Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:31 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

He didn't get kicked out of any squad. He left. Yes due to a disciplinary issue. You are confusing it with Hock.

Yes they dressed it up as "leaving for personal reasons" but reality is he was out for breaking a booze ban. They just wanted to avoid another "England player kicked out" headline.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:21 pm  

If he's that hissy about it, maybe he's better off away from an otherwise tight group of players.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:43 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

That's just a head up @rse type of response. Easy to say for someone without the talent to be in that position. I suspect would be different view had you been in same.

I am quite sure were you picked up for something at work, and received a reprimand, that your attitude would be different had your work collegue done the same thing and received a slap on the back.

But easy to comment until it happens to you.

No it's not. If anything you're the one with your head up your @rse, or more accurately, Hardakers.

I am sure if I were picked for something at work where I was nationally recognised and representing the country I wouldn't be so stupid as to c0ck it up just to have a few drinks.

He's a young lad, he made a silly mistake, he gets a second chance that everyone deserves. But his response to it will define his future. I sincerely hope, and I suspect he is, prepared to work hard to get back in that position of representing his country again.
If, however, he wants to go down a different route of effectively blaming everyone but himself, then that's up to him. But I'm confident he won't have as successful a career.

You still haven't answered the question as to which other Leeds players were sent home from the England squad?

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:45 pm  

Him wrote:

No it's not. If anything you're the one with your head up your @rse, or more accurately, Hardakers.

I am sure if I were picked for something at work where I was nationally recognised and representing the country I wouldn't be so stupid as to c0ck it up just to have a few drinks.

He's a young lad, he made a silly mistake, he gets a second chance that everyone deserves. But his response to it will define his future. I sincerely hope, and I suspect he is, prepared to work hard to get back in that position of representing his country again.
If, however, he wants to go down a different route of effectively blaming everyone but himself, then that's up to him. But I'm confident he won't have as successful a career.

You still haven't answered the question as to which other Leeds players were sent home from the England squad?

He was the only Leeds player not sent home from the squad. He left, as already pointed out, the rest were sent home at the end.

You are still showing a clear position of not living in the real world. I am not sure you actually know what the problem was, and are probably convincing yourself of your own version.

Just to be clear here, from what he said, Zak never complained or had any issue with Leeds position on fining him and laying down the law as they did. What he had an issue with was the involvement of McDermott in increasing this by stopping him from having the season break, and making him cancel his holiday, whilst at the same time a couple of players showed behaviour that was far worse than Zak's situation, and were not taken to task on it.

In all fairness to McDermott here, he has learnt a lot from his mistakes of last year, and changed completely this with things. Possibly he may also have built bridges with Zak also since Christmas, and would do things differently now given the chance. And maybe they can get Zak back round a table to try and get a new contract. I personally desperately hope for that, but I doubt despite his desire to play for Leeds, that he will put that grudge aside. It would be Leeds and it's fans loss though.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:47 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

That's just a head up @rse type of response. Easy to say for someone without the talent to be in that position. I suspect would be different view had you been in same.

I am quite sure were you picked up for something at work, and received a reprimand, that your attitude would be different had your work collegue done the same thing and received a slap on the back.

But easy to comment until it happens to you.

You haven't been kicked out of, sorry left, a world cup squad yet you feel entitled to give your opinion, which is no more or less valid than Hims.

FWIW I don't believe a word you say about Zak's attitude but even if you're right you do him no favours at all. If that is the case then, great player though he is, he shouldn't let the door bang him on his petulant 'arris on the way out. The great thing about this great club is that there will be another, just as there was when Zak himself was given the privilege of replacing the legendary Brent Webb, a player that had accomplished far more domestically and internationally than Zak has done yet.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:55 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

He was the only Leeds player not sent home from the squad. He left, as already pointed out, the rest were sent home at the end.

My eyes can't actually believe they've read this.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:08 pm  

I don't know how you can make any call defending Hardaker. He broke camp rules during the World Cup - the biggest RL event in England in years. He and his fellow idiots were almost the only bad publicity from the event. Oddly enough a lot of fans seemed to somehow want to blame McNamara, instead of the halfwits who actually misbehaved.

G1's second para sums it up as far as Hardaker's concerned.

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:10 pm  

Missed that bit. The rest were 'sent home at the end' - priceless. Wasn't that because the World Cup was over? Does that mean that if the England management hadn't 'sent them home' all the England players would still be in camp somewhere with McNamara?

Re: Bailey's try : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:28 pm  

Interested in how gotcha claims to know hardakers inner feelings and misgivings reagrding the club and the disciplinary.

Re: Bailey's try : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:12 am  

Gotcha wrote:

He was the only Leeds player not sent home from the squad. He left, as already pointed out, the rest were sent home at the end.

Lol. Just lol.

Gotcha wrote:

You are still showing a clear position of not living in the real world. I am not sure you actually know what the problem was, and are probably convincing yourself of your own version.

According to Hardaker, the problem was he went out for some drinks after not being selected for an England game. He thought himself to then be outside the camp and so the "in-camp" no drinking rule didn't apply to him. McNamara thought it did.
In the "real world" I would have managed to refrain from drinking for the whole tournament. A time-period of what? A month? 6 weeks? I manage that quite easily anyway never mind without the added focus of representing my country in the biggest competition in my chosen career.

Gotcha wrote:

Just to be clear here, from what he said, Zak never complained or had any issue with Leeds position on fining him and laying down the law as they did. What he had an issue with was the involvement of McDermott in increasing this by stopping him from having the season break, and making him cancel his holiday, whilst at the same time a couple of players showed behaviour that was far worse than Zak's situation, and were not taken to task on it.

Which players and what behaviour? Were they representing their country at the time? If not then it's not the same situation is it?
Again, a young lad who's done something wrong shouldn't be getting annoyed at the club punishing him. A £2.5k fine and a missed holiday isn't the end of the world.

Gotcha wrote:

In all fairness to McDermott here, he has learnt a lot from his mistakes of last year, and changed completely this with things. Possibly he may also have built bridges with Zak also since Christmas, and would do things differently now given the chance. And maybe they can get Zak back round a table to try and get a new contract. I personally desperately hope for that, but I doubt despite his desire to play for Leeds, that he will put that grudge aside. It would be Leeds and it's fans loss though.

Ahhh. The backtracking begins. Now you've successfully covered all bases here haven't you.

If he holds a grudge then he can go, I don't care how good he is. If as I suspect, he doesn't hold a grudge at all and is relishing the opportunity to show his commitment, that he just made a silly mistake and that he's better than that, then fantastic and long may he stay at Leeds.