: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:02 pm  

Ski wrote:

They could have asked him to go to an under developed are, say Hull, and taught simple English, but they didn't.

They obviously didn't send him to your house either

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:23 pm  

St pete wrote:

Get real! It was 2 totally different offences!

The young lads as you refer to him was banned for 2 years! How can you keep him?

Also I beleive he failed a drug test at the club which then becomes work related and gross misconduct.

pryces conduct would also come under gross misconduct

there are plenty of ways sts could keep the young lad on, in and around the club, but didnt, which is fine and their choice.

and i dont dispute it makes more sense from a business point of view, and that is what saints are a business

what i object to is the dishonesty in presenting the sacking of the lad as a 'principled' decision when it clearly wasnt and the crass hypocrisy in hanging the kid out to dry, stating the importance of 'sending a message' and a youthteam players responsibility as 'a role model' and the need to show his actions werent acceptable as reasons for him needing to be fired, but not applying the same principles to a convicted drunk driver and a TWICE convicted violent criminal

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

pryces conduct would also come under gross misconduct

there are plenty of ways sts could keep the young lad on, in and around the club, but didnt, which is fine and their choice.

and i dont dispute it makes more sense from a business point of view, and that is what saints are a business

what i object to is the dishonesty in presenting the sacking of the lad as a 'principled' decision when it clearly wasnt and the crass hypocrisy in hanging the kid out to dry, stating the importance of 'sending a message' and a youthteam players responsibility as 'a role model' and the need to show his actions werent acceptable as reasons for him needing to be fired, but not applying the same principles to a convicted drunk driver and a TWICE convicted violent criminal

Not a chance in hell saints could have kept a player who was banned for 2yrs for taking drugs!

Pryce has not done anything work related to justify sacking him.

If pryce had gone down then that's different.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:29 pm  

Why isn't he suspended without pay until he completes his community work then?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:32 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

Why isn't he suspended without pay until he completes his community work then?

Waa waa waa

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:38 pm  

MrPhilb wrote:

Why isn't he suspended withot pay until he completes his community work then?

Would you be suspended without pay from your job?

Even if it had nothing to do with your job at all

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:38 pm  

St pete wrote:

Not a chance in hell saints could have kept a player who was banned for 2yrs for taking drugs!

Pryce has not done anything work related to justify sacking him.

If pryce had gone down then that's different.

no, it isnt.

it would be the same

if saints sacked the youngster because of a principle, that they take seriously the responsibility of being 'role models', then it is at the very least warped morality to judge his offence worse than cayless' and both of pryces. especially as his didnt even result in criminal proceedings, at worst the have judged cayless and pryce above the principles they are pretending they have

if they sacked him simply because it was the easiest option, it was cheap and hypocritical to moralise about it as they did

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:39 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

pryces conduct would also come under gross misconduct

I wouldn't have thought so because Pryce's crime was not work-related. Usually gross misconduct charges relate directly to conduct within the workplace - for example stealing from the till (if your job uses one) or fiddling the accounts, or yelling at a customer. I should think that Pryce's crime comes under bringing the club/sport into disrepute and probably that is why he has been given a formal warning (which usually preceeds a firing, pending a further offence).

re plenty of ways sts could keep the young lad on, in and around the club, but didnt, which is fine and their choice.

First of all, drugs are illegal. No club can countenance the use of an illegal substance. Secondly, if they are peformance enhancing, that is cheating and indeed would come under gross misconduct as a result. Thirdly, drugs are dangerous: he could be at risk on the pitch and be a risk to other players on the pitch due to the effects of the drug while in use. That point would also apply to alcohol. Fourthly, the lad you speak of was just that - a lad. From the outset the club has to make it clear that drugs cannot be tolerated. He will have known the club's anti-drug policy from the outset. That he chose to ignore it is his responsibility. He is still young enough to return to the sport and make good in it. That is up to him. And other young hopefuls seeing what happened to him will likely not take the club's rules so lightly themselves, which can only be a good thing for them and the club, especially if they show real talent.

Pryce, however, got involved in a stupid act in support of his mate not only outside of the workplace but in a different county. Also, I actually think Pryce could end up being quite a good role model through this. He has displayed very well how to deal with your own failures. He has taken endless humiliation with remarkable strength, balance and sometimes obvious good humour. Being a role model to young people isn't about being perfect because perfect is unattainable. It's about being an inspiration and to some young people having a professional sports person admit their failing, take the flak like a man and then go on to turn it all around will be inspirational.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

no, it isnt.

it would be the same

if saints sacked the youngster because of a principle, that they take seriously the responsibility of being 'role models', then it is at the very least warped morality to judge his offence worse than cayless' and both of pryces. especially as his didnt even result in criminal proceedings

if they sacked him simply because it was the easiest option, it was cheap and hypocritical to moralise about it as they did

He was tested positive at the club for taking drugs!

We was then banned by rfl for 2 years!

How can you pay a player for 2 years after he was banned for 2 years!!!!

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:42 pm  

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.

To be fair had this been a reserve player or a player with less of a profile within the team/sport this would never have received any more coverage than half a day on the Sky Sports News ticker and a few articles on the pages of the local papers.

I also doubt it would have seen so many cries of faux injustice as we have seen on here since the matter became public.

The board have done all they have needed to do in this instance as the matter has been dealt with by the courts and as the offence took place out of 'work hours'.