So, Faubert reckons he has played his last game for the club. Angered by the way he was disciplined for refusing to return to the ground for the Birmingham game, after the injury to Tomkins, he has "slammed" the club and declared, "My story with West Ham is at an end".
According to Le Sulk, the club were well aware that he son was in hospital - and had been for two days prior to the incident - and that despite this, he still turned up to play at short notice. Only when he was told that he wasn't needed after all, did he drive to the hospital instead.
It goes against the grain to sympathise with Faubert - this is the man who complained that training was too "rough" and who famously fell asleep on the substitute's bench whilst on loan at Real Madrid - however, given his manager missed a game to "atone" for visiting massage parlours, it seems hypocritical for the club to be punishing Faubert when his son was in hospital.
Religious hocus pocus nonsense or sick son? I know where my priorities would be!