As opposed to a F/B that may or may not turn up for training/games on a random basis due to being out on the razz?

Seeing you without the green name reminds me of a scene at the end of Beverley Hills Cop 2.

Foley: Is he a civilian now
Comissioner: Yes, yes he is
Foley: I'm gunna kick your ass later!

I'll be back. (maybe).

I don't think it will be anyone's "call". They need to be seen to be implementing policy to the letter of the law or will be leaving themselves wide open for problems. Anyone who has been involved in implementing disciplinary proceedings knows there is no room for manouvre

If they have followed the correct procedure and are at the point of being legally able to dismiss they can still choose not too. Hence it being Agar's call to give him one more chance.

They can but it will set a precedent and will open a huge can of worms

Why would it? Every case is different with varying circumstances.

Has he ever not turned up to a game because he's pis$ed?

He's been "unavailable" for games. Indirectly perhaps, but still valid.

Just playing the games his not his full job descirption though is it, he also has to do the training.

ledley king? paul mcgrath? theres alot of players who dont do full traning sessions believe me.....

I don't doubt you, however it appears it will not be tolerated at Hull, and rightly so imo

Paul McGrath was a different era, Ledley King is nothing to do with drinking.

Ledley King has extenuating circumstances to not train, Tansey does not! There is a world of difference.

This is about missing training because of alcohol - again. If I turned up to work and was sent him because of alcohol, for the third time, I'd be out.

All on the assumption this is alcohol related.

in a nutshell id be amazed if tansey was shown the door basically down to thef act we have no cover in certain positions.........
we can harp on and on about it being his 3rd time etc etc but if the club are not goin to bite the bullet and sack the guy for gross misconduct then its pointless talking about it for weeks on end....

just stating that these two dont train for one reason or another and theres many others like them too....

Everything has varying circumstances, however you need to implement your policy consistently. You can't decide to ignore something this week because it doesn't suit you

Spot on

But Kings got a legitimate reason, I doubt there's many who get training off to get legless.

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

I reckon it is all to do with trying to sign another player, if we sign Sammut or a.n other then he goes.

If we don't he stays.

Just seen that. Omitting him from the team photo doesnt look good for him.

Dont like the way that the HDM write that he'll be in contention for the derby... if he's still here.

I'd have preferred it if they'd written that he's likely to not be in contention if dismissed. Semantics i know but their slant on it is too positive for Tansey!

To be fair, they may as well write that rag in crayon. They'll think that semantics is some kind of Nazi policy!

As regards Tansey, get shut.

keeps him out the media tho doesnt it,i still think he will be shown the door.