Old Frightful 6,394 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 I don't know how much substance there is in this as I've not seen anything elsewhere. However, the significance of May 12th next year could well decide on decisions by clubs, Wire included. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/18675098.trial-date-set-warrington-wolves-anthony-gelling-facing-assault-charge/ "It started out in innocence, the way that most things do, a thousand people crammed in one place, but the only face was you" Link to post Share on other sites
Dave T 18,706 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why a Warrington Wolves official should be in court with him. I find that unsavoury. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
DI Keith Fowler 389 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 11 minutes ago, Dave T said: This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why a Warrington Wolves official should be in court with him. I find that unsavoury. Same, I liked the guy when he was playing for Widnes. But it's massively concerning. I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks. Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Toppy 1,688 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 53 minutes ago, Dave T said: This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why a Warrington Wolves official should be in court with him. I find that unsavoury. Why wouldn't they be in court with him ? Regardless of whether they or anybody else thinks he's guilty he is an employee of the club and the club has a duty of care to their employees. The fact Warrington want rid of him now suggests they suspect he will lose his court case and they would end up sacking him after May anyway, and they don't want the clubs reputation being dragged through the mud by the press by him still being an employee. Any other club considering signing him must be completely mad 1 Keir Starmer - The man with even less charisma than a corpse !! Link to post Share on other sites
Hela Wigmen 2,994 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said: Why wouldn't they be in court with him ? Regardless of whether they or anybody else thinks he's guilty he is an employee of the club and the club has a duty of care to their employees. The fact Warrington want rid of him now suggests they suspect he will lose his court case and they would end up sacking him after May anyway, and they don't want the clubs reputation being dragged through the mud by the press by him still being an employee. Any other club considering signing him must be completely mad Or because he’s likely to be third or fourth choice and they think the money that goes on his wages could be better spent elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites
Spidey 3,762 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Dave T said: This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why a Warrington Wolves official should be in court with him. I find that unsavoury. Innocent until proved guilty? 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygilf 8,002 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Old Frightful said: I don't know how much substance there is in this as I've not seen anything elsewhere. However, the significance of May 12th next year could well decide on decisions by clubs, Wire included. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/18675098.trial-date-set-warrington-wolves-anthony-gelling-facing-assault-charge/ That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf 3 Link to post Share on other sites
RigbyLuger 324 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Tommygilf said: That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf Another thing that is best ignored. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygilf 8,002 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said: Another thing that is best ignored. They said Leeds were signing Andrew Fifita last week! Link to post Share on other sites
Old Frightful 6,394 Posted November 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Tommygilf said: That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf 21 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said: Another thing that is best ignored. That's a bit harsh, Tommy posts some good stuff occasionally. 5 "It started out in innocence, the way that most things do, a thousand people crammed in one place, but the only face was you" Link to post Share on other sites
Dunbar 10,486 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 3 hours ago, Dave T said: This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure why a Warrington Wolves official should be in court with him. I find that unsavoury. It's a tricky one. I would have thought that Warrington would want something like this to be seen as a private matter for the player rather than something associated with the club. But as another has pointed out, he is innocent until proved otherwise and so if the club see this as a duty of care for a player under difficult circumstances then fair enough. The key will be what the club does if he is found guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygilf 8,002 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 13 minutes ago, Old Frightful said: That's a bit harsh, Tommy posts some good stuff occasionally. Was there that one time in 2017 where I said I'd support Hull at the cup final as the least worst of two options? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Prendle 1,960 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Spidey said: Innocent until proved guilty? Spot on. Link to post Share on other sites
redjonn 1,331 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Dunbar said: It's a tricky one. I would have thought that Warrington would want something like this to be seen as a private matter for the player rather than something associated with the club. But as another has pointed out, he is innocent until proved otherwise and so if the club see this as a duty of care for a player under difficult circumstances then fair enough. The key will be what the club does if he is found guilty. Plus they may also want to have some control over communications... e.g. journalist at the court case and what Gelling may say... Link to post Share on other sites
Gillmeister80 25 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Tommygilf said: That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf Nothing but guess work they are anything but in the know. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Dave T 18,706 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said: Why wouldn't they be in court with him ? Regardless of whether they or anybody else thinks he's guilty he is an employee of the club and the club has a duty of care to their employees. The fact Warrington want rid of him now suggests they suspect he will lose his court case and they would end up sacking him after May anyway, and they don't want the clubs reputation being dragged through the mud by the press by him still being an employee. Any other club considering signing him must be completely mad No, why on earth would his employer be with him in court? Mine certainly wouldn't be. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave T 18,706 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Spidey said: Innocent until proved guilty? Why is a Warrington Wolves official in court with him? That's nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave T 18,706 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Dunbar said: It's a tricky one. I would have thought that Warrington would want something like this to be seen as a private matter for the player rather than something associated with the club. But as another has pointed out, he is innocent until proved otherwise and so if the club see this as a duty of care for a player under difficult circumstances then fair enough. The key will be what the club does if he is found guilty. I can live with them playing him, as I understand the difficulty around all of this if he is found not guilty - but that doesn't mean we need to stand side by side with him in court. My employer certainly wouldn't do that. It is quite a public display of support when I would prefer us to stay out of the public side of this. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave T 18,706 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Jim Prendle said: Spot on. It isn't though, he has not been found guilty of anything, so he has his freedom and is playing Rugby for the club. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean the club should be supporting him in court. We should be leaving it the justice system - supporting him as an employee shouldn't stretch to going to support him in court when he is on a GBH charge. Link to post Share on other sites
Chris22 1,462 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Tommygilf said: That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf Yes...turned out the account's 'scoop' that Jackson Hastings was going to sign for Huddersfield was a bit wide of the mark! 1 Twitter: @TrylineUK Latest Blog: The Law of Unintended Consequences Link to post Share on other sites
Barry Badrinath 320 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 39 minutes ago, Dave T said: No, why on earth would his employer be with him in court? Mine certainly wouldn't be. possibly for support, he doesn't have any family over here, looks like he shares a house with macgraff leuieai, his folks aren't here, and obviously the issue is with his missus, who also doesn't appear to be over here. Link to post Share on other sites
Eddie 4,413 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies. Sadly this is all too often forgotten in the era of social media kangaroo courts. Link to post Share on other sites
Loiner 338 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 5 hours ago, Saint Toppy said: Why wouldn't they be in court with him ? Regardless of whether they or anybody else thinks he's guilty he is an employee of the club and the club has a duty of care to their employees. The fact Warrington want rid of him now suggests they suspect he will lose his court case and they would end up sacking him after May anyway, and they don't want the clubs reputation being dragged through the mud by the press by him still being an employee. Any other club considering signing him must be completely mad What has he done ? I must have missed something. Link to post Share on other sites
Barry Badrinath 320 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Loiner said: What has he done ? I must have missed something. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/18675098.trial-date-set-warrington-wolves-anthony-gelling-facing-assault-charge/ Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Toppy 1,688 Posted November 27, 2020 Report Share Posted November 27, 2020 43 minutes ago, Dave T said: No, why on earth would his employer be with him in court? Mine certainly wouldn't be. You obviously work for a company who doesn't give a s*** about the welfare of its employees then. Mine certainly would if I ever found myself in that situation and asked for help 1 Keir Starmer - The man with even less charisma than a corpse !! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now