Re: Hardaker : Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:20 am  

jools wrote:

Can't say I've heard any tales of him getting into scraps while peed up out on the town. brough has his faults but any problem he has arent potentially criminal.

I wouldn't be so sure. Some of his haircuts break the laws of decency.

Re: Hardaker : Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:01 pm  

Brierley to Leeds, eventually.

Re: Hardaker : Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:31 pm  

maurice wrote:

Brierley to Leeds, eventually.

Doubt after it should have already happened.

Re: Hardaker : Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:31 pm  

jools wrote:

Can't say I've heard any tales of him getting into scraps while peed up out on the town. brough has his faults but any problem he has arent potentially criminal.

Who cares about what they do OUTSIDE the club?!?! The reason Hardaker is likely going is because his behaviour was leading to poor performances and failure to show up for training. If he was scoring every week and making the try saving tackles of previous years then we would have kept him even if he was scrapping with his mates every night.

Problems with Danny Brough are WITHIN the club, mainly that he apparently causes a toxic atmosphere in the dressing room, I have not heard any reports that Zak was effecting the other players in a bad way, except the blatant lies of people who didn't like him in the first place

Re: Hardaker : Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:00 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote:

Who cares about what they do OUTSIDE the club?!

he apparently causes a .............
........ except the blatant lies of people who didn't like him in the first place

That first sentence says it all. Players REPRESENT the club they play for- Leeds were happy to have a homophobic physical assaulter representing them but for some reason decide to get rid just after getting a large contract extension


The irony in that last section though

Re: Hardaker : Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:16 pm  

jools wrote:

That first sentence says it all. Players REPRESENT the club they play for- Leeds were happy to have a homophobic physical assaulter representing them but for some reason decide to get rid just after getting a large contract extension


The irony in that last section though

They represent us on the pitch not off it, if he was playing well and the players were happy with him then he wouldn't be being sold.

Also there is a big difference between the rumours that Brough disrupted the Huddersfield dressing room (backed up by him loosing his captaincy), and people coming on here saying that Hardaker was shagging Ryan Halls missus, and that is just one example of the stuff people were saying when he first was put on the transfer list.

Re: Hardaker : Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:54 pm  

I don't know much about Hardaker, but he's a better tackler than Lomax.

Re: Hardaker : Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:38 pm  

DHM wrote:

I don't know much about Hardaker, but he's a better tackler than Lomax.

True, but Lomax at least poses some kind of threat ball in hand.

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

Re: Hardaker : Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:27 pm  

Only because lomax has learned the thought processes to be able to pass.

Instead of Zak's "I'll do it all meself" method.

Re: Hardaker : Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:08 am  

people went moaning about him last year. funny how some can forgive some players a terrible run of games but not others