[url=http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_5224284,00.htmlAfter only 11 days at Hull[/url

Clearly Hull were just a little too eager to get him in and didn't do a full medical.
Now, I know he's due in court tomorrow, but I don't think we're currently in a position to turn down the signing of a player on a moral standing, however he's a decent enough player, and I think, should he not go down, that the club should at least have a look at him. If he's going to be another Tupou then fine, bye bye stu, best of luck. But if theres a chance he could return to Bradford and recapture the form he had when he first broke in the it'd be win win for us

Why would we want him, if he failed the medical though

Makes you wonder what they "found" . . . .



. . . . . .anyone think it may have been recent press cuttings that hadn't made it across to the East Coast

Nah, they should be getting that news around Wed/Thur of next week

Well he was actually due back this weekend and was included in the Hull squad. So I think the club should find out exactly what his situation is

VERY strange timing.

Why did they not just wait till tomorrow, then if still necessary release him on medical grounds then?

I'm not going to speculate more given the sub judice rules, and I suggest others are careful too?

2 years me thinks.
So if he keeps off the crack inside his ankle should be ok by then.

Maybe the same "medical" wouldn't fail him on Friday?

Assuming he's not got a career ending injury, and assuming he's available for a medical next week, looking at Reardon on a pay as you play basis might not be totally out of the question for me given our current shortage in the backs.

Long shot though.

That was my initial thought too. Aren't the defendents usually informated before the actual hearing as to what they're going to be sentenced to?

Just a general question by the way, the question has no implied speculation towards tomorrows court case.

Do you think Bradford will have him back. You didn't have a problem with Mr Bird

I didn`t know he was injured?

I won't comment on the timing but achilles tendon injuries can be tricky (I think that was his last injury?). Can have a build up of scar tissue on the tendon itself as a result of the healing process.

Didnt know bird had pleaded guilty, if bird gets found guilty then fairy muff, if found not guilty then we been ripped off of a very good player.

No

Phone Rings.....

"Hello Leon Price Speaking"

"Er Hello Leon, its Judge John here, you might remember me from t'other months in t'courts. Just ringing to tell you when you come in for sentancing on Thurday just to bring an overnight bag, toothbrush, spare clothes that sort of thing. You know what I mean?"

No; defendants don't find out until everyone else does.

I think the whole Readon thing was just purely bad PR. He'll have had a medical when Hull took him on, but it wasn't the smartest business move to announce his signing on the same day that the club launched a domestic violence campaign. Hull will have worries regarding injuries and their full back spot, I doubt they thought the reardon move through in the grander scheme of things, but we're rather blinded by the availability of (what was) a world class fullback. i think the best thing for Reardon is for him to get whatever punishment he gets today, accept it, see it out and then his sole focus should be to try and rebuild his SL career.

You speaking from experience then?

No idea which thread to put this question in, so I'll stick it in this one as this was about being released from his playing contract.

He's been convicted with a suspended sentence, but he is now free to carry on and attempt to rebuild his career.

He is currently injured, but if he got over that injury, should we try to resign him?

We're not exactly falling over ourselves with quality outside backs, he's "homegrown" but does he now come with too much baggage for us?

Is this a record. Released twice in one week.

As I said when starting this thread, we're in no positon to turn down a player because of a moral standpoint. His current health would need to be fully assessed but right now that's the only reason I'd say no to us signing him

I agree entirely, and from a moral standpoint anyway, he's admited his crime and has been handed down due punishment and is now entitled to carry on rebuilding his career as anyone would in any other career.

His injury record, current and past is the only thing that would concern me about any potential signing.

Signing a player convicted of assault?
I would not feel comfortable with that.
There is nothing wrong with having the morals to not sign him.

I agree, not the sort of signing we want. Plus injuries. Plus he's not too much better than what we've currently got.