: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:13 am  

Billinge Wires wrote:

Why did they ger rid of Millward then - because he abused a Warrington official?

Much, much more to it than that.

Remember Mildred wanting to sue the club? Why didn't he? Because the stories would have been played out in open court and he would have looked an absolute tool.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:14 am  

mr chips wrote:

second chanch leon, draw a line now and prove the faith saints have put in you .

Third chance surely?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:16 am  

debaser wrote:

Third chance surely?

indeed

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:17 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Not at all. I think Saints is bigger than one player.

When Millward was sacked, the club said the following:

"The club has for some time been working extremely hard to promote St Helens as a family club with family values. This is something that the club strongly believes in."

"Ian's actions have unacceptably impacted upon the good name of the Saints and the game of rugby league. We make continued and vigorous attempts to positively differentiate our Club and our sport as a family sport. We expect this image to be portrayed by our players, all staff and our supporters."

"The club is simply not prepared to tolerate this kind of behaviour from any employee let alone its head coach. To do so sends the wrong message to staff, players, fans and in particular young fans."

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:17 am  

So a strong response from St Helens to ensure that criminal behaviour will not be tolerated....




...this certainly isn't.


Glad to see that the Saint's board consider this a matter of no importance.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:20 am  

Billinge Wires wrote:

Why did they ger rid of Millward then - because he abused a Warrington official? However Pryce has been convicted twice now I believe, both for physical assaults and not verbal assaults. Seems double standards for me and not something I had associated St Helens Rugby Club with.

there was 3 charges against Millward:

1) abusing the Warrington media officer
2) abusing the Saints media officer
3) Swearing at the 4th official and subsequently lieing about it

make your own mind up about whether those 3 are worse than what Pryce did.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:22 am  

debaser wrote:

So a strong response from St Helens to ensure that criminal behaviour will not be tolerated....




...this certainly isn't.


Glad to see that the Saint's board consider this a matter of no importance.

Where have they said they don't think its important?


To be fair to the board they know the facts of the case, they know exactly what happened which is something nobody on here knows.

Just like last week people were assuming because he hadn't got a custodial sentence he had "got away with it" they are assuming the exact same now. Some people wouldn't have been happy unless the club sacked him - and for most its nothing to do with what has happened but to do with a dislike of the player.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:25 am  

TO be fair, you're not going to sack your best players and matchwinners, are you?

The board have chickened out, here. A reserve player, or a player with not much to offer would have been out on his backside.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:26 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

TO be fair, you're not going to sack your best players and matchwinners, are you?

The board have chickened out, here. A reserve player, or a player with not much to offer would have been out on his backside.

True, its just a fact of life.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:27 am  

I am thoroughly ashamed of this decision. The time was ripe to send out a message and make Leon Pryce genuinely repent of his actions.

This could have been the right moment to set the right example in Rugby league. Given the decision I am ashamed that the board did not make a condition of him continuing in Saints colours dependent upon him sending a replacement one of these to Mr. O' Brien....