Nick De Marco’s message to Joey Barton and the way Mike Ashley’s lawyer helped former Newcastle participant

Nick De Marco's message to Joey Barton and how Mike Ashley's lawyer helped former Newcastle player

Nick De Marco recognized the “great job” Joey Barton did in Fleetwood Town and Mike Ashley’s legal representative believes the former Newcastle United midfielder has even more to offer in management.

Fleetwood announced that Barton had left the club with immediate effect Monday after serving nearly three years in Highbury.

Barton has vowed to “take the time off and get better and better until the next opportunity,” and the 38-year-old posted a screenshot of his farewell statement posted by the League Managers Association on his Twitter page on Tuesday.

Among the hundreds of users who responded was De Marco, who, alongside Shaheed Fatima, is representing Ashley and Newcastle United in their lawsuit with the Premier League after a Saudi-backed consortium abandoned an offer to take over the club last summer had taken.

Continue reading
Continue reading

“All the best, Joe. You did a great job in your first leadership role in getting Fleetwood into the playoffs last season,” wrote De Marco.

“Sure, there is more and better to come! Best to Mangs and @ clinthill29 [coaches Andy Mangan and Clint Hill], also!’

De Marco previously represented Barton when the former midfielder appealed an 18-month football ban after placing 1,260 bets over a 10-year period that ended in September 2016.

The FA’s Board of Appeal agreed that the initial ban was “excessive in the circumstances” given evidence of Barton’s gambling addiction from his consulting psychiatrist, Dr. Philip Hopley should not have been turned down. As a result, the ban was reduced by almost five months.

In relation to the Board of Appeal’s written grounds, the section entitled “Notice of appeal and filing on behalf of Mr Barton” mentioned the following important point:

“Mr De Marco, citing the many arguments, argued that the deadline was too long because (a) it was not in order and went well beyond the other cases referred to and (b) the Commission did The reasons for rejecting an important aspect of Dr. Hopley and his rejection were so unreasonable that no properly judged commission could have come to that conclusion. “