Re: Bailey : Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:47 pm  

*1865* wrote:

So, Bailey... It is correct that he didn't turn up to the team photo. Mindful that there could have been a genuine reason for his absence (but I think we all know their probably isn't) what will be the clubs stance? Chester, Mike Smith & Neil Hudgell have all mentioned issues around discipline under Craig Sandercock's reign, not even a ball kicked in SL 2015 and you've got a player AWOL.

As an aside - this isn't the only instance of him being absent from club events/activities/rehab during Baileys short period of employment so far.

Keep digging son, you'll find something.

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:39 pm  

Easty wrote:

The guy has Flu, I'm sure he could have turned up but do we risk the players coming down with it. With the incubation period been 5-10 days that brings us right up to the Leeds game two weeks today. I really don't think we can question Baileys attitude, He went to Hull Royal Infirmary at Christmas to visit the children's ward with a pot on his leg and moving about on two crutches.

So he doesn't turn up on Saturday due to not wanting to risk infecting the squad, 5-10 'incubation period', but he's in training 2 days later.

Maybe you've quarantined him?

Oh, and this isn't the first time, it's just the first 'public' disappearance.

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:41 pm  

*1865* wrote:

So he doesn't turn up on Saturday due to not wanting to risk infecting the squad, 5-10 'incubation period', but he's in training 2 days later.

Maybe you've quarantined him?

Oh, and this isn't the first time, it's just the first 'public' disappearance.

You'll be right,as always.

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:59 pm  

*1865* wrote:

So he doesn't turn up on Saturday due to not wanting to risk infecting the squad, 5-10 'incubation period', but he's in training 2 days later.

Maybe you've quarantined him?

Oh, and this isn't the first time, it's just the first 'public' disappearance.

Maybe he'd already had the illness for 5 days before the photo, was still unwell and the extra 2 days and he's right as rain?

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:24 pm  

Edith wrote:

Maybe he'd already had the illness for 5 days before the photo, was still unwell and the extra 2 days and he's right as rain?

He was in training last Thursday.

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:07 pm  

*1865* wrote:

He was in training last Thursday.

You wasn't hiding in a tree with a pair of binoculars again, was you?

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:15 pm  

No issue with Bailey and rovers I was told

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:37 pm  

hull smallears wrote:

No issue with Bailey and rovers I was told

There must be *1999* says so.

Re: Bailey : Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:20 pm  

I wonder who you'll all 'choose' to believe.

For the record, I never said there were 'big' issues between the two, but there's certainly been a few minor incidents so to speak. I just questioned how you'd deal with it considering the rhetoric from Hudgell, Smith & Chester bemoaning the discipline issues under Sandercock.

Re: Bailey : Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:32 am  

*1865* wrote:

I wonder who you'll all 'choose' to believe.

For the record, I never said there were 'big' issues between the two, but there's certainly been a few minor incidents so to speak. I just questioned how you'd deal with it considering the rhetoric from Hudgell, Smith & Chester bemoaning the discipline issues under Sandercock.

We all know your full of s--t.