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!
It goes against the grain to sympathise with Faubert because you dissed him when this story first broke HF, accusing him of flouncing off! I did say there was nothing in it eh? :)
ReplyDeleteGold Sullivan and Brady never have and never will treat anyone with human decency and class.
He did flounce off. His kid wasn't at death's door was he? I don't understand yet why he couldn't come back. Had his son suddenly taken a turn for the worse? Nope. Could Le Sulk help by being at the hospital? Nope. What was wrong with mini Faus Pas? We don't know do we? Touch of jaundice perhaps? Not exactly life threatening! He was able to play one moment and not the next, why? Le Nez put out of joint perhaps?
ReplyDeleteI knew you'd like this.... bet you got an erection when you first read this.
ReplyDeleteAn erection stimulated by Faubert? You're on the wrong West Ham site mate.
ReplyDelete