saintsrlfc.com/news/1732 Personally I think they should have sacked him on the spot and he should now be digging ditches in Alabama. We're just too lenient in this country...

saintsrlfc.com/news/1732 Personally I think they should have sacked him on the spot and he should now be digging ditches in Alabama. We're just too lenient in this country...

Their chairman once ran round The Willows corporate section in his underpants.

Are you suprised?

The annoying thing is if this was an academy player who had done the same crime, he would have been long gone.

In the same way IF wigan would have got rid of Feka, i would have been happy with the decision.

Its not the publicity the sport needs.

Not the 2 bites I expected to be honest.

It was obvious you were looking for bites.

But it is worth debating.

It's a difficult decision for a club, or it seems to be over here, when it's a 'star' player. Obviously Castleford sacked there young lad who was caught up in the Ben Cockayne incident but HKR didn't sack Cockayne for being the main protagonist in that incident. Was the young lad good enough to make it? I'd doubt it.

In Australia they seem to have no hesitation in getting rid of players who bring the game down but then their hole player retention ethos is a lot more cut throat than ours and they don't hold on to players once they're past their sell by date.

Line him up against a wall and flog him

I wouldn't expect him to be sacked, but I expected him to receive some kind of in-house punishment to set an example more than anything.

I thought he'd splayed his cheeks and shown everyone his chocolate starfish.

He should be picking soap up for the biggest meat in G wing

Its not suprising really is it.

He has been given in-house punishment. He's been given a formal warning.

Ooooo i bet he is terrified about that.

A strongly worded warning letter to Leon:

"Dear Leon, please don't get into anymore trouble. We mean it this time. It looks bad in the papers. Many thanks. The Management"

That's not a punishment, it's a warning.

as i said on our board, i'm not surprised by the decision but i was hoping they would not pay him until his service is completed and donate his lost wages to charity, but it was never going to happen

I think it's got less to do with publicity, and more to do with the fact that Saints need to keep their best players/matchwinners.

If Reardon had been at Saints, he would have been sacked, I'm sure.

In disciplinary terms, a formal warning usually means that if there are any further problems, you're fired. So I think that is sufficient punishment given his community service.

Based on past experience within the club he should have been sacked (Millward, the lad who failed the drugs test), but it wouldnt suit the club to take such strong action at this time, so its not a surprise at all.

I thought they could have taken stronger action than a warning..."youve been very naughty Leon, dont do it again please".

spot on. if it had suited the club to get rid, they would have done.

I would agree with not playing until his 100 hours is done.

What, you mean preach to the converted? The statement made by the club already shows that Pryce is well aware of what he has done and the fact that they have given him a formal warning already shows that they do not want him to do it again. I'm sure they didn't say please.

Or better still, missing 100 hours of Rugby

or just the next 80 mins of playing action?

I'm not even having a go at Saints, here. I'm sure every club would have done it.