Re: Raynor??? : Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:12 pm  

Lee Tucker FC Fan 2006 wrote:

could be offer a month to month contract with crusaders

Good luck to him......... and them!!

Re: Raynor??? : Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:46 am  

finally got what was coming, as I hope he does from the Magistrate too.

Re: Raynor??? : Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:42 pm  

Standee wrote:

finally got what was coming, as I hope he does from the Magistrate too.

agree 100%, brought my club more shame than enough so glad to be rid...

Re: Raynor??? : Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:43 pm  

pmarrow wrote:

ATEOD what he does in his private life is exactly that, as a Rugby player he gave us his all and score some of the best tries I've seen in the game.

He may have screwed up and he'll pay the price for that but you lot seem to think you own the guy. What he does out of rugby is up to him and not us, he owes us sweet FA. Its probably no different to one of us lot coming back from Holiday and selling cheap cigs in the pub, some of you people need to get a life big time.

guess santa didnt bring you the chopper you had on your list then

Re: Raynor??? : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:43 pm  

Kosh wrote:

You're on a wind up, right? I mean, you can't actually believe what you typed here - can you?

Being a professional sportsman is not like other jobs. Anything a pro sportsman does reflects in some way on the club he plays for, as bad publicity if nothing else. And I would suggest that doing something that may well lead to a custodial sentence counts as compromising your ability to continue doing your job.

Your other points are equally laughable. If I had a job where drinking in my free time compromised my ability to do it I would either not drink or find another job. Simples. The smoking example isn't even worth responding to. It's just plain silly.

Get a grip.

I haven't condemned him on here. I've expressed my disappointment that he'd be daft enough to throw away his career for the sake of some extra cash, and that's as far as I'm prepared to comment in public. TBH I was much more concerned about his earlier conviction. But trying to trivialise what he's done is stupid, as is claiming that a pro sportsman's private life is completely private. It isn't. It never has been. And if any of them are unhappy with that they're free to find alternative employment.

Your on a wind up right ? Surely you can't believe all this ?

Re: Raynor??? : Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:22 pm  

A unknown superstar wrote:

He says road to Wembley in his comment So not Cardiff

It's just in a couple of posts later he said 'the previous road - the one where we won'. As much as I would have liked too, we haven't won at Wembley.

Re: Raynor??? : Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:48 pm  

[quote="Mild Rover"]People should choose their role models, if they feel they need them at all, based on what sort of person they are rather than the job they do. Like the rest of us, kids need to learn to seperate people from the things they do and consider the merits of each seperately.[/quote]

sorry lad but I take it you dont have kids from that comment!!

Re: Raynor??? : Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:50 pm  

[quote="ComeOnYouUll"]Following the court case in July 2008 for the assault charge, Raynor was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 18 months. If the alledged fraud and counterfeiting offences took place in the 18 month period would the previous conviction be considered in any potential sentencing?[/quote]

Yes and be considered all part of the case , thats hence the name "suspended" means they simply suspend the issue until it happens again or the term of suspension elapses.

Re: Raynor??? : Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:01 pm  

GODS UNDERTAKER wrote:

ComeOnYouUll wrote:

Following the court case in July 2008 for the assault charge, Raynor was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for 18 months. If the alledged fraud and counterfeiting offences took place in the 18 month period would the previous conviction be considered in any potential sentencing?[/quote]

Yes and be considered all part of the case , thats hence the name "suspended" means they simply suspend the issue until it happens again or the term of suspension elapses.

Indeed, which is why many expect he might get a fairly lengthy custodial sentence. (fairly lengthy in the scheme of things that is, less than 2 years I'd imagine)

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:22 am  

Standee wrote:

Indeed, which is why many expect he might get a fairly lengthy custodial sentence. (fairly lengthy in the scheme of things that is, less than 2 years I'd imagine)[/quote]

If found guilty he'll be in and out in 6 months imo.