Anthony Gelling

[Old Frightful 6,215]

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/

[Dave T 17,871]

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. 

 

[DI Keith Fowler 208]

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. 

[Saint Toppy 1,563]

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

 

[Hela Wigmen 2,230]

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. 

[Spidey 3,184]

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?

[Tommygilf 6,984]

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

[RigbyLuger 219]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

That account does tweet a lot of nonsense tbf

Another thing that is best ignored.

[Tommygilf 6,984]

6 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Another thing that is best ignored.

They said Leeds were signing Andrew Fifita last week!

[Old Frightful 6,215]

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.

[Dunbar 9,368]

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.

[Tommygilf 6,984]

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?

[Jim Prendle 1,866]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

Innocent until proved guilty?

Spot on.

[redjonn 1,246]

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...

[Gillmeister80 15]

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.

[Dave T 17,871]

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. 

[Dave T 17,871]

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.

[Dave T 17,871]

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.

[Dave T 17,871]

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. 

[Chris22 1,353]

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!

[Barry Badrinath 276]

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.

[Eddie 3,467]

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. 

[Loiner 338]

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.

[Barry Badrinath 276]

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/

[Saint Toppy 1,563]

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