Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:47 pm  

There was plenty of support on here for Hardakers homophobic abuse of Child now those same defenders are now on his case for his poor behaviour!!

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:10 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There was plenty of support on here for Hardakers homophobic abuse of Child now those same defenders are now on his case for his poor behaviour!!

There were also a number of Leeds fans on here who weren't sure that CCTV of Hardaker (and Minchella) inside that student accommodation prior to the assault taking place was Hardaker.

Rose-tinted glasses and all that!

Not mentioning any names of course... COUGH... TOMCAT.

Later trip to the opticians notwithstanding

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:16 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There was plenty of support on here for Hardakers homophobic abuse of Child now those same defenders are now on his case for his poor behaviour!!

I remember the thread leading up to the banning of Hardaker, one i did not post on but i do recall There were a lot of people defending him before that as it wasn't conclusive that Zak had aimed anything at Child up to that point. That was the argument, I would hardly call it supporting Homophobic abuse. I also remember that thread was blocked just before the hearing so anything said after in his defence after that i don't recall you will have to enlighten me, but my own view was very much that he was on very thin ice and drinking in last chance saloon.

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:44 pm  

William Eve wrote:

There were also a number of Leeds fans on here who weren't sure that CCTV of Hardaker (and Minchella) inside that student accommodation prior to the assault taking place was Hardaker.

Rose-tinted glasses and all that!

Not mentioning any names of course... COUGH... TOMCAT.

Later trip to the opticians notwithstanding

Some rush to judgement one way or the other, some keep an open mind others just like to stir the crock of dung to get a reaction. Which category do you fit into I wonder Billy Boy. Demoted to 3rd rate wind up merchant.

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:54 pm  

TOMCAT wrote:

Some rush to judgement one way or the other, some keep an open mind others just like to stir the crock of dung to get a reaction. Which category do you fit into I wonder Billy Boy. Demoted to 3rd rate wind up merchant.

You just couldn't be sure it was Zak, coud you?

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:17 pm  

William Eve wrote:

You just couldn't be sure it was Zak, coud you?

Nowt better to do Big Bad Billy? this time of year thought you'd have plenty on. Penny for the troll anyone?

My comments on the matter were as follows:

TOMCAT wrote:

I'm with you on that, in which case I'd better book an appointment at the opticians as well. The more I look at the picture the police released the more unsure and concerned I am.

I really hope that isn't a picture of young talent and bright futures being snuffed out.

then

TOMCAT wrote:

That goes without saying, what got me fretting was how much weight he's put on in the face Looking at that photo if it is him, he wasn't dropped because of police enquiries, he's not match fit.

then

TOMCAT wrote:

IMO They have had a lucky break. Hopefully they will both move on with a more mature and professional attitude. I hope that behind the scenes, the riot act has been well and truly read to both.

So to summarise, I started with wasn't certain on the photo but more I looked more concern I felt and ended up saying he, or rather they, had had a lucky escape. No defending of the behavior, no rushing to judge.

I can't be arsed to check but I wouldn't be suprised to find that you'd called for the sacking of Zac, the resignation of the board and the dissolution of the club. Not because you meant it but just because you're a fifth rate windup merchant, with apparently too much time on your hands.

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:22 pm  

I believe that is called pwnage.

Now can we stop the petty trolling crap and get back on topic?

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:55 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

I remember the thread leading up to the banning of Hardaker, one i did not post on but i do recall There were a lot of people defending him before that as it wasn't conclusive that Zak had aimed anything at Child up to that point. That was the argument, I would hardly call it supporting Homophobic abuse. I also remember that thread was blocked just before the hearing so anything said after in his defence after that i don't recall you will have to enlighten me, but my own view was very much that he was on very thin ice and drinking in last chance saloon.

Does it matter who the abuse was aimed at? Defending behaviour of that nature just because he plays for Leeds was well out of order as I posted on the thread. Those same people are now sticking the knife in - rlfans!!

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:19 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There was plenty of support on here for Hardakers homophobic abuse of Child now those same defenders are now on his case for his poor behaviour!!

Can you back that up Sal with user names and links to previous comments, or are you just making stuff up as usual?

Re: Hardaker : Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:05 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Does it matter who the abuse was aimed at? Defending behaviour of that nature just because he plays for Leeds was well out of order as I posted on the thread. Those same people are now sticking the knife in - rlfans!!

People were arguing that he clearly said it to Monahan who is straight, and (though hardly PC) would hardly be homophobic abuse, and more like a blanket insult similar to calling him a C***.

Child (who is gay) complained to the rfl and they said he had said it to Child, which would make it homophobic abuse (if Zak knew he was gay), however he clearly DIDNT say it to Child as if he had he would have been sent off for abusing the ref, but there wasn't even a penalty given for dissent.

Then the rfl came out and said he was NOT being banned for homophobic abuse but instead for misconduct with the referee. Yet he was still banned for 5 games, which is the longest ban for dissent I have ever seen.

The whole thing was a farce and the RFL were just desperately trying to not look as out of date as they are.