Saints have two outstanding youngsters in Eastmond & Wheeler fit and ready to play at six. They won't miss him much, if at all.

Warrington 12-12 Salford

Bless them.

Or Liverpool

In what sense was it strange? The fact that Saints 'made an example' of one player they felt they could get rid of but didn't dish out exactly the same punishment to one they wanted to keep despite him being guilty of exactly the same offence. I thought I was doing you a favour not mentioning it as it was the height of hypocrisy and proves the point better than anything else.

It's up to the courts and it's up to the Saints board.
In general Saints fans will support Pryce because he is a good player and Wigan fans would probably like Saints' team to be weakened.

This is the bit I don't understand. The domestic violence aspect of what they were doing and the fact there were two of them rather than Reardon on his own is very disturbing.

I was not impressed by what Feka did, but we are talking here about degrees of misbehaviour and frankly any reasonable person (i.e. anyone other than people connected with Saints) would view what these two have admitted to doing as being far more serious.

It wasn't the same offense, as Long didn't play in the game they had a bet on.

Strangely enough, Gleeson scored the first try of that game if I remember correctly!

I meant if the Wigan club have such high morals why sign Gleeson? Also his position was worse because he played in the game in question.

Anyone with high morals, like Jesus, always forgives. Hence the signing.

According to some on this thread it seems premeditated assault is the same as having a bet... well I never.

exactly, the reasonable force argument is what the courts look at. end of, if i remember rightly there was an element of a premeditated attack on his previous incident, and the fact you go to someones house and assault them again suggest premeditation. no ones saying hes killed anyone but a short stint inside will maybe make him realise that you cant do what the f u c k you like cos your a professional sportsman

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point.

All the faux moral outrage at the self servicing devil worshippers over the hill is frankly cringeworthy when compared to reactions to other players who find themselves in trouble with the police.

He's pleaded guilty, he'll get sentenced later this month and Saints will take it from there.

Out of interest (and this is a genuine question) did Wigan take any additional action against Feka after his sentencing?

Oh dear, that's clutching at straws a bit! Do you really think it matters whether he played or not when betting against his own team? That's like insider trading but using 'I wasn't the one handling the contract' as your excuse. Still if you think that makes a difference morally, then that tells me all I need to know about your defence of Pryce.

As for the second poster citing Wigan's signing of a player who has already been punished by the club for whom he was playing at the time of the offence as somehow morally bereft..are you for real?

No you miss the point, I dont believe it was a Saints fan who mentioned the betting was it?? All I was trying to say is that the offences are completely different and should be treated completely differently. In a sport that bans players 2 years for smoking cannabis (for example) I think players like Cockayne, Pryce and feka for that matter should be punished harshly by the RFL on a case by case basis. I don't believe there was an argument with you in there was there?

Unsurprisingly you miss the point.

Feka was reacting to being accosted by a thug. Leon Pryce is the thug. Maybe you can see no difference. Neither was right but to compare the two is showing your ignorance. Feka was supported (rightly or wrongly) by the club because of several points. Firstly he wasn't the instigator of the trouble. Secondly the other party withdrew his complaint and admitted he had provoked the attack and thirdly it was the first, and only, time he had been in trouble. Compare and contrast to Leon Pryce please..

For what it's worth I think self interest will almost always come frst in these instances regardless of which club we re talking about. Doesn't neccessarily make it right in all cases though.

Not comparing cases per se - that's what the judge is there for.

Just the general view is that regardless of what the judge hands down, Saints should take additional action. In what circumstances is this the case?

I personally don't care whether Saints sack him or not, he's made his bed and we have players ready to step in who may prove at least his equal. The holier than thou attitude is funny though, given myriad player discrepancies at Wigan and every other club over the years - many in the very recent past.

Not sure it's a holier than thou attitude as such. It all depends on whether you see this sort of action as acceptable or not. For my part I think it's a case of one or the other. My only objection would be against the hypocrisy in say making an example of Gleeson for betting (but not Long) and having no moral standpoint at all on Pryce. There is no consistency there and seems to be done on a 'what's best for the club' basis. BTW that's not a criticism levelled purely at Saints as I said earlier. I think it's pretty much across the board.

Gleeson was moved on because he and Long needed to be separated for the good of the squad and Long was deemed to be the player to keep. Nothing to do with morality, just what is best for the squad.

There is also a definite difference in betting on a match you're playing in and the result of which you can directly affect, but that's an entirely different argument.

You are also assuming Saints have no standpoint on Pryce, I suggest you wait until after the sentencing before you reach that conclusion, just as Hull KR did.

The bit in bold is exactly the point I'm making. I'm fully aware of the reason Gleeson was moved on and the 'betting scandal' was a fortunate smokescreen for Saints just as the current 'Reardon Assault' is for Wire. QED...

Fair enough on the rest of the post, although I disagree on moral grounds with your assessment of the difference in betting against your own team...

Let's not forget that this case is sub judice. Be very careful what you say about it or this thread goes west.

If Pryce played for Wigan you'd be wanting him to get 10 years.

If pryce played for wigan he'd be wanting 10 years

I wasn't defending Pryce and I have no reason to do so, I was just pointing out that you were wrong in your accusation.

It obviously does matter, as Gleeson got a longer ban than Long, hence a far more severe offense.

What your saying is that anyone found/pleading guilty of a criminal act should be sacked from their job.

That is two punishments for one crime.

Wigan fans are going to want him jailed for life, Saints fans are going to want him let off with community service or whatever...please don't pretend this is anything other than club bias. The justice system will do its job and the club will act accordingly. He won't be sacked by Saints, that simply does not make sense to a professional club that is in the results business and is dealing with one of its key players.