Jump to content

Dion Aiye

RigbyLuger
 Share

Recommended Posts


tec

tec

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Neutralfan7 said:

Suppose they'd of been better saying nothing then?

 

Announcing him as club captain for this season even though he pleaded guilty last year was disgraceful along with playing him on Sunday. 

  • Like 2
Neutralfan7

Neutralfan7

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, tec said:

Announcing him as club captain for this season even though he pleaded guilty last year was disgraceful along with playing him on Sunday. 

You've failed to mention he's now been stripped of the captaincy and now docked wages that the club has implemented.

Simon Hall

Simon Hall

Posted
Posted
Just now, Neutralfan7 said:

You've failed to mention he's now been stripped of the captaincy and now docked wages that the club has implemented.

That’s good of them. He should be sacked. 

http://www.alldesignandprint.co.uk

Printing & Graphic Design with Nationwide Service

Programmes | Leaflets | Cards | Banners & Flags | Letterheads | Tickets | Magazines | Folders | Brand Identity plus much more

Official Matchday Programme Print & Design Partner to York City Knights, Heworth ARLFC, York Acorn RLFC & Hunslet RLFC

Official Player Sponsor of Marcus Stock for the 2020 Season

tec

tec

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Neutralfan7 said:

You've failed to mention he's now been stripped of the captaincy and now docked wages that the club has implemented.

I think you have missed the point. It was not a matter of waiting for a court case to see if he was guilty or not, did the club think this was going to just dissappear.

dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, tec said:

Announcing him as club captain for this season even though he pleaded guilty last year was disgraceful along with playing him on Sunday. 

Then playing him in their "Ladies day" game, not a good look. They havent once condoned his actions, just keep doing the old "lets draw a line under it and move on" hoping everyone just forgets about it.

I know of quite a few fans who wont be going this season if hes at the club.

  • Like 5
LeeF

LeeF

Posted
Posted

Appointing him captain was wrong.

Playing him last weekend was wrong.

The statement issued last night is poor for what it doesn’t say. His actions haven’t been condoned by the club and it does feel like we can now bury this and move on.

The club should have done much better as all of the above could have been avoided

  • Like 3
LeeF

LeeF

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hopping Mad said:

Would I be correct in assuming Whitehaven don’t have a women’s team?

You are correct

  • Thanks 1
Mark

Mark

Posted
Posted

I did query on twitter last week where Whitehaven sent a tweet out celebrating National Womens Day, while also saying they had selected him for the squad against swinton in another tweet. I was told by A Whitehaven fan to keep my nose out as I didnt know the full facts, I said the court case pretty much presented the full facts. I didn't get a reply after that! 

 

Its bad on the RFL's side not to immediately ban him once he pleaded guilty as they would have done in Australia, and Whitehaven have just said they accept the verdict, bad all around as people have already mentioned. 

"When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose; it's how drunk you get." -Homer Simpson

mark.gif

"I couldn't be more chuffed if I were a badger at the start of the mating season" Ian Holloway

Phil W

Phil W

Posted
Posted

One point for me on this and I'm not condoning contact with an official. But when Alex Foster was at Thunder he got an eight match ban for making contact with an official. In real time it didn't look that bad.

So eight games for this seems lenient in comparison.

RigbyLuger

RigbyLuger

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Phil W said:

One point for me on this and I'm not condoning contact with an official. But when Alex Foster was at Thunder he got an eight match ban for making contact with an official. In real time it didn't look that bad.

So eight games for this seems lenient in comparison.

This is always going to be the problem with bans for on-field stuff and actual crimes. It feels we need a different deterrent, but, also, why hasn't Zak Hardaker faced a tribunal having had legal issues recently?

  • Like 1
phiggins

phiggins

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

This is always going to be the problem with bans for on-field stuff and actual crimes. It feels we need a different deterrent, but, also, why hasn't Zak Hardaker faced a tribunal having had legal issues recently?

It's a good point. Maybe driving convictions are treated separately to other convictions. Not saying that should be the case, but it's the only reason I can think of.

  • Like 1
gingerjon

gingerjon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

It's a good point. Maybe driving convictions are treated separately to other convictions. Not saying that should be the case, but it's the only reason I can think of.

Driving offences are treated differently to other offences when it comes to DBS, or what you have to declare to employers. That could be the reason.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

sam4731

sam4731

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Griff said:

In real life, people can lose their jobs over convictions.

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/sheffield-wednesday-fan-sentenced-for-mocking-bradley-lowery-at-sunderland-match-4414277

I mean if they really wanted to punish him but not sack him, they should have made him do rehabilitation/education/community service order.

An on field ban just doesn't match up. I mean will he get paid? If so the whole thing seems entirely backwards.

 

Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I mean if they really wanted to punish him but not sack him, they should have made him do rehabilitation/education/community service order.

An on field ban just doesn't match up. I mean will he get paid? If so the whole thing seems entirely backwards.

 

If you read the pieces, Whitehaven say they'll fine him (not sure that's lawful, but.....).

Who should have made him do rehab?  Court?  Club?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Marrafan

Marrafan

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I mean if they really wanted to punish him but not sack him, they should have made him do rehabilitation/education/community service order.

An on field ban just doesn't match up. I mean will he get paid? If so the whole thing seems entirely backwards.

 

He had a Community Service Order imposed on him by the court. 240 hours. He has been fined by the club to the amount of his wages during the term of his suspension.

  • Thanks 1
sam4731

sam4731

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Marrafan said:

He had a Community Service Order imposed on him by the court. 240 hours. He has been fined by the club to the amount of his wages during the term of his suspension.

Surely the club can make him work for their foundation (do they have one?) for free, as part of club ordered community service though.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.