Jump to content

Anthony Gelling


Recommended Posts

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/

With Halloween coming up I decided to go to my local fancy dress shop to see if I could get a Dracula costume. After a few minutes the assistant handed me a Hull KR shirt asking "Is this suitable?", I replied "I think you may have misheard me, I said I wanted to look like a count."
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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 comment
Share on other sites

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

 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

With Halloween coming up I decided to go to my local fancy dress shop to see if I could get a Dracula costume. After a few minutes the assistant handed me a Hull KR shirt asking "Is this suitable?", I replied "I think you may have misheard me, I said I wanted to look like a count."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.