: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Smokey, I think I've seen your posts on this subject before? In an earlier thread when the lad was suspended?

I have worked in Human Resources. I know that gross misconduct and bringing the organisation into disrepute are different charges and the former applies to the workplace. If I was bonking my boss in the office I would be guilty of gross misconduct. If I bonked him in the local woods, I would not, but I may be guilty of bringing the organisation into disrepute (in fact, I believe just such an event occurred at St Helens Council a few years ago when someone was caught on CCTV bonking in the car park above M&S and was fired for bringing the council into disrepute!)

The club has not condoned Pryce's crime. Far from it. They have stated quite clearly that the punishment handed down by the court is sufficient and that they have given him a formal warning. They have also stated that they have taken into consideration his own attitude towards his offence, which is crucial, especially in terms of being a role model. Pryce has exhibited the kind of attitude that is positive within the context of a negative event.

Following normal patterns, this is his second offence so should have a written warning followed by the sack should he re-offend.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:07 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

you dont, you sack him, you say we dont want to pay this guy for two years when he cant play, so we will save ourselves a bit of money,


you dont pretend you are making a moral or principled decision, it makes you look cheap and silly when you stick by a cayless or a pryce

Ok pal. Why ain't the RFL done anything.

From what you are saying he has given rugby a bad name.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:09 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

you dont, you sack him, you say we dont want to pay this guy for two years when he cant play, so we will save ourselves a bit of money,


you dont pretend you are making a moral or principled decision, it makes you look cheap and silly when you stick by a cayless or a pryce

Sorry pal but you are talking pure rubbish.

I think you want pryce to have a more severe punishment because he is a star name.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:12 pm  

St pete wrote:

Ok pal. Why ain't the RFL done anything.

From what you are saying he has given rugby a bad name.

because the rfl are toothless, they couldnt if they wanted

also im not arguing anything should be done to pryce, simply the morals and principles of sts should apply equally to Pryce as a youth team player, and when they dont it makes the club look cheap and hypocritical

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:13 pm  

St pete wrote:

Sorry pal but you are talking pure rubbish.

I think you want pryce to have a more severe punishment because he is a star name.

In a nutshell.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:14 pm  

knowsley blue wrote:

How big was that courtroom ? the number of people who seem to know everything that happened in court is staggering, the only person I know for definate who was there is Robbie Paul and he said the media has sensationalised the proceedings, so rather than believe half the posters on here who weren't there I'll believe Robbie Paul who was.

if robbie paul was there he's lucky the judge didnt give him 10 years for crimes against music

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:16 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

doesnt matter, it would still be a firing offence

the kid wasnt charged, also, having drugs in your system isnt illegal, as does a criminal conviction tfor violent crime or drunk driving
not anywhere near as dangerouse as violent crime or drunk driving, or even speeding
unlikely but all the more reason to help the kid Fourthly,so sts dont tell players violent crime cannot be tolerated? are they telling them drunk driving will be tolerated? and other young hopefuls will see drink driving and violent crime as ok?

so a twice convicted violent criminal deserves the opportunity for immediate redemption but a young kid who hurt no one must wait two years?

the long and short of it is who really cares anymore

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:17 pm  

St pete wrote:

Sorry pal but you are talking pure rubbish.

I think you want pryce to have a more severe punishment because he is a star name.

the same punishment would suffice,

either the principles of st helens apply equally to the pryce as a youngster or they arent principles at all, and only a hypocrit would think they were

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

because the rfl are toothless, they couldnt if they wanted

also im not arguing anything should be done to pryce, simply the morals and principles of sts should apply equally to Pryce as a youth team player, and when they dont it makes the club look cheap and hypocritical

I'm sure there are young players at every club who have been found guilty by courts for direerent offences but not sacked them.

When a player tests positive for drugs no matter who he is the club has no option but to sack him.

If a player no matter his age is found guilty of a none rugby related offence then I'm sure not many teams would sack them.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:31 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

the same punishment would suffice,

either the principles of st helens apply equally to the pryce as a youngster or they arent principles at all, and only a hypocrit would think they were

How can the same principles apply when they are 2 totally different offences?

Only a idiot would not see that