Does it?

So I've read the report and I can see why the panel have sided with charnley.

A decent lawyer would have briefed the defendant better in how to defend such an allegation. Where as it appears McGuire had been left to his own defence and essentially did not make a credible defence.

However, I've no knowledge of what he said on either occasion but 12 games is a hell of a ban.

I've no dog in the fight as a Saints fan but 12 games for an offensive comment seems excessive. Especially when you take into account the background of most players probably being from a culture and era where insults would have been common place.

Its easy in the heat of battle to lose civility and slip into old habits and use a less civil tongue or indeed come to blows. I agree a ban is needed but 12 matches seems punitive, what would the outcome be in another workplace?

Maybe next time just punch the guy rather than use your mouth.

What defence is McGuire supposed to put up other than denying he said it?

Balance of probabilities I think it’s likely he did, but likely is a very dangerous precedent.

I’m not McGuire’s biggest fan by any means and I’d be more than happy if we shipped him back to Oz on the back of this however it does seem harsh that a player reports McGuire has said something abusive however there’s no witnesses and zero evidence other than McGuire’s lips moving and McGuire still cops such a ban. Don’t get me wrong if he has said what has been reported then throw the book at him. I’d want him sacked today but without evidence and one persons claim I would have thought it would have been quite severe to give out such a hefty ban, if any.

No is isn’t. It’s the credibility of JC and the proven untruthful nature from JMcG in the first disciplinary, in addition, to the ‘one word against another’.

If JMcG had told the whole truth in the first discipline, he may have had a chance with ‘his word against mine’ in the second hearing, but he hadn’t.

So you must take the credibility of Charnley as reason above doubt against McGuire.

Absolutely just punch them.
Police will not get involved.

It's probable that I'll get a ban for this post, but here goes anyway (it's a forum and we're all adults, after all):

It seems that McGuire has twice now used the word spastic, or some diminutive of this.

Which is, these days, an offensive term.

If Josh Charnley's son has cerebral palsy, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, now very pejorative, term to state a fact. It's not very nice by any stretch, and he deserves calling out on it.

If Josh Charnley's son doesn't have cerebral palsy, and is autistic as has been suggested, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, pejorative term inaccurately. Again, it's not nice, and he deserves calling out on it.

In either scenario, Charnley appears to have taken offence at the word used by McGuire. Which is understandable, but this isn't a war crime FFS.

The capacity for people to be offended in this day and age seems to get greater almost by the minute.

Having said all this, McGuire has a fairly long rap sheet in the past, so it's not looking like he was a very sensible signing all told.

By your own admission you don’t know…so why in heavenly name say that?

His son doesn’t have cerebral palsy!

Silly lover should've covered his mouth, like these clever footballers do, then said "prove I said something naughty". If there's no corroborating evidence via microphone, then he should be entitled to launch an appeal.

Simple truth is, he's been ####ing useless when he's put his Wire kit on, and rubber duckie should drive him to the airport, free of charge, because he's a wage thief















McGuire
Not duckie

Pretty much my thoughts.

What I would say is that if McGuire is totally convinced of his innocence (a big if), then he should have found himself a good lawyer by now and made sure he's going to appeal, because any half decent lawyer would tear that case apart in a court of law.

I mean, disgruntled ex-employee goes after valuable asset of his former employer, with accusation that nobody else has heard - I don't think the CPS would be sending that to court.