Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"My view on Hetherington on both Bird and Carney was simply that he was trying to protect his own position i.e. under investment in the team by trying to prevent other teams strengthening their squads. He wasn't interested in the quality of SL just saving a few quid at Leeds. That is not the same as what has happened with Hardaker - Carney is an alcoholic - not sure he goes about punching people? - which causes his issues which if they can be sorted he would add massively to the quality of a competition that is suffering from the lack of top quality players. Unlike Zac Carney has performed at the pinnacle of the game - chalk and cheese.
My point about Walker and Bailey was the comparison between them and Woodgate and Bowyer and the variations in sentencing. Don't think either has since transgressed?
I can't think of any players at Leeds with a worse disciplinary record than Hardaker, that is in the public domaine?
All players deserve a second chance but when the don't learn from their mistakes how many chances do you give someone before you say enough is enough. To me Zac is disaster waiting to happen and it is only a question of time.
You claim not to have favourites but you do and Zac is one of them - you are entitled to your opinion we don't agree'"
Not sure why you always want to make out favourites as a some form of argument? Not sure what the relevance is.
So you are saying that if the player is of a quality that YOU deem good then it is ok to have these indiscretions, but not if you don't deem them of sufficient quality? Yet you say you are not been Hypocritical, and you say talk to me about favourites.
I agree entirely with you on Bird and Carney, hence why my view is consistent. Yours it appears is not.
McDermott and Senior had much worse records than Hardaker by the way. Something conveniently forgotten about by many. And I am talking Barrie, but of course our esteemed coach can be classed as worse also.
My view was clear earlier on this thread, so a bit rich to talk about favourites. I don't believe any player should be out gallivanting and drinking in the middle of the night, regardless of days off or not. It is up to the clubs to have those rules in place, and considering he is not the only one, it would appear those rules are not in place. Therefore what exactly is this problem you are forming this opinion on?
It was the very same thing with the England situation. Out on a day off, no rule in place. When pulled for it he gets the hump and leaves the camp. Quickly forgiven and picked again.
My view again is one where you treat something on the incident alone. If this incident is deemed sufficient for sever punishment then I would back that, so long as that is the same for all players. What I wouldn't back is blowing out of proportion previous issues, and using them along with a current incident. That isn't favouritism that is common sense.
I go back to your initial post, you preach Hypocritical, but you seem to be the one who should be labelled that.