstances. When a player signs for a new club the responsibilities transfer from previous club(s) to the club that holds the registration at the time the player is punished. So, part of the transfer "due diligence" might include a check on previous behaviour (or it might be missed). Whether the transfer due diligence identifies anything, the new club still carries responsibility for their players - and will be without the player if he is suspended.

These are all rules of football. Other sports and other professional organisations will have similar rules. (The same can happen to a professional accountant if they do something against their accountancy body).

All of these things are without regard to the country's laws. Andre Gray's tweets (so far as I'm aware) and Joey Barton's bets (and, again, so far as I'm aware) didn't break any laws other than the laws of football.

[Jakubclaret]

I wonder if the FA, Barton and Burnley have come to some sort of behind the scenes deal? Whereby he calls time on his career at the end of the season to avoid a lengthy ban, and these delays and appeals are just superficial.

It may just be that the impending ban is so severe, and with him being at the end of his career in the PL, that the FA will allow him to see the season out.

One possibility. However far fetched it may seem

Yes far fetched. There won't be doing anybody any favours. I'm not sure if we can as a club represent Barton him being a employee of the club & the punishment affecting the club it would make sense if we could or are already doing. I'm not sure or maybe he has his own independent representatives defending him. Its farcical how this hearing is developing so far.

[Imploding Turtle]

If that applied to everybody then you would never work again

I have a public facing job but nothing i've said has ever put that in jeopardy, and if i thought you were serious i'd challenge you to find a one submission that did.

[ottclaret]

Thanks, Paul Waine, for explaining the WHY. If these are indeed the rules clubs sign up to to be a member of the FA (and I'm not doubting you), then so be it.

[ottclaret]

[quote="Sidney1st"]You're talking about massive financial punishments being handed out to players.

Clubs flout FFP rules and challenge them in courts....

Other clubs get handed a £20k fine for crowd trouble....

What you're screaming for won't happen, because the FA are strong enough to implement and enforce their current rules & punishments.

So that makes it ok, then? BTW - who is screaming? I'm just putting forward an opinion, which I'm entitled to do, and you are entitled to argue rationally against.

[ottclaret]

You mentioned the law courts punishing Gray so it would've been a double punishment, one from football and one from the law court.

Nowhere have I said he should be punished twice - just debating who should be meting out the punishment. I am of the opinion his comments were a homophobic attack, and could be construed as a criminal offence (however, I am not a lawyer).

As I've said, I don't see how he brought football into disrepute - he just happens to be a footballer.

[ottclaret]

The bigger picture is something I've tried to point out to you, but you can't wrap your head round it for whatever reason, you're just upset Burnley are being 'punished' for something their employee has done.

Oh dear, you really fancy yourself as an amateur psychologist, don't you, trying to tell me what is going on in my head? (I'll assume you are an amateur, rather than an incompetent professional.) You are the one who keeps bringing it back to BFC, rather than addressing the principles.

I was 'perplexed' at the way things were being done - Paul Waine has come up with an explanation, which, whilst it still seems 'unfair' to me, I will have to accept.

[ottclaret]

I know of a bloke who's just been handed 2 yrs in prison for defrauding his former employer of at least £90k, but its certainly more that they struggled to prove.
Does this not punish his current employer?
Do you think its fair on his current employer that he's gone to prison?

That's the logic you're seemingly using for Gray & Barton.[/quote]

The guy is a criminal - he has to be punished. I'd be surprised if his current employer does not agree (but maybe I'm being an amateur psychologist myself there!). Are you saying he shouldn't be punished?

As I've said, if Gray or Barton (or any other footballer) break the laws of the land, then they should be punished accordingly.

[Sidney1st]

As I've said, I don't see how he brought football into disrepute - he just happens to be a footballer.

He's a professional footballer, he has to be registered to play so therefore his actions can bring the game into disrepute if he does something stupid like his tweets.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with that part unless you're doing it on purpose?

The guy is a criminal - he has to be punished. I'd be surprised if his current employer does not agree (but maybe I'm being an amateur psychologist myself there!). Are you saying he shouldn't be punished?

As I've said, if Gray or Barton (or any other footballer) break the laws of the land, then they should be punished accordingly.

Your logic is current employers shouldn't be punished for an employees past misdemeanour, hence my example.

The bigger picture is something I've tried to point out to you, but you can't wrap your head round it for whatever reason, you're just upset Burnley are being 'punished' for something their employee has done.

Oh dear, you really fancy yourself as an amateur psychologist, don't you, trying to tell me what is going on in my head? (I'll assume you are an amateur, rather than an incompetent professional.) You are the one who keeps bringing it back to BFC, rather than addressing the principles.

I was 'perplexed' at the way things were being done - Paul Waine has come up with an explanation, which, whilst it still seems 'unfair' to me, I will have to accept.

I understand why Gray and potentially Barton are/were punished, it's about the laws of the game, something we're going over and over about.
You don't understand why a professional body would have an issue with their laws being broken.

I'm not trying to be an amatur psychologist, nor am I a professional one, but I just don't understand your thought processes about something which is actually really simple to understand.

They broke the rules, they get punished regardless of who their current employers are, those are the rules both players and clubs signed up too.

[vinrogue]

What I personally have struggled with for a long time is the absurdity of the variation of punishments. Bournemouth lad gets a 5 match ban for an offence he claims was an accident, Andre gets a 4 match ban for homophobic tweets and don't get me started on Suarez! French player cheats Ireland out of a place in the World Cup gets.......diddly squat. Barton has a gambling addiction and gets help or a lifetime ban from football and Corals wtf is going on.

[COBBLE]

I look forward to Joey popping in the winner in the next few games and the self-righteous outburst of anger from opposition manager.

[Spijed]

Since there is no news on the horizon, will it now mean he's likely to be available for the Sunderland game?

[Harrythomsonscap]

Regarding what punishment the FA can mete out to Joey. In 1964 there was a football betting scandal which had taken place in 1962 resulting in 10 players being banned for life. & resulting in some of them being jailed

[CleggHall]

Was this the Sheffield Wednesday one involving Swan, Bronco Layne and Kay?

[Harrythomsonscap]

Was this the Sheffield Wednesday one involving Swan, Bronco Layne and Kay?

Yes Jimmy Gauld was the instigator, Yes they bet on Sheffield Wednesday getting beat at Ipswich. Ipswich won 2-0 interviewed by the Times newspaper in 2006 Swan said I don't know what we would have done if we were winning I would have given a penalty away or An own goal. It all came to light when Gauld, for one last pay day sold his story to the Sunday newspapers in 1964

[IanMcL]

Blatant match fixing got immediate life ban. This is habitual betting, as far as we know. Perhaps therapy might be more appropriate.

[boatshed bill]

Hypocrites! Football is awash with betting advertising, bookies as sponsors etc.