Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:45 pm  

ninearches wrote:

This discussion seems to be getting out of hand.

Does it?

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:55 pm  

So I've read the report and I can see why the panel have sided with charnley.

A decent lawyer would have briefed the defendant better in how to defend such an allegation. Where as it appears McGuire had been left to his own defence and essentially did not make a credible defence.

However, I've no knowledge of what he said on either occasion but 12 games is a hell of a ban.

I've no dog in the fight as a Saints fan but 12 games for an offensive comment seems excessive. Especially when you take into account the background of most players probably being from a culture and era where insults would have been common place.

Its easy in the heat of battle to lose civility and slip into old habits and use a less civil tongue or indeed come to blows. I agree a ban is needed but 12 matches seems punitive, what would the outcome be in another workplace?

Maybe next time just punch the guy rather than use your mouth.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:02 pm  

What defence is McGuire supposed to put up other than denying he said it?

Balance of probabilities I think it’s likely he did, but likely is a very dangerous precedent.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:06 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

Its not easy reading that, a few thoughts, yes it is charnley vs mcguires word..
As mentioned above, it seems distasteful that charnley would use something like that, but we do know he's also a gobshite that tried to get people in trouble. And based on what happened last time, mcguire made himself something of an easy target, some poop sticks.

However, we come again to a repeat of what happened last time, where mcguire said he didn't do it, couldn't possibly have done it and tried to sell them on his character rather than actual details of thr altercation.

What's quite telling this time, the lack of club input some might argue bare minimum, as we went in all guns blazing last time to try and prove his innocence.

I’m not McGuire’s biggest fan by any means and I’d be more than happy if we shipped him back to Oz on the back of this however it does seem harsh that a player reports McGuire has said something abusive however there’s no witnesses and zero evidence other than McGuire’s lips moving and McGuire still cops such a ban. Don’t get me wrong if he has said what has been reported then throw the book at him. I’d want him sacked today but without evidence and one persons claim I would have thought it would have been quite severe to give out such a hefty ban, if any.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:13 pm  

Lord Tony Smith wrote:

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=17385

Minutes are out. It seemingly looks like it is Charnley’s word against McGuire.

No is isn’t. It’s the credibility of JC and the proven untruthful nature from JMcG in the first disciplinary, in addition, to the ‘one word against another’.

If JMcG had told the whole truth in the first discipline, he may have had a chance with ‘his word against mine’ in the second hearing, but he hadn’t.

So you must take the credibility of Charnley as reason above doubt against McGuire.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:15 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

So I've read the report and I can see why the panel have sided with charnley.

A decent lawyer would have briefed the defendant better in how to defend such an allegation. Where as it appears McGuire had been left to his own defence and essentially did not make a credible defence.

However, I've no knowledge of what he said on either occasion but 12 games is a hell of a ban.

I've no dog in the fight as a Saints fan but 12 games for an offensive comment seems excessive. Especially when you take into account the background of most players probably being from a culture and era where insults would have been common place.

Its easy in the heat of battle to lose civility and slip into old habits and use a less civil tongue or indeed come to blows. I agree a ban is needed but 12 matches seems punitive, what would the outcome be in another workplace?

Maybe next time just punch the guy rather than use your mouth.

Absolutely just punch them.
Police will not get involved.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:54 pm  

It's probable that I'll get a ban for this post, but here goes anyway (it's a forum and we're all adults, after all):

It seems that McGuire has twice now used the word spastic, or some diminutive of this.

Which is, these days, an offensive term.

If Josh Charnley's son has cerebral palsy, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, now very pejorative, term to state a fact. It's not very nice by any stretch, and he deserves calling out on it.

If Josh Charnley's son doesn't have cerebral palsy, and is autistic as has been suggested, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, pejorative term inaccurately. Again, it's not nice, and he deserves calling out on it.

In either scenario, Charnley appears to have taken offence at the word used by McGuire. Which is understandable, but this isn't a war crime FFS.

The capacity for people to be offended in this day and age seems to get greater almost by the minute.

Having said all this, McGuire has a fairly long rap sheet in the past, so it's not looking like he was a very sensible signing all told.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:04 pm  

worthing wire wrote:

It's probable that I'll get a ban for this post, but here goes anyway (it's a forum and we're all adults, after all):

It seems that McGuire has twice now used the word s...

By your own admission you don’t know…so why in heavenly name say that?

His son doesn’t have cerebral palsy!

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:10 pm  

Silly lover should've covered his mouth, like these clever footballers do, then said "prove I said something naughty". If there's no corroborating evidence via microphone, then he should be entitled to launch an appeal.

Simple truth is, he's been ####ing useless when he's put his Wire kit on, and rubber duckie should drive him to the airport, free of charge, because he's a wage thief















McGuire
Not duckie

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:15 pm  

ratticusfinch wrote:

What defence is McGuire supposed to put up other than denying he said it?

Balance of probabilities I think it’s likely he did, but likely is a very dangerous precedent.

Pretty much my thoughts.

What I would say is that if McGuire is totally convinced of his innocence (a big if), then he should have found himself a good lawyer by now and made sure he's going to appeal, because any half decent lawyer would tear that case apart in a court of law.

I mean, disgruntled ex-employee goes after valuable asset of his former employer, with accusation that nobody else has heard - I don't think the CPS would be sending that to court.