Play for another club with lower standards? Oh no, there isn't one is there?

Retrain, do something else, I don't know. Why should he expect a lifeline from us? I only hope we are paying absolute peanuts.

I look forward to him coming into school as a goor role model for the children.

Bulls are not flush. It' not surprising we've gone in for Reardon, and Bird before him because they'll likely provide value for money. Trinity employed Leo-Latu, which suggests their standards are at least similar.


I've no doubt that Reardon's bargaining position has been significantly weakened by his conviction. So he'll be on less than he could otherwise expect. But you do realise that you are making an inherent suggestion that some jobs are appropriate for those convicted of violence against women.


Might be an argument for him talking to kids about the impact his decision to use violence has had on his life. And I reckon the kids we're on about, the ones that could do with a role model could do with being reminded that even if you make a bg mistake, do something horrible even, you do have the rest of your life to make up for it. That's not an argument for doing horrible things but it is an argument against giving up on yourself once you've done it.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Well yeah it gives him an opportunity to redeem himself. I can't help feeling uneasy about it but I don't know the lad nor have I been party to the discussions between him and the club.

I hope he is able to make this opportunity worth while for both him and the club both in terms of his on pitch contributions and off it.

So because another club have done it, it makes it ok? Should we not aspire to better?



That was not my point. I can not think of many employers who would employ anyone with a conviction for assault. Mine certainly wouldn't. Of course everyone deserves a second chance, but I don't see this as the community-minded Bulls helping out a poor young man who got lost but as a club scraping the barrel, without a care about how the are perceived.



Yes. Look at me. I had a great career kids. Then I did some bad things, but it didn't matter as I still had a great career. I'm not sure what message that sends out.

What medium-term career do you think would be appropriate for him if not professional rugby league?

Would you agree that depriving an individual of his livelihood is an appropriate additional non-judicial punishment for an offence committed and admitted, where a non-custodial sentence was imposed?

Seems fair enough to me.

Accountancy?

I don't know, but not a job in the public eye in which thousands look up to you as a role model.

I think it would be fair to accept it as a consequence of your actions yes.

That's because you've set up a straw man. He wouldn't tell the kids it didn't matter, primarily because it's not true. It did matter, it did affect his life and he is going to have to work double hard to get back near to where he was before. He (and, more importantly, everyone else involved) would have been better off in a number of ways if he had never have done it, but now it is done and cannot be undone, he can still atone to some extent. Those are two distinct points that I wish every kid understood and acted upon.

This signing shows just how far we've fallen as a club.

What did Hudson Smith's signing show? Edit - I'm presuming you're talking playing issues here. But even if you aren't, sticking by Leon was not a million miles off?

In what way?

Is he any worse player than (say) Justin Brooker, Nick Zisti, Hudson Smith, Abi Ekoku, Kevin Crouthers, Phil Howlett, Karl Pratt and Logan Swann even...?

(OK, maybe a bit unfair on Pratt there...)

Had we fallen so low in those days?

At least, unlike the majority of the above, this guy is British AND home-grown?

And, if you are alluding to off-field as opposed to player performance issues, we signed Logan Swann with a serious court case hanging over him, and we retained Brian Mac (who so many said they wanted as coach earlier this year) after a serious conviction for assault, and a major marquee player after a drink-drive conviction IIRC, and Leon of course, and various others after convictions and other run-ins with the law, and that's before you even go back to the Hanley days.

Had we fallen so low in those days?

Or is this just another convenient excuse to berate the club?

Serious question.

FWIW I am quite happy with this signing, for the reasons that various posters (I think Bully Boxer's post sums up best, but one of a number of good other posts would serve equally well ) of similar mind have stated.

If he can stay fit, he'll be a better winger than Rikki Sheriffe. Not that that takes a great deal, mind.

So, by extension, which offences would it be appropriate to deprive a player of his livelihood for, and which ones would it not?

A senior player belted someone and got 200 hours community service for it

Another very senior player got done for drink-driving?

Going back a bit, IIRC a prop and a half were charged with assault or similar after a fracas outside a takeaway (can't remember if convicted or not)?

A wannabe stand off's case when a Bulls player involved an alleged offence I suggest far more serious in most observers' eyes?

I remember reading about another half and major role
model getting banged up in the cells in Leeds one night?

We as fans discovered after we had signed a kiwi forward that he had an assault (or was it worse?) charge hanging over him.

Further afield, didn't a former Bulls half have an unfortunate experience with a gentleman of the constabulary when subsequently found to be under the influence of a certain substance?

Just some things I remember (to the best of my recollection - and Mods I will happily correct or withdraw unreservedly any where my recollection is faulty)

Should all of these players have been deprived of their livelihood too? Does it affect anything if a player admitted his guilt? And how do you grade their offences or conduct relative to Reardon's? At what point does the offence cross your line? How hard the punch? How tight the grab? How intoxicated the culprit?

3.28662109375:10