Varney refused to play?

[Deleted User 1076]

He said that Varney said before the game he didn't want to play and risk injury, so BM didn't force him. That isn't the same as refusing to play.

This says more about supporters unrealistic expectation in my mind. Varney has:

1) Not been playing regularly
2) Told he is surplus to requirements

Further, how many of us on here have wanted to ship Varney out to free up the wage budget? Players do not live in a bubble devoid of ll contact with supporters or the social media. So when he apparently agrees a move and asks not to play, fans get upset that he won't play? Nobody can win. If he played and did get injured, stopping at Elland road picking up wages whilst on the injury list, people would have been slating BM for picking him.

[dlw10]

BMC should not have said this - a simple "he is in the process of negotiating his transfer to another club" was sufficient. 'Didn't want to play' -makes like the lad went on strike. I always thought he was not going to be good enough, however he is a good squad player and gave his all when he played. NO need to sullen the lads name.

Perhaps he shouldn't have said it but you heard him say it and tbh I don't think there is any intimation to say that Varney was refusing to play or that he would go on strike. What came across to me in the interview was that BMcD is a) hacked off with the situation and b) disappointed with Varney for not wanting to play. I don't think any less of Varney and I doubt he would give a damn what we think of him anyway... he isn't a big loss but I think he WAS a big loss last night!

Spot on - to have to come up with a strike partner for Mac at the last minute knowing Smith was suspended and Hunt was not ready was an obvious blow. All credit to Diouf for even attempting to fulfil the role after so few outings. I think varney not being there probably cost us two points and a much more settled situation.