Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:49 pm  

lionarmour87 wrote:

They are also doing it on totalrlfansforum all these people would be all lining up to sign him and Gary has now got them all in a quandary

Like the lad's next move is going to be within British RL after this poop.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:50 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I think both Hardaker and Silverwood should be respected and treated properly. I don't want to see a witch hunt of a ref and I don't want to see a witch hunt of a player.

I think Leeds have raised a lot of good points, but maybe those points should have been made in conversation directly with the RFL and not in a virtual declaration of war.

Probably but equally I am glad they have the RFL came out first in the media, to be honest I don't and never have trusted red hall, at least it's out in the media now they have to respond, couldn't see us getting much joy speaking to them behind closed doors.
I still don't think silverwood should be anywhere near a Leeds game till this is sorted out

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:52 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I think both Hardaker and Silverwood should be respected and treated properly. I don't want to see a witch hunt of a ref and I don't want to see a witch hunt of a player.

I think Leeds have raised a lot of good points, but maybe those points should have been made in conversation directly with the RFL and not in a virtual declaration of war.

The only thing that matters is the player. He is the one persecuted due to the RFL's actions when there was no need for them to make anything public, and the questionable actions of the referee.

The declaration of war had no choice, due to the actions of the other parties. They put the club in that position.

But where one party is innocent until proven otherwise, there is serious questions now about the other party. Therefore there should be a clear investigation. His position is untenable.

If something comes out of this later that clearly makes Hardaker guilty then he will be dealt with then. But until then he is innocent, yet is the only party who has being victimised and persecuted.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:54 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

The only thing that matters is the player. He is the one persecuted due to the RFL's actions when there was no need for them to make anything public, and the questionable actions of the referee.

The declaration of war had no choice, due to the actions of the other parties. They put the club in that position.

But where one party is innocent until proven otherwise, there is serious questions now about the other party. Therefore there should be a clear investigation. His position is untenable.

If something comes out of this later that clearly makes Hardaker guilty then he will be dealt with then. But until then he is innocent, yet is the only party who has being victimised and persecuted.

Cracking post!!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:54 pm  

When deploring witch hunts, there's nothing more imaginative than countering with a retaliatory witch hunt of one's own.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:55 pm  

Ferdy wrote: Probably but equally I am glad they have the RFL came out first in the media, to be honest I don't and never have trusted red hall, at least it's out in the media now they have to respond, couldn't see us getting much joy speaking to them behind closed doors. I still don't think silverwood should be anywhere near a Leeds game till this is sorted out Richard Silverwood has been suspended more often than Zak Hardaker, fact fans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895011.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14995646

Ferdy wrote: Probably but equally I am glad they have the RFL came out first in the media, to be honest I don't and never have trusted red hall, at least it's out in the media now they have to respond, couldn't see us getting much joy speaking to them behind closed doors. I still don't think silverwood should be anywhere near a Leeds game till this is sorted out Richard Silverwood has been suspended more often than Zak Hardaker, fact fans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895011.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/14995646

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:05 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

The only thing that matters is the player.

It is possible that Zak did say it and Silverwood heard it.

If that emerges and Silverwood has received a huge amount of stick over this then I think the refs would be well within their rights to withdraw their services for a few weeks to show how well we get on without refs.

He is the one persecuted due to the RFL's actions when there was no need for them to make anything public, and the questionable actions of the referee.

It was already public to everyone anyway. I think the RFL have made an error, it probably didn't need a war over it.

The declaration of war had no choice, due to the actions of the other parties. They put the club in that position.

It's a huge 5hitstorm now and there's the potential for everyone to be covered. An angry meeting between GH and the RFL Head could have cleared the air a little but now it's almost impossible there won't be casualties.

But where one party is innocent until proven otherwise, there is serious questions now about the other party. Therefore there should be a clear investigation. His position is untenable.

The RFL have IMO made statements they shouldn't have made. But Leeds have done the same thing with Silverwood. We shouldn't be looking to kick people out of our game unless they truly deserve it.

If something comes out of this later that clearly makes Hardaker guilty then he will be dealt with then. But until then he is innocent, yet is the only party who has being victimised and persecuted.

Silverwood is innocent until proved guilty too.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:13 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It is possible that Zak did say it and Silverwood heard it.

If that emerges and Silverwood has received a huge amount of stick over this then I think the refs would be well within their rights to withdraw their services for a few weeks to show how well we get on without refs.

It was already public to everyone anyway. I think the RFL have made an error, it probably didn't need a war over it.

It's a huge 5hitstorm now and there's the potential for everyone to be covered. An angry meeting between GH and the RFL Head could have cleared the air a little but now it's almost impossible there won't be casualties.

The RFL have IMO made statements they shouldn't have made. But Leeds have done the same thing with Silverwood. We shouldn't be looking to kick people out of our game unless they truly deserve it.

Silverwood is innocent until proved guilty too.

The Rfl have to publish both the referees and match commissioners original reports then

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:16 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It is possible that Zak did say it and Silverwood heard it.

If that emerges and Silverwood has received a huge amount of stick over this then I think the refs would be well within their rights to withdraw their services for a few weeks to show how well we get on without refs.

It was already public to everyone anyway. I think the RFL have made an error, it probably didn't need a war over it.

It's a huge 5hitstorm now and there's the potential for everyone to be covered. An angry meeting between GH and the RFL Head could have cleared the air a little but now it's almost impossible there won't be casualties.

The RFL have IMO made statements they shouldn't have made. But Leeds have done the same thing with Silverwood. We shouldn't be looking to kick people out of our game unless they truly deserve it.

Silverwood is innocent until proved guilty too.

I think you have a few facts at confusion there.

The public only knew about this because the RFL press officer released it to the press. Despite no charges being made. It is from this that the persecution of the player has took off.

There is every chance Hardaker could have said it, but until that is proven he is innocent. What is clear however, is that the ref acted outside the way he should act, did not follow the rules properly, and has now created this situation.

Nobody is saying kick people out of the game. They are saying there should be an investigation also on the way the referee has acted here, and as we have an ongoing investigation on the player surely the key witness to that should not be involved in games involving him. He should be stood down for Friday.

What do you mean when you say Silverwood is innocent until proved guilty? He is guilty of not following the guidelines laid down and performing a cover up after the event, that is clear. If it is subsequently proven he also made comments that were untrue also, then he should also be charged on that score, but until that investigation (if it happens), then yes we can not presume guilt on that one.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:19 pm  

RhinoLaney wrote:

5 minutes ago @SilversRef couldn't comment...

"2 sides to every story. Shouldn't always believe everything that's written !! "

It would appear this has been deleted now... hmm...