Gleeson

[botica]

Brett Morris please

[Exiled Wiganer]

I may be in a minority here, but I would hesitate before sacking a player who scored 2 tries in the Grand Final, and for whom we have little cover. I would rather the club was pragmatic than principled. Many are looking forward to Hock coming back. He still knocks around with many of the same crew but has the potential to be a great player. If he had been as talented as David Allen the club would have turned its back on him.

[Shaun1967]

I may be in a minority here, but I would hesitate before sacking a player who scored 2 tries in the Grand Final, and for whom we have little cover. I would rather the club was pragmatic than principled. Many are looking forward to Hock coming back. He still knocks around with many of the same crew but has the potential to be a great player. If he had been as talented as David Allen the club would have turned its back on him.

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction going on here?
You would keep Gleeson because he scored 2 tries in a grand final, yet you seem to be criticising the club for taking Hock back because he has the potential to be a great player.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Not really. I mean that just as the club is standing by Hock because of his talent, so they should make allowances for Gleeson. A rugby club needs to put rugby needs ahead of moral principles.

[gpartin]

there's no way he can claim for unfair dismissal. he would be laughed out of the courts

It's still not known what has happened to him. If he has been released by the club then it would have to be because he is in breach of contract or else he could claim unfair dismissal. As it is he may have been suspended. For all the claims on this forum very few people are in the know and I don't think any are posting on here.

you'd be surprised!

[Kittwazzer]

Bearing in mind the type of people he has upset, maybe the club is worried that other players safety might become an issue?

I would certainly not want him living next door to me!

[Second Row]

exactly the sentiments of people who do live near to him, I can assure you.
I am sure some of the events will eventually come into the public domain but not from me , I believe a lot of peoples best interest will be served by leaving this issue to the club and let them deal with the situation as they see fot

[gpartin]

I'm quite fond of baseball bats! Just sayin'

[Shaun1967]

Not really. I mean that just as the club is standing by Hock because of his talent, so they should make allowances for Gleeson. A rugby club needs to put rugby needs ahead of moral principles.

But can you confine it to simply what happens on the pitch?
If a player isn't putting it in in training do you turn a blind eye?

[Exiled Wiganer]

I suppose I am simply saying that I expect my club to weigh everything up rather than taking any moral high ground out of principle. The effect on the squad may in itself be sufficient justification for sacking him, and I have complete confidence in the judgement of MM and IL. Sports clubs need to tread carefully when it comes to morality. Is a drink problem worse than being a serial philanderer, a liar or a betting addict?
In Gleeson's case I would argue that the club has left itself exposed by not having sufficient cover in the centres (while we have too much in the 2nd row). It was predictable that Gleeson would self destruct at some point, and we have left ourselves without a senior like for like replacement. For that reason alone we should treat Gleeson less harshly than we would say O'Carroll were he in similar trouble.