So, we sack Tansey and then offer Gleeson a contract, is this not shameful double standards?

Not until Gleeson breaches our disciplinary policy as many times as Tansey did and doesn't get sacked..

I don't think it's necessarily double standards, but he's had loads of chances at other clubs and still has 'personal issues'. Seems like desperation to me. Would having Long and Gleeson together be asking for bother?

I tend to agree to an extent, i'd rather use Reardon as an example though.

However Gleeson is a top centre, if he was only half decent and had a "utility" tag then i wouldnt be to happy.

Glesson will be short term and quite inexpensive all things considered, as we know, our board are "frugal" to say the least.

Nowhere near the cap and we havent been for years.

That is another concern, indeed.

Espcially now Long has 2 games to sit out and twiddle his thumbs.

No doubt you'll have some evidence of that?

I'm undecided on this one. Ok, he hasn't breached [iour[/i disciplinary policy, but he hasn't exactly been a model professional throughout his career either. Sacking one player because of a specific problem, then signing another one with a history of similar problems does at least seem to be a little foolish.

you should be on stage you know

maybe it would but things cant get much worse than it already is so id be happy to give it a go and find out!

don't be silly, drooler doesn't deal in evidenced facts, rumour and misdirection is much better.

Oh I'm not keen on this potential signing for exactly those reasons. Personally I wouldn't go anywhere near Gleeson, no matter how good a player he is. We simply don't have a good record of being able to control or reform 'problem' players.

Still not double standards though.

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

just think about what you've said mate....

tansey breached the rules 3 time at fc...gleeson did it at weegan, not at fc. until he does it here then we can't say it is 'double standards'.

if all clubs thought they shouldn't sign someone because they had been daft in the past, then i don't think we would have a game left. he has paid the price by being sacked by weegan, he hasn't done anything wrong at fc...lets leave him be and see what he can do for us.

!!!KEEP THE FAITH!!!

Tansey came to us with a less than admirable off-field reputation but he had qualities we wanted and so we gave him a chance - he fvcked it up, we got rid.

Not to give Gleeson a chance in the first place would be double standards.

He is a quality player. He's done nothing wrong at this club. Yet

we didnt sack tansey for his reputation so i cant see how it can possibly be double standards.

We've gradually weeded out the bad influences and troublemakers and results have gone from strength to strength.............oh hang on a minute!

No double standards, Tansay had 3 breaches at our club and we sacked him, Gleeson starts a fresh like everyone alse and if he beaches the rules 3 times will also be let go.

It must have really annoyed the board when we were fined for breaching it then.

Whilst Standee may not quite have got the right turn of phrase, it's easy to see the point he's making.

If you owned a shop and had recently sacked someone for stealing from you, you would have to be a total idiot to hire someone who had just been sacked from another shop for stealing as their replacement. What would you say? That was at another shop, so it doesn't count? I'm sure you've learned your lesson, welcome aboard? Well, if you steal from me, I can just sack you?

I was hoping if we signed Gleeson he would be playing centre, no point in signing him just to work in the club shop.

Bdum. Are you here all week?

It's a risk offering him a deal but as has been said he's not breached our club's rule. Providing he makes assurances that he won't and then he sticks to those assurances we shouldn't really have a problem. If he breaches the rules i'd expect him to be gone too.

Spot on imo. Each player starts a new club with a clean slate.

I can be