To be fair what he has allegedly done is more than just "stupid". It is illegal and dishonest. If he is guilty then it is a serious matter, as was the offence for which he was convicted previously.

He gets paid a lot of money to play for Hull FC and should have no need to engage in the sort of activity he has been accused of.

If he is convicted I would not be at all surprised if the club look to get rid of him.

I agree that it's blown out of proportion. Lend us £100,000 would you?

I agree he gets paid a lot of money and shouldn't need to engage in illegal activities and for the amount he might have made by committing this dishonsety offence you have to wonder where his brain was.
It just winds me up people banging on about stuff they have no knowledge or understanding of though.
Let's see what happens to him at court when he attends for sentencing before people make knee jerk reactions and assumptions.

He hasn't been convicted yet!

The crime that he has been accused of is hardly 'stupid'. If proven it will have been a long term fraud that netted £100k from members of the public who would have handed over their cash in good faith. There are very few companies who would not dismiss an employee found guilty of such a crime. I'd certainly expect to lose [imy[/i job in such a circumstance, and I'm not sure why you think that Raynor should be any different - especially given his chequered history.

You've gotta love unintentional irony.

I have £100,000 in £50 notes. The colour is a little lighter than you might be used to but they're genuine... honest.

I like it when people refer to things like racially-motivated assault as a 'chequered history'.

I wasn't only thinking of his previous convictions, hence the somewhat vague phrase.

It was a black & white case...

erm.... hang on...

As I've said many times before, professional sport seems to exist in some sort of moral vaccuum. From the judiciary, to employers (the clubs) to the fans, there seems to be a lot more leeway afforded to certain members of society based solely on how well they can kick a ball, or how fast they can run.

Not just professional sportsmen. It extends to rock stars, actors and anyone who may be considered to be a "celebrity".

Does that include Hutchie?

Youve just explained why its a grey area. A player does not need to be convicted of anything to bring a club into disrepute.

That too!!

Or alternatively people may have simply been discussing options that the club may be considering. Bang out of order if you ask me, people chatting on a chat forum!!

No one is saying he could be dismissed in relation to the charge of the offence. The dismissal would be linked to damaging the brand by being charged, which ifyou look into it a company can actually choose to do should they want to, whether the charge leads to a conviction or not. Trust me.

Couldnt Gareth get you the right ink to print them properly?

hehe

A company can of course do what it likes if it prepared to pay for the consequences



But are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, someone made a wholly false and malicious allegation against a player that he had been involved in some illegal or other disreputable conduct, the club would be justified in sacking him because he had damaged the brand by allowing such an allegation to be made against him?

I can tell you for a fact that if the allegation was subsequently proven to be false the player would be quids in and the club would be considerably out of pocket.

I do take your point, but that wasn't my intention when using the phrase and neither am I one of those who is willing to overlook crimes committed by sportsmen just because they play for my team. I have in the past (and will in the future no doubt) called for the sacking of players who have been found guilty of serious crimes.

Bearing in mind this would be multiple crimes, he'd be down the road.

Anyway, if he is guilty and gets bird, then he'll be gone anyway.

its not someone making a false accusation though is it, its the cps deciding that the police have built up enough evidence to refer to the crown court.

Quite. Not to mention Hull's own internal investigation.Who knows what may come out of it?