Don't get involved with him pal.

He more trouble than it's worth

Why should he be?

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.

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

Dragging your good companys name down?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

In a nutshell.

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

the long and short of it is who really cares anymore

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

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.

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

Only a idiot would not see that