What did Hudson Smith's signing show? Edit - I'm presuming you're talking playing issues here. But even if you aren't, sticking by Leon was not a million miles off?

In what way?

Is he any worse player than (say) Justin Brooker, Nick Zisti, Hudson Smith, Abi Ekoku, Kevin Crouthers, Phil Howlett, Karl Pratt and Logan Swann even...?

(OK, maybe a bit unfair on Pratt there...)

Had we fallen so low in those days?

At least, unlike the majority of the above, this guy is British AND home-grown?

And, if you are alluding to off-field as opposed to player performance issues, we signed Logan Swann with a serious court case hanging over him, and we retained Brian Mac (who so many said they wanted as coach earlier this year) after a serious conviction for assault, and a major marquee player after a drink-drive conviction IIRC, and Leon of course, and various others after convictions and other run-ins with the law, and that's before you even go back to the Hanley days.

Had we fallen so low in those days?

Or is this just another convenient excuse to berate the club?

Serious question.

FWIW I am quite happy with this signing, for the reasons that various posters (I think Bully Boxer's post sums up best, but one of a number of good other posts would serve equally well ) of similar mind have stated.

If he can stay fit, he'll be a better winger than Rikki Sheriffe. Not that that takes a great deal, mind.

So, by extension, which offences would it be appropriate to deprive a player of his livelihood for, and which ones would it not?

A senior player belted someone and got 200 hours community service for it

Another very senior player got done for drink-driving?

Going back a bit, IIRC a prop and a half were charged with assault or similar after a fracas outside a takeaway (can't remember if convicted or not)?

A wannabe stand off's case when a Bulls player involved an alleged offence I suggest far more serious in most observers' eyes?

I remember reading about another half and major role
model getting banged up in the cells in Leeds one night?

We as fans discovered after we had signed a kiwi forward that he had an assault (or was it worse?) charge hanging over him.

Further afield, didn't a former Bulls half have an unfortunate experience with a gentleman of the constabulary when subsequently found to be under the influence of a certain substance?

Just some things I remember (to the best of my recollection - and Mods I will happily correct or withdraw unreservedly any where my recollection is faulty)

Should all of these players have been deprived of their livelihood too? Does it affect anything if a player admitted his guilt? And how do you grade their offences or conduct relative to Reardon's? At what point does the offence cross your line? How hard the punch? How tight the grab? How intoxicated the culprit?

[url=http://img2.allposters.com/images/HPM/GM1877.jpgB'Jesus [iknows [/ithe answer[/url [size=59.......other deities may or may not exist . . .[/size

It is ludicrous to term Reardon "a wife beater" unless of course you want to wind him up, chanting-moron-on-the-terraces-stylee.

A "wife beater" to me is a man who subjects his wife to violence, as part of their normal domestic routine, because that's what he gets off on. A violent asshole with no respect for women.

Reardon's incident did involve assault (AFAIR grabbing the arm, causing bruising?) as well as generally behaving frighteningly and aggressivbely so the reports said, but has it ever been alleged that in the course of his marriage Reardon ever beat his wife? Certainly not so far as I am aware. On this occasion he went to her house as he was upset at hearing she was seeing some other guy. The guy was there, and Reardon (inexcusably) lost his rag and he and Pryce (inexcusably) forced their way in and did what they did.

Nobody condones what he did, and he has been punished as the criminal courts thought fit, and has a record. I am in no way minimizing it. Yet it is what it is, a one-off incident in a one-off set of circumstances. To call him a "wife beater" on the strength of that is frankly barking.

Is he a violent asshole with no respect for women? I would suggest the sentence he received from those best placed to judge - the court that heard the FULL story - indicates that they were satisifed he is not.

Why? He was convicted in court of an act of violence against his wife? What would you say he was then?



And how do you know that it was a "one-off" incident? Unless you actually lived in the same house as Reardon and his Mrs then you cannot possibly know the full story? However, there is a chance that you may just be making things up again in order to suit your argument.

As far as we know, Ian Huntley's murder of Holly and Jessica was a "one off" incident. By using your logic, is it barking to call him a murderer?



Yeah, the courts that heard the FULL story on the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Barry George, Sion Jenkins, OJ Simpson cases etc etc.....

Oh, I am sure I have committed the occasional sin in my time. You know, like a crafty fag in a no-smoking zone, jumping the fare on a train, even the odd nicked gobstopper when I was a kid. Hell, I even talked to a Leeds fans once!

Thankfully however, I have no record of assault against my wife on my record to speak of. In fact, the only time I have ever been in court is as a witness.

I just wonder what sort of message this signing puts out to the female supporters of Bradford Bulls because we cannot afford to lose any more people through the gate.

to compare a drunken idiot grabbing his wife's arm and bruising her to murderers is quite extreme. A comparison like for like would be more fair.

back on topic, I think Reardon will make a good signing. He obviously has the skills but hasn't had a chance to use them for a while. I hope he gets that chance here or he will turn out to be another feather type signing.

Interesting one that.

There are more than a few regular female posters on here.

It'd be interesting to hear their views . . . . .

Never seen the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cited as a reason to treat those convicted of crime more harshly before.

I just hope Stuart is given a fair chance to get back on a regular path, we can do without any element who want to go back over the past.
He has shown us before that he is a good player, and if approaching his best, can break the opponents defensive lines, and that his the type of back who is in short supply.
It is very easy to sit in judgement, but I am sure Stuart knows he will be very much in the public eye, and any lapse will be punished.

So all these things are acceptable to you as a fan are they? Its ok as long as they say sorry? Or admit it?
Strange.

Here is one females view:

This appears to be a one off incident and as such I do not think it precludes him earning a living as a professional sportsman. I think career-wise he has paid a heavy price.

I have no objection to the bulls offering him a lifeline and hope he appreciates what the club is doing for him.

I asked you a question, which you have avoided by diverting the question back at me in different form. I will happily answer your question, once you have answered mine.

I find it strange how some people feel able to form an objective judgment on the suitability of a player as an individual based presumably on what they have read in the papers or online (often from the same original source)?

Would those people feel equally able to form an objective judgment on the suitability of a player as a player, based solely on what what they read in the "popular" (as opposed to specialist) papers or in published stories online?

For my own part, on the second point I prefer firstly to trust to what I have seen with my own eyes. In the absence of that, I prefer to trust to the judgment of people who I feel are best-qualified to judge.

On the first point, no difference. In that case, since I did not attend the court and hear the various submissions (and see the reports made available to the court) I prefer to trust to those who are best qualified to judge. Which, with respect, is the court, and not provincial journalists writing a story for generic "popular" papers.

As FA said, the sentence passed down by the court would tend to indicate how the court judged the offence, would it not?

Excuse me, but my post explained, in detail, the distinction I am drawing. It's not difficult. Try reading it again, it needs no explanation. If you don't want to read it, or can't understand it, that is your problem but the answer was there before you asked it. (So why did you ask it?)


Because I lived with Reardon and his wife throughout their marriage, and never left their side.

Typical devious ME. Pose a question based on a totally bogus premise (in this case, falsely implying that I claim to "know" Reardon had never before beaten his wife within their marriage). In fact, I actually made it very clear that I make no such claim of being omniscient; I posed the question:-


So it is only reasonable to view it as a "one-off" incident since there is NOTHING to suggest that it wasn't. Absolutely nothing at all.

(Which bit of "not so far as I am aware" are you having trouble in understanding?)


Whereas you, on the other hand, do? Pray, tell. Or if you don't, then stop making insinuations that there [iis[/i some "full story" to be told, which your reference to "the full story" clearly implies.


Making WHAT things up? Do you actually have something in mind, or are you just vacuoulsy stirring, as usual?

Poor ME. Resorting to the inappropriately randomly stuck-in "making things up again" line when lost for words. Awwwww. Look, as YOU have no idea about Reardon's marriage, can't you simply see that there is NO evidence that he was a wife beater in that marriage? That all we know is the evidence that came out in this one-off incident case report? What is it with you?


What?? Are you actually insane? I mean, I read that paragraph, and I think, only an out-and-out nutter could twist stuff like that. No, I conclude you are not insane, you are just trying to be stupid on purpose. I just don't get the purpose. Maybe it is just to be annoying?


OK, I think I get it now, your argument is that there was a serious miscarriage of justice in Reardon's prosecution? Yes? Or if not, then WTF has his case remotely to do with these?

Even if these cases were, in some mysterious way, even capable of being at least tenuously linked to Reardon's, what point can you possibly be making about Reardon's case, where the accused pleaded GUILTY and my comments were about the court's SENTENCING after hearing in full the ADMITTED FACTS, and a random set of infamous cases where the accused pleaded NOT guilty and where the arguments centre on the decisions reached by the POLICE in investigating and the PROSECUTORS in presenting the cases and/or the JURIES who reached the respective decisions.

Your comments are indeed like the ramblings of a barking, reactionary nutter. You're ranting away about Huntley, OJ Simpson, the Birmingham 6 etc. like a Mail reader on speed.

And all because not everyone wants to agree with your insistence that because of this conviction any argument that Reardon is not what is normally meant by a "wife beater" must be summarily dismissed without even being considered. What a blinkered and arrogant view. How sad, and how typical that you can't or won't read a reasoned point of view and either respond in a civil manner, or even consider for a second that others may see things differently from you.


So you DO have a record of assault against your wife, even if not "one to speak of"?? Apart from this record, though, how do we know you haven't beaten her for years, though? "Unless one actually lived in the same house as ME and his Mrs then one cannot possibly know the full story?"


So, you'd say it is fair to label you forever a (self-confessed) fraudster and a thief, as well as a wife-beater, then?

I only let you out of the Mondo Pita dustbin this morning, to see if you had improved. You haven't. Back in you go.

edited out dumbass link...

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/4694844.Reardon__I_want_to_start_with_a_clean_slate/Stuart speaks...[/url

Stuart was a decent player when he was with us before and I see no reason why he shouldn`t be so again. We all make mistakes in life, some more serious than others, but that doesn`t mean that an individual person is somehow automatically beyond redemption.

As has been pointed out, the court decided it wasn`t at the `bad` end of assault and he wasn`t given a custodial sentence. He`s got a job playing rugby for heaven`s sake, not wanting to go out with your daughter.

Come on now Adey, you know that's BSCs job!

I find that a player who hasn't performed well for 2 years has been released by his former club and has had a serious injury to be a extremly strange signing.

How can I live with the shame...

somebody who plays 7 times over the last 2 years can hardly get the chance to play well?

Understandable POV. Some might say, conversely, from their POV a shrewd one, for reasons they have given. But only the history books will record who called it right.

But I'm still not sure how this signing demonstrates "how low the club has fallen"? Since it seems clear from published comment that the club regards it as a shrewd rather than a strange signing? I still remain to be convinced that in some quarters people are not using this signing as another excuse to berate the club, which is why I'm uneasy at your choice of words tbh. Especially since you addressed my question only indirectly.

I will freely acknowledge that this signing is more speculative than some others, and is not without risk. But I also agree with those who point out that the likely terms of the signing mean that the risk (especially regarding cost) may be expected to be quite low relative to the potential benefits.

I have a sneaking feeling Reardon will prove to be our shrewdest signing for 2010. But if I am wrong, I suspect it won't cost us much to cut our losses. I'm quite happy with the club's actions if that is the case.