Joined: Sep 26 2002 Posts: 11377 Location: Much too far South
Phuzzy wrote:Unsurprisingly you miss the point.
Feka was reacting to being accosted by a thug. Leon Pryce is the thug. Maybe you can see no difference. Neither was right but to compare the two is showing your ignorance. Feka was supported (rightly or wrongly) by the club because of several points. Firstly he wasn't the instigator of the trouble. Secondly the other party withdrew his complaint and admitted he had provoked the attack and thirdly it was the first, and only, time he had been in trouble. Compare and contrast to Leon Pryce please..
For what it's worth I think self interest will almost always come frst in these instances regardless of which club we re talking about. Doesn't neccessarily make it right in all cases though.
Not comparing cases per se - that's what the judge is there for.
Just the general view is that regardless of what the judge hands down, Saints should take additional action. In what circumstances is this the case?
I personally don't care whether Saints sack him or not, he's made his bed and we have players ready to step in who may prove at least his equal. The holier than thou attitude is funny though, given myriad player discrepancies at Wigan and every other club over the years - many in the very recent past.
FearTheVee wrote:Not comparing cases per se - that's what the judge is there for.
Just the general view is that regardless of what the judge hands down, Saints should take additional action. In what circumstances is this the case?
I personally don't care whether Saints sack him or not, he's made his bed and we have players ready to step in who may prove at least his equal. The holier than thou attitude is funny though, given myriad player discrepancies at Wigan and every other club over the years - many in the very recent past.
Not sure it's a holier than thou attitude as such. It all depends on whether you see this sort of action as acceptable or not. For my part I think it's a case of one or the other. My only objection would be against the hypocrisy in say making an example of Gleeson for betting (but not Long) and having no moral standpoint at all on Pryce. There is no consistency there and seems to be done on a 'what's best for the club' basis. BTW that's not a criticism levelled purely at Saints as I said earlier. I think it's pretty much across the board.
Joined: Sep 26 2002 Posts: 11377 Location: Much too far South
Phuzzy wrote:My only objection would be against the hypocrisy in say making an example of Gleeson for betting (but not Long) and having no moral standpoint at all on Pryce.
Gleeson was moved on because he and Long needed to be separated for the good of the squad and Long was deemed to be the player to keep. Nothing to do with morality, just what is best for the squad.
There is also a definite difference in betting on a match you're playing in and the result of which you can directly affect, but that's an entirely different argument.
You are also assuming Saints have no standpoint on Pryce, I suggest you wait until after the sentencing before you reach that conclusion, just as Hull KR did.
FearTheVee wrote:Gleeson was moved on because he and Long needed to be separated for the good of the squad and Long was deemed to be the player to keep. Nothing to do with morality, just what is best for the squad. There is also a definite difference in betting on a match you're playing in and the result of which you can directly affect, but that's an entirely different argument.
You are also assuming Saints have no standpoint on Pryce, I suggest you wait until after the sentencing before you reach that conclusion, just as Hull KR did.
The bit in bold is exactly the point I'm making. I'm fully aware of the reason Gleeson was moved on and the 'betting scandal' was a fortunate smokescreen for Saints just as the current 'Reardon Assault' is for Wire. QED...
Fair enough on the rest of the post, although I disagree on moral grounds with your assessment of the difference in betting against your own team...
SaintsFan wrote:For what? Hitting someone over the head with what he had in his hand while that someone had his hands around Pryce's throat? And then that someone waited a month before reporting it, and only reported it after first offering Pryce the opportunity to avoid action for the tidy sum of £40,000? Sounds like the bloke was devastated, not. Pryce didn't deserve jail then and he doesn't deserve it now. Had he done what Cockayne did then IMO he would have deserved jail. People love to jump on the hate bandwagon but forget that there are degrees when it comes to crime, which is why Mr Pryce is only guilty of common assault and not something worse. The way some fans post on here anyone would think he'd killed a bloke.
If Pryce played for Wigan you'd be wanting him to get 10 years.
Don't let your love turn to hate Now we've got to keep the faith
Joined: Dec 30 2001 Posts: 1622 Location: Manchester
Phuzzy wrote:Oh dear, that's clutching at straws a bit! Do you really think it matters whether he played or not when betting against his own team? That's like insider trading but using 'I wasn't the one handling the contract' as your excuse. Still if you think that makes a difference morally, then that tells me all I need to know about your defence of Pryce.
I wasn't defending Pryce and I have no reason to do so, I was just pointing out that you were wrong in your accusation.
It obviously does matter, as Gleeson got a longer ban than Long, hence a far more severe offense.
Wigan fans are going to want him jailed for life, Saints fans are going to want him let off with community service or whatever...please don't pretend this is anything other than club bias. The justice system will do its job and the club will act accordingly. He won't be sacked by Saints, that simply does not make sense to a professional club that is in the results business and is dealing with one of its key players.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Wigan fans are going to want him jailed for life, Saints fans are going to want him let off with community service or whatever...please don't pretend this is anything other than club bias. The justice system will do its job and the club will act accordingly. He won't be sacked by Saints, that simply does not make sense to a professional club that is in the results business and is dealing with one of its key players.
