Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:26 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Did you? Never heard it previously.

Couldn't care either. But would have been helpful if the players knew, may of avoided the problem.

He only actually came out publically though after that incident. Posting picture of his partner on facebook to highlight it.

Why should he, or anyone else feel a need to "come out" at all, no matter what their sexual persuasion? If you were speaking to a non-white person on the telephone, do you expect them to declare their ethnicity at the beginning of the conversation?

If he had come out, do you think Hardaker may have called him a "f**king heterosexual"?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

What, so because Hardaker has previously and might have again blurted out a gay insult in anger on a rugby pitch this is some sort of proof that he isn't dedicated or hard working?

Oh dear.

Now where did he say that?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:31 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Why should he, or anyone else feel a need to "come out" at all, no matter what their sexual persuasion? If you were speaking to a non-white person on the telephone, do you expect them to declare their ethnicity at the beginning of the conversation?

If he had come out, do you think Hardaker may have called him a "f**king heterosexual"?

Your last bit is pointless as he didn't say it to him anyway, but yes he might have considered the sensitive types around him had he known. Just saying

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:36 pm  

i agree. stupid

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:39 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Your last bit is pointless as he didn't say it to him anyway, but yes he might have considered the sensitive types around him had he known. Just saying

So you fully accept the first bit?

You know, the important bit?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:42 pm  

you are all assuming, or hoping, hardaker said the horrible word puff. so demeaning.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:54 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Now where did he say that?

The last couple of lines of his post. He said that the less dedicated players have been weeded out of Leeds in the past and that Hardaker shouldn't be an exception. Clearly labelling him under the less dedicated category.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:00 pm  

MjM wrote:

Leeds are disingenuously creating a process defence which many Leeds fans have predictably rallied around. Who wouldn't rally around when there's a witch-hunt afoot against one of our own? But who cares about process? What really matters is did Hardaker commit an offence or not? I suspect he did, and the "it's only on-field banter/sledging" argument is weak and simplistic in a contemporary context. In the scales of offence this time compared to last the word/words were slightly less offensive, were slightly less viscously spewed out and, of course were not directed at a referee.

Personally I would have sacked him last time. Having not done so then it is difficult for the club to now, even before the defence they put out. He may be the best young player in the league but lesser players would have gone for what he did and there should be no exceptions.

There is also a culture aspect to this - Leeds have been strong under Sinfield's leadership for the past decade partly because, fundamentally, they were good people working hard and that helped create a strong team bond. The "good vs evil" divide in the league by Andy Wilson on SL Backchat reference Leeds and some other clubs vs Wigan does not relate to on-field thuggery alone. Imperfect, less dedicated individuals have gradually been weeded out of Leeds. Once again, Hardaker should be no exception.

Sorry, I would agree with a lot of this IF the case against the guy was proven.

But what you actually appear to suggest here is sacking Hardaker because you "suspect" he committed an offence?

Please can we not sit together at the tribunal?

Process is actually quite important. As is burden of proof.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:15 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

But what you actually appear to suggest here is sacking Hardaker because you "suspect" he committed an offence?

He opined that Hardaker should have been sacked by the club in June after being found guilty of homophobic abuse of an official.

He should have been sacked back then as well.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:17 pm  

William Eve wrote:

He opined that Hardaker should have been sacked by the club in June after being found guilty of homophobic abuse of an official.

He should have been sacked back then as well.

That was one of two opinions offered. At least the way I read it.