Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:15 pm  

The time taken is ridiculous now. Especially given how serious the perceived offence was supposed to be.

Also, for those asking for him to be sacked - please. A quick scan of the NRL will show plenty of players who've done far worse - including violence against women - still running around. The Raiders had a culture problem and took the high ground against some of their players, only to be rewarded by other clubs signing them up. The same has happened in virtually every case with 'star' players. The same would happen with Hardaker.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:54 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

The time taken is ridiculous now. Especially given how serious the perceived offence was supposed to be.

Also, for those asking for him to be sacked - please. A quick scan of the NRL will show plenty of players who've done far worse - including violence against women - still running around. The Raiders had a culture problem and took the high ground against some of their players, only to be rewarded by other clubs signing them up. The same has happened in virtually every case with 'star' players. The same would happen with Hardaker.

If the offense is a sackable one them I don't think that other clubs signing him sod be a deterrent. Leeds would need to be seen to do the right thing for the club and the games reputation.

There is no offense yet, and is looking increasingly like there won't be. If two weeks analysis of all the evidence has brought nothing then it can't be all that strong a case.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:49 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Hasn't Hardaker been beheaded yet for urinating on the grave of Freddy Mercury?

This lip-reader is taking their time aren't they.

They are having trouble getting the lip readers guide dog access to red hall!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:51 am  

What good would the games reputation have if other clubs signed him?
Like I said nearly two weeks and still no charge. That's because nothing's there

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:05 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

It does seem to have disappeared but it started after the 2010 CC Final defeat iirc and was still doing the rounds near the start of this season, so over 3 years long it lasted and reached 300 pages I believe.

Pretty much anything Bailey did good or bad, instead of starting a new thread went on that one. Had the same thread been used for Hardaker's "f*g" offence, the eye gouge and this "puff" one then we'd be looking at around 150 pages. (Although the last several pages of the eye gouge one was just people demanding cake from a rather bemused Yellow Giraffe)

300 pages?! Wow.

This thread has no chance, unless ZH decides to become the public image of some right-wing anti-gay party and starts getting involved in campaigns.

Still, it has overtaken the 'Mc Out' thread now.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:15 am  

The Eagle wrote:

If the offense is a sackable one them I don't think that other clubs signing him sod be a deterrent. Leeds would need to be seen to do the right thing for the club and the games reputation.

There is no offense yet, and is looking increasingly like there won't be. If two weeks analysis of all the evidence has brought nothing then it can't be all that strong a case.

If I head butted someone at work I would expect to be sacked - if it happened in 99.9% of all workplaces it would end in a sacking.

So are we really saying calling names is actually worse than physical violence? or is it the participants that makes the difference? If the club is going to take the high ground it has to be consistent.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:07 am  

Jamie101 wrote:

300 pages?! Wow.

ThePrinter is almost there but it is currently 339 pages and has remained dormant since the middle of 2013.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:17 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If I head butted someone at work I would expect to be sacked

Unless it was Luke Dorn, that would probably trigger a promotion and a performance related bonus (plus a round of applause from those watching).

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:44 am  

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=468630&start=3380 Here it is, all 339 pages from August 2010 until June 2013. Last talk on there was about rumours of NRL clubs might sign him. Bailey must hate Hardaker, stealing his thunder as public enemy #1 for opposition supporters.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=468630&start=3380 Here it is, all 339 pages from August 2010 until June 2013. Last talk on there was about rumours of NRL clubs might sign him. Bailey must hate Hardaker, stealing his thunder as public enemy #1 for opposition supporters.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:59 am  

DHM wrote:

Unless it was Luke Dorn, that would probably trigger a promotion and a performance related bonus (plus a round of applause from those watching).

If you had said William Eve I could agree - only joking William