I'd give him one more chance personally.

If we assume Tansey has been suspended for disciplinary reasons, he should be sacked.

As a first choice player, to make yourself unavailable through misconduct when you've been on a warning already this year, at this point in the season is 100% unforgivable. O'Meley played it tough for the team in the middle of the season with busted ribs. Fitz has been superhuman in his efforts all year long. Horne is playing on through a serious medical condition. His actions mean that younger and more inexperienced players are played and targetted. Don't know how he can look any of these players in the eye TBH.

I agree mate. I just think the positive things he brings to our game outweigh the negatives. Hopefully he will get his act together off the field.

Also, where would we have been this season without the Tansey 'run-around' play?!! Lot of points lost without that!

My worry with giving him another chance would be that it sends the message that he is too important to the team for us to get rid. Could just feed his ego even more.

I'd sit him down in the middle of the squad and let them tell him what they think, and let them decide whether they want him to stay or not. After all, it's them he let down.

Spot on Mrs B.

Not exactly his greatest game for us, was it?
Although he did take some almighty hits from a rovers defence which well and truly had the bit between their teeth as the game wore on.

Due to a series of circumstances out of his control, he now looks a pale shadow of his former self. And I'm afraid his best days now look to be behind him. Sad to see from someone who has wore the shirt with distinction and who has always carried himself with a great deal of dignity.

Sorry but I disagree with you there. Why is it a case of SHOULD be sacked? Firstly, people are making assumptions, as it is nobody knows for sure what has or has not gone on with Tansey's disciplinary record or what stage he is down the disciplinary procedure. Pure speculation.
Your main arguement for sacking him seems to be that he let his team mates down & that others have performed admirably through the season.(Your reference to Fitz, O'Meley and Horne), well that just doesn't cut it from an employment rights point of view I'm afraid.

I would never condone any actions that put the clubs name in a bad light or disable the teams on field performance but given disciplinary procedures can be complex and a minefield for employers full & proper attention to detail must be followed. Upholding the contract terms & employment law when going through a disciplinary procedure without the use of emotive subjects as you mentioned (which are not relevent) must be adhered to throughout.

Gross misconduct I would accept as a reason to dismiss but 2 warnings (if indeed there have been two official written warnings) does not neccessarily equal dismissal.

Lets wait to see what the club announces (if anything) then you can stick your daggers in his back

Believe me, it would soon get coached out of him. We employ an illiterate from Fev to run things don'tcha know!

He [ushould[/u be sacked from a point of principle perspective assuming he's transgressed again. As you say there'll be some procedural legal bollox that prevents it.

And you are also correct that this is pure speculation, but I'm not sure Agar would choose to go without his first choice fullback in a game of this magnitude unless the transgression was a material one.

Hopefully his agent will be asked to find him another club. Look, we've had a succession of "second chancers" at our club over the last few years who are in the HDM every January declaring the turning over of new leaves, blah, blah, blah - Cooke, King, Lee, Thackray etc. Between them I reckon you could wallpaper the Kingston Suite with their 1st/2nd/final warning letters and none have gone on to redeem themselves. TBF to Agar he's learnt this lesson and one thing he seems to have done is introduce more rigid discipline. In a team where we have few mavericks with such great natural ability that they can rock up after a week on the lash and deliver to a level to beat SL opposition, we need to ensure we're maximising what we have and being fair to players who are leading as role models and doing the extras at training rather than to$$ing it off at the part of the season their team mates have spent 10 months working towards. It is an emotive subject and one I feel really strongly about. Tansey's let [ume [/udown if all this is true. I've invested time and energy in supporting the team all year. Fans make sacrifices, financial and personal, to get to games, and the season came down to yesterday. To take actions, when you've been suspended already this season, which lead to our first choice fullback being fully fit but unavailable for selection, is unforgivable in my book. We may be unable to actually sack him for contractual or employment law reasons, but we should still be getting his agent to tout him round other clubs IMO.

I haven't read the thread but I recall that there was a clause put into contracts before Tansey signed which specifically set out the conduct expected with regard to alcohol and drugs etc which may well enable him to be sacked if indeed he has done anything wrong. If he is playing next year then the decision to "punish" him by dropping him for this game whilst having a very green 17 year old on the wing and Washbrook on the bench has to be questioned. His offence needed to be so serious that he was to be dismissed otherwise it's th club , fans and other players that are punished. Sacked totally or on the bench last night were the options for me and I did say that before the game. There is of course just a chance that his alleged transgression may have been opportune if another better player has suddenly become available. I really hope that for once the club are cynical enough to take that opportunity if it has arisen.

We have to ask ourselves 3 things:
1 - How many promising youngsters have L**ds let go
2 - How many promising youngsters have Roosters let go
3 - Are we stupid, in thinking that letting him live in the West Riding and socialise with Bailey is a good idea, having offered him counselling and a substantial relocation package, and he still refuses, we carry on with him?