: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:32 pm  

St pete wrote:

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

and.....

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

thats simply not true

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.

the fact other clubs may do it doesnt excuse saints

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:34 pm  

St pete wrote:

Dragging your good companys name down?

Why would it be all over then news and newspapers if you did it?

people get sacked all the time for stuff they do outside of work, my old man is a director and chairs disiplineries where people are sacked because of criminal convictions away from work.

i realise this doent happen in all jobs but at alot of places get rid.

but on the other side of it my mate went to prison for drink driving and they kept his job open for him! and it was a pretty big firm with goverment connections. at some places if you lose your licence you get the sack

it really is swings and round abouts

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:35 pm  

Smokey, would Bailey be at Leeds in your black and white world?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:36 pm  

St pete wrote:

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

didnt cunningham test posative for a band substance??

thats right he did!!

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:39 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

and.....
thats simply not true

the fact other clubs may do it doesnt excuse saints

Why didn't the young lad take saints for unfair sacking?

I'm sure he would if he could.

Do you not think he broke the rules of his contract by taking drugs?

Funny how the toothles rugby league gave him 2 year ban but nothing for pryce.

Strange hey?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:39 pm  

Ski wrote:

Smokey, would Bailey be at Leeds in your black and white world?

yes he would, i tend to believe that society is better for keeping these guys in a career

and Pryce would still be at saints as would the young kid

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:39 pm  

sgtwilko wrote:

people get sacked all the time for stuff they do outside of work, my old man is a director and chairs disiplineries where people are sacked because of criminal convictions away from work.

<snip>

but on the other side of it my mate went to prison for drink driving and they kept his job open for him! and it was a pretty big firm with goverment connections. at some places if you lose your licence you get the sack

You've summed it up just fine there. Every workplace is different and every job brings with it different responsibilities inside and outside the working environment. Likewise, every offence is different and therefore requires a different response.

The response of Saints has been excellent. It has been mature, reasoned and logical. They have ignored the media hype and internet hysteria and instead taken note of the legal proceedings and of the man himself. I respect Saints for the decision they have taken and it is such a shame that so many fans, even Saints fans, would have rather seen Pryce hung out to dry simply for pushing a bloke when originally all he was trying to do - misguided though he certainly was - was support his mate who was upset at his then wife having it off with another bloke.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:42 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You've summed it up just fine there. Every workplace is different and every job brings with it different responsibilities inside and outside the working environment. Likewise, every offence is different and therefore requires a different response.

The response of Saints has been excellent. It has been mature, reasoned and logical. They have ignored the media hype and internet hysteria and instead taken note of the legal proceedings and of the man himself. I respect Saints for the decision they have taken and it is such a shame that so many fans, even Saints fans, would have rather seen Pryce hung out to dry simply for pushing a bloke when originally all he was trying to do - misguided though he certainly was - was support his mate who was upset at his then wife having it off with another bloke.

Spot on

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes he would, i tend to believe that society is better for keeping these guys in a career

and Pryce would still be at saints as would the young kid

So Saints should keep someone who is unproven at the top level, for two years, paying him, when he decieved the club, lied about etc etc, when he cannot repay the club with service in any way?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:44 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You've summed it up just fine there. Every workplace is different and every job brings with it different responsibilities inside and outside the working environment. Likewise, every offence is different and therefore requires a different response.

The response of Saints has been excellent. It has been mature, reasoned and logical. They have ignored the media hype and internet hysteria and instead taken note of the legal proceedings and of the man himself. I respect Saints for the decision they have taken and it is such a shame that so many fans, even Saints fans, would have rather seen Pryce hung out to dry simply for pushing a bloke when originally all he was trying to do - misguided though he certainly was - was support his mate who was upset at his then wife having it off with another bloke.

easy on the bull $hit mate!! lets all be honest the main reason club has dealt with pryce in the way they have is beacuse he's probabaly your best player.

and it would be suicide to sack him or ban as he's your strike player and another sl club would pick him up because he would not get a a visa for australia.