Have I got this wrong

We were getting hammered all over the place and looked certain for the drop and then Kay came back into the team and we won three on the trot and saved our season. That's about right isn't it?

And then we repay him like this?

kin ell

 

I totally agree.

However, I can see the side of the argument that, if he breached the clubs no drinking policy after it was enforced (which was around the Ipswich game I think), and none of the other players did, then they had to discipline him.

The problem here is that somebody leaked the story. If it hadn't been leaked, he could have been left out of the last game of the season, Atkinson could have played, and we would just have assumed it was to give Atkinson a game due to us having nothing to play for, and I doubt any speculation would have followed.

 

And then some of the hard of thinking can't wait to use this as an excuse to get shut of kay. Words fail.

 

Rules are rules

but then again....wonder if he got a taxi home?

 

What happened with taxi incident?

Was there any follow up, or has the story died a death?

 

No case to answer. nt

 

RE: No case to answer. nt

No surprise there then.</p>

 

rules are stupid

I can't see how they can possibly ban employees from drinking for 9 months out of 12 really.</p>

Seems to me like 2 people at oakwell are looking for excuses to get rid of someone they dont want.</p>

Still, i'm glad that simon davey was doing such an excellent job as manager while kay wasn't playing..... did **** after he was forced to fetch him back didnt he.</p>

 

He didn't ban them for 9 months though did he? He banned them for what, a month? From roughly the Ipswich game until the end of the season?

If a player can't stay off it for that long, IMO, they're stupid.

 

why should a player have to?

They should be allowed to drink in moderation just like everybody else in the country can

 

Maybe they should be allowed to - but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that if a player is truly worried about keeping this club in the Championship, when we are in the relegation zone with 6 games to go, they should be doing everything in their power to keep us in the league, by staying fit, and by focussing on football, not being down the pub.

Now we're safe, they can drink a bit if they like, but if I was a professional footballer at Barnsley, as a Barnsley fan, I wouldn't be down the pub while we were in serious danger of relegation and while the manager has warned them not to.

To be perfectly honest, I think if the players had been "drinking in moderation", the ban would never have been enforced in the first place.

 

well you don't know the extent, and none of us do!

The statement says "repeatedly breaking the clubs non-drinking policy"...

now if he had a couple in moderation, he may well be ok, but for all we know, he could have got rat-arsed and then affected his performance at work the next day (ie training).

Much in the same way one or two of us have had a session one night, gone to work next day still pissed, or are you saying that your work is ok with that

We all know what the "rules" are now, but to what extent he broke them we don't know, other than "repeatedly".

 

So if he went down the pub on a saturday night after a game and had one pint, and did this every week then it would be ok to discipline him and put a big mug shot and story on the internet about it?

I don't see how that can possibly **** the season up to be honest, its a quiet drink with a day of rest afterwards just like the entire population has, it wouldnt affect performances at all.
As for your comment about players obviously having been drinking too much previously then yes you're probably right, ive heard many reports of players out drinking but if the manager thought that players were drinking too much then he should have punished them and dealt with them rather than punishing the entire squad.

 

I think if the club are going to enforce a no-drinking ban for a few weeks, due to the number of players that are drinking more than "in moderation", then it should be followed by the whole squad.

The fact that it states Kay is "repeatedly" breaking this rule tells me that he isn't just having one quiet pint. Might be naive of me to think that, but I suspect he's drinking more than that to be disciplined in this manner. Perhaps trusting Davey and the club more than I should, but I have no reason not to believe that Kay has been drinking too much.

 

in which case you agree with me then?

The news story on the official site is disgusting, it puts a player in bad light and is completly unneeded.

They give just enough information to make kay look bad but are probably holding back on information that will show how stupid they're being.

 

hmm

&quot;Perhaps trusting Davey and the club more than I should&quot;</p>

From the actions of this season i'd say definetly more than you should.</p>

 

Someone inside the club leaked the story to the newspapers. If they'd said nothing, then the speculation over what had happened could have been 10 times worse. Theres been enough unsubstantiated rumours about Kay and Davey actually fighting on the training pitch already.

If the story hadn't been leaked to the papers, the club wouldn't have mentioned it, Atkinson would probably have played at WBA, none of us would have thought anything of it.

 

RE: hmm

People have read too much into things that Davey has done this season. He rested Howard on the first game of his caretaker stint - and people said that was the end of Howard, wouldn't play again under Davey - he's played every game since - and we won the game that he missed. </p>

Kay came back into the side and has played very well - he's breached discipline - something that as far as we know, Kay may have accepted, and again, people are jumping to conclusions.</p>

I'll be disappointed if he leaves. Very disappointed. But he hasn't left yet.</p>

 

and theres me thinking it was Nardiello who scored..and that the defence stillleaked goals..silly me

you Muppet

 

1-0 3-1 2-0 not exactly leaking? nt