Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:09 pm  

http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1579 Can't say I agree with the actions of the club on this one.

http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1579 Can't say I agree with the actions of the club on this one.

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:42 pm  

Towns88 wrote:

http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=1579


Can't say I agree with the actions of the club on this one.

What would you rather they do?
Washing your hands of him doesnt help the lads future, take what Wigan have done for Gareth Hock they`ve turned him around and made him graft for 2 years in the real world.
Everyone deserves a second chance but then theres the real thick people that sometimes need that third chance.
The club deserves a little bit of respect for not just dumping him.......Life is like a box of chocolates........

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:53 pm  

Clubs tend to offer support now instead of sacking the players that stray. Hopefully Aspinwall and Gareth Hock can learn from the error of their ways, one thing the rugby league family needs to avoid is another sad incident like the death of Terry Newton. Everyone deserves a second chance and if after that chance the individual would rather take the wrong route then so be it that is their choice but we should offer support in the first instance.

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:56 pm  

It is difficult this, on the one hand the players, like it or not are looked up to by people. So there is the compulsion to act in the right way. Alternately of course, Rugby League is a working class sport and as such many working class people have brushes with the law.

My view is I have no issue with this action per se, but we have GOT TO use him in the right way and I expect him at every school, village fate, kids training session; As Wigan have done with Hock and make something good from this working his @rse off to repay our loyalty and his reputation as a role model. Everyone makes a mistake.

For what the rambling opinion of one supporter is worth..... not a lot!

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:32 pm  

mdean wrote:

It is difficult this, on the one hand the players, like it or not are looked up to by people. So there is the compulsion to act in the right way. Alternately of course, Rugby League is a working class sport and as such many working class people have brushes with the law.

My view is I have no issue with this action per se, but we have GOT TO use him in the right way and I expect him at every school, village fate, kids training session; As Wigan have done with Hock and make something good from this working his @rse off to repay our loyalty and his reputation as a role model. Everyone makes a mistake.

For what the rambling opinion of one supporter is worth..... not a lot!

You must be joking, I doubt head teachers will be allowing someone convicted of such a crime into their school. Could you imagine the bad press? Practically of course, his CRB form for suitability to work with children will probably prevent most activities - remember this is a CRIMINAL offence (x2) rather than Hock's who was dealt with by sporting regulations - entirely different.

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:23 pm  

tropical1 wrote:

one thing the rugby league family needs to avoid is another sad incident like the death of Terry Newton.

I hate people dragging up "we don't want another Terry Newton" as a reason not to sack errant players. People make bad choices and have to live with the consequences; Aspinwall has made a poor choice, the consequence should be that he loses his job. It reflects badly on the club if they retain him. By all means offer him support after sacking him, but not to sack him on the grounds he may choose to do something stupid is wrong. Actions have consequences, just like the child in school needs to know this, so do adult criminals.

As for the 'rugby league is a working class sport and lots of working class people have brushes with the law' rubbish, he's not had a brush with a law; he wasn't caught nicking apples from next door's orchard or throwing eggs at somebody's house. He's a criminal, his actions endangered other people. So the argument being put forward here is that working class is criminal class?

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:40 pm  

A lot of 'holier than thou' attitudes on this thread.

Have to say I'm pleased the club have taken this option. It would have been easy for them to try and score some cheap points for taking the moral high ground by sacking him - after all, he's not a superstar and is only on a 12 month contract so by the time he's served his sentence the season will virtually be over (presuming he doesn't serve anywhere near the 4 months he's been convicted of).

Cas are hardly the 1st club to retain a player after he's served a custodial sentence....

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:04 pm  

Aspinwall has been good for us this season and he's a player I would have retained regardless of situation.

We're hardly flush with players and the depth and versatility he offers is key.

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:16 am  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

You must be joking, I doubt head teachers will be allowing someone convicted of such a crime into their school. Could you imagine the bad press? Practically of course, his CRB form for suitability to work with children will probably prevent most activities - remember this is a CRIMINAL offence (x2) rather than Hock's who was dealt with by sporting regulations - entirely different.

Actually the only thing his CRB form is likely to say is that he wouldn't be able to Drive children there would be nothing wrong with him coaching or educating children. And actually with the new laws on CRB's due to come into force since he's not in constant contact with children, I don't believe Martin or any of the other players would need to apply for a CRB check.

Re: Martin Aspinwall : Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:40 am  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

You must be joking, I doubt head teachers will be allowing someone convicted of such a crime into their school. Could you imagine the bad press? Practically of course, his CRB form for suitability to work with children will probably prevent most activities - remember this is a CRIMINAL offence (x2) rather than Hock's who was dealt with by sporting regulations - entirely different.

I take your point, I dont actually think the legal situation is that clear cut - but I appreciate your opinion - after all that's all we have to offer on this board.

I think the diversity of opinion proves that no matter what we did with him, a good proportion of people would be unhappy about it!