Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:55 am  

I thought the Moore Money was already spent?

ie one ex Wiganer via Australia, who just so happens to play hooker and 2nd row.

Who could he be coming over to replace?

Must be Jammer.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:14 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I thought the Moore Money was already spent?

ie one ex Wiganer via Australia, who just so happens to play hooker and 2nd row.

Who could he be coming over to replace?

Must be Jammer.

They cant have spent it as he still has another 12months on his contract.
There are ways and means of course.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:08 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

If he wasn't driving then he isn't guilty of any of the charges. He's only guilty of running away in grey underpants (which I agree, should be a crime - he could at least have worn undies of a more interesting colour)

He will get off with it but not because he wasnt driving!
He wont be at St Helens next year they had already had enough of him before this!!
But for me drink driving far out weighs snorting coke and a few people from certain other boards wanted hock banned for life, whilst dont seem to condem Moore for his actions!

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:16 pm  

Ian Roberts Closet wrote:

He will get off with it but not because he wasnt driving!
He wont be at St Helens next year they had already had enough of him before this!!
But for me drink driving far out weighs snorting coke and a few people from certain other boards wanted hock banned for life, whilst dont seem to condem Moore for his actions!

Scott Moore didn't take performance enhancing and banned drugs to cheat the sport and it's competitors. Mr Hock did.

Scott just allegedly has a few demons. Demons that have existed in scores of past Saints players including recently retire legends of the team. It would wholly hypocritical for the club to release him IMO.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:04 pm  

Anyone who thinks Scott Moore's defense is 'fantastic' clearly watches a different player to the one I do. He is capable of some decent hits but some people seem to see that and miss his inability to read attacking plays and the shooting out of the line leaving gaps everywhere.

Could be a very handy back rower if he engaged his brain.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:20 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

But, if he's done unspeakable things off the pitch, the club need to decide what example he's setting to the other players.

This is the same club who continued to employ Sean Long and Leon Pryce after their indiscretions? Why should that be different for Scott Moore? Assuming he is guilty and that will only be decided in October. Just now, he is innocent.

We will be too soft in the pack with both him and Jammer leaving. He can be a total idiot at times during a match but the way he made mincemeat of 'Big Eorl' on Friday for instance is worth its weight in gold. Every player has their weakness and being a team is about pulling together to counteract that so IMO if the team are happy to step in and sort out his on field bloopers then I'm certainly happy to have him out there being feisty for us. God knows we need some feistiness.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:23 pm  

Ian Roberts Closet wrote:

But for me drink driving far out weighs snorting coke

Then that shows what a dunce you are. Snorting coke and then driving, and drinking and driving, are both equally dangerous. Drivers should always be alcohol and drug free otherwise they are potential killers (more so than usual that is).

Scott Moore is innocent until proven guilty.

Note the word PROVEN.

I think a decent discussion about his value to the team is threatening to degenerate into a thread that could get locked thanks to nobheads from other teams.

Re: Scott Moore : Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:38 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Scott Moore didn't take performance enhancing and banned drugs to cheat the sport and it's competitors. Mr Hock did.

Scott just allegedly has a few demons. Demons that have existed in scores of past Saints players including recently retire legends of the team. It would wholly hypocritical for the club to release him IMO.

The is a few more factors i think in the Moore situation other than THIS alcohol related incident.

Re: Scott Moore : Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:16 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

This is the same club who continued to employ Sean Long and Leon Pryce after their indiscretions? Why should that be different for Scott Moore?

It was for Martin Gleeson (and he was a much more valuable player than Moore).
I'll repeat
IF he's done unspeakable things off the pitch, the club NEED TO DECIDE what action is best for all.
If he's a good lad who's made a couple of mistakes but will probably have learned his lesson, perhaps they'll let him stay. If he's Craig Gower mkII then they'll probably move him on.

Re: Scott Moore : Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:22 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Then that shows what a dunce you are. Snorting coke and then driving, and drinking and driving, are both equally dangerous. Drivers should always be alcohol and drug free otherwise they are potential killers (more so than usual that is).

And where in that did they say snorting coke and driving is less dangerous?

He said which is worse:

Snorting coke (on a night out for example)

OR

Drink driving.

2 seperate incidents.