I guess that depends on whether he’s found guilty or not.
I’m happy with what I wrote. He’s due to stand trial soon.

Don't you think it would be wise to wait till after the trial before inflicting your opinion on the matter.

Quote: happyjack "Don't you think it would be wise to wait till after the trial before inflicting your opinion on the matter.'" No he should have been stood down as soon he was charged as that means that CPS have determined their is a better than 70 %chance of conviction. It is not as if he was a Leigh player they have signed him knowing he is in court soon. It is a shocking decision Regardless of whether other teams have done the same two wrongs don’t make a right. This condones an acceptance of DV.. even if he does not get convicted as the victim is in Back in NZ this may harm evidence against him , he may even get off with a lesser charge but the headlines say it all https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -club.html The headlines also say that Leigh and Wire were happy to ignore the above . When Greg Johnson did the same he never played for the Giants again. Both of them are scum

Quote: happyjack "Don't you think it would be wise to wait till after the trial before inflicting your opinion on the matter.'" No he should have been stood down as soon he was charged as that means that CPS have determined their is a better than 70 %chance of conviction. It is not as if he was a Leigh player they have signed him knowing he is in court soon. It is a shocking decision Regardless of whether other teams have done the same two wrongs don’t make a right. This condones an acceptance of DV.. even if he does not get convicted as the victim is in Back in NZ this may harm evidence against him , he may even get off with a lesser charge but the headlines say it all https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -club.html The headlines also say that Leigh and Wire were happy to ignore the above . When Greg Johnson did the same he never played for the Giants again. Both of them are scum

That he is due to stand trial soon isn’t an opinion; it’s a fact.
His case is listed to start on 12th May.

Pretty much no supporter of any other club has any right to pass judgement on Leigh over this signing. The club I support are certainly not squeaky clean on this.

That doesn't make it right but unless the game as a whole comes together and decides to not sign players that have trials pending or actual convictions for things that go against the idea we are "a family game" you can't expect one club to be at a competitive disadvantage of any others. Serious questions needed to be asked a long time before now. Fair play to Warrington for giving him the boot.

From Leigh's perspective if he is found innocent happy days if he's convicted they sack him for gross misconduct as he'll be in prison and can't fullfil his contract.

Yep.
One of the ideas we should be copying from the NRL is the concept of a ‘Integrity Unit’ (though I’m not sure I’d call it the same thing) that can suspend players for off-field incidents that bring the game into disrepute.

Funnily enough though Notts I seem to remember you saying that the game should be looking after the likes of Hardaker and Chase after their off field indiscretions. Hardaker in particular with his drunk driving had potential to cause serious harm.

‘Looking after’ means offering appropriate support, not ignoring their actions. I’m not suggesting we ban players for life for every wrongdoing, but having some kind of system that shows the game doesn’t tolerate criminal behaviour is pretty reasonable, I think.
Chase of course committed no criminal offence whilst playing in SL.
Hardaker was in need of some serious intervention for mental health difficulties.
Gelling, if found guilty, just seems to be a woman-beater.

Warrington suspended Gelling when arrested, but then lifted the suspension a few weeks later, why ?

It’s a tricky situation for clubs, in a couple of different ways.
Firstly, sport is about on-field competition. By suspending their own player, a club is compromising its own competitiveness. Clubs will almost always act in their own best interests on the field.
Secondly, there’s always the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Why should someone who has not been convicted of anything be prevented from undertaking their job (unless that is incompatible with the offence they are charged with)?

This is why we need some form of regulation in terms of off-field behaviour. Clubs will almost never suspend their own players when they bring the game into disrepute.

His case is listed for that date but at the moment he is still a free man, as you put it in another post that he may well get a custodial sentence, but atm I emphasise the word free man because until he is convicted he is just that, he's not locked up on remand which if his crime is that serious that's where he would/should be, it's okay you taproom barristers coming on here with the all this indignation and claiming the moral high ground, wouldn't it be simpler to wait until after the trial and all the facts come to light, just because the CPS have charged him doesn't make him guilty, he wouldn't be the first to walk free from court, so unless you already know the facts which I doubt I not sure you should be discussing it on here, surely it's sensible to wait then if he's found guilty then hopefully he'll get what's coming to him.

An arrest is not a conviction. A suspension may be fair enough pending an in house enquiry by the club where a player may put his hands up. If the enquiry sees Gelling deny the charges then where would you go from there?

Can a club really unilaterally suspend anyone pending a court case, who denies a charge, on the club Directors "opinion" that said player is guilty? To the majority of fans there's no smoke without fire, and in domestic disputes it's often assumed the man is the guilty party.

Good post spoiled by the last sentence mate. What if the other party was lying through her teeth? That OK? Really best to leave this to the courts.