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

and.....
thats simply not true

the fact other clubs may do it doesnt excuse saints

people get sacked all the time for stuff they do outside of work, my old man is a director and chairs disiplineries where people are sacked because of criminal convictions away from work.

i realise this doent happen in all jobs but at alot of places get rid.

but on the other side of it my mate went to prison for drink driving and they kept his job open for him! and it was a pretty big firm with goverment connections. at some places if you lose your licence you get the sack

it really is swings and round abouts

Smokey, would Bailey be at Leeds in your black and white world?

didnt cunningham test posative for a band substance??

thats right he did!!

Why didn't the young lad take saints for unfair sacking?

I'm sure he would if he could.

Do you not think he broke the rules of his contract by taking drugs?

Funny how the toothles rugby league gave him 2 year ban but nothing for pryce.

Strange hey?

yes he would, i tend to believe that society is better for keeping these guys in a career

and Pryce would still be at saints as would the young kid

You've summed it up just fine there. Every workplace is different and every job brings with it different responsibilities inside and outside the working environment. Likewise, every offence is different and therefore requires a different response.

The response of Saints has been excellent. It has been mature, reasoned and logical. They have ignored the media hype and internet hysteria and instead taken note of the legal proceedings and of the man himself. I respect Saints for the decision they have taken and it is such a shame that so many fans, even Saints fans, would have rather seen Pryce hung out to dry simply for pushing a bloke when originally all he was trying to do - misguided though he certainly was - was support his mate who was upset at his then wife having it off with another bloke.

Spot on

So Saints should keep someone who is unproven at the top level, for two years, paying him, when he decieved the club, lied about etc etc, when he cannot repay the club with service in any way?

easy on the bull $hit mate!! lets all be honest the main reason club has dealt with pryce in the way they have is beacuse he's probabaly your best player.

and it would be suicide to sack him or ban as he's your strike player and another sl club would pick him up because he would not get a a visa for australia.

Hey ski! It kiss me to say this but I think we agree on sumat!!!!!

That's bull $hit!!!

What you are saying is pryce should be punished twice because he is in the public eye?

He was giving unpaid work for his punisment. Fact!

He was givin formal warning by saints. Fact!

He has been punished. Fact!

What more do you want? Him hung?

Actually, you're wrong. He isn't our best player. He is one of them but we happen to have at least one other young rising star who would very easily slip into the place of Pryce if he had been fired. That's the beauty of having a strong academy setup. And Saints have given Pryce a formal warning, publically advertising the same, which is highly likely to turn into a firing should Pryce be an idiot again.

I don't do bull $hit. I leave that to all the fans who have been itching to see Pryce hung out to dry.

[url=http://saints.rlfans.com/home/node/3My full view on everything Leon Pryce[/url

more BS mate!! your last post was so twee i nearly through up!! i never said pryce was ya best player so dont give me more twaddle

we are not politicians

can we all be grown up enought to admit pryce is too important to saints for them to get rid. he could have got sent down or done much worse and saints would have stuck with him imo!!

this is the world of pro sport we live in. only the nrl are trying to take a stance

Wasn't bobbie goulding a big name that saints sacked?

Wasn't he important to saints? Wasn't he even are captain?

Didn't saints sack millward? Wasn't he big name and important to saints?

The saints board would have sacked pryce if they thought it fitted the crime.

I'd say saints have been very fair over the years will all players.

Young or old!

Star name or not!

I'll do what the feck I like. Oh, and it is spelled 'threw'. It is 'threw' up. I didn't go 'through' any up at all.

It may have been twee, I really couldn't say, but that word does not actually equate in meaning to 'bull$hit'. Bull$hit is judging intent and you're way off base regarding my intent. What I wrote was entirely sincere, so go suck your fingertips.

It's quite possible that sound business sense played its part - and I for one am very grateful not to lose Pryce who I think is an incredible rugby league player who I love to watch - but given the statement I think they could have gone all holy-joe like Castleford did. However, they did not, which is why I stated that it was a mature, reasoned and logical reponse. They ignored the bollox on forums like these and the tabloid cr@p that has been passing for journalism lately on the subject and instead aimed their response just right.

I don't think Saints would have stuck with him if he had been sent down. But then he wasn't in any real danger of that given the minor nature of his offence.

no non of the above!! im saying dont lose sight of the truth: which is the ability of the player on the field far outways the morality of what he does off it.

he's too important for saints to sack him. if it had happend to a player the club wanted rid of this situation would have been perfect for them to get rid.

dont be nieve

Sgtbilko can you explain my post at top of page then plz