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.

TBH if I (and I suspect) most others on here were found guilty of racially aggrivated assault, we'd find ourselves booted out of a job very quickly indeed.



Several companies I know say you can'd drink in your free time (one notable one being Network Rail for many positions you're not allowed to drink for IIRC 24 or 48 hourse before shift start). If you want the job you stick with the rules, its very simple really.







Given the figure banded about in the media is approx £100K I'd suggest its a bit beyond bringing a few ciggies over and passing them off in the pub.

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?

They are not connected.



If some one has an 18 month bender and in that time the person then commits another crime the same or similar then the bender may or may not be taken into account. A succesful prosecution for a different crime will not have an effect on the previous suspended sentence as this was given to correct one crime and one can and would argue that the sentence has been (thus far) succesful. Our prisons are there for correction not punishment, would justice be served by imposing a sentence to run concurrent with any other help anyone. Because that what would happen at the very worst, the courts do not want to fill our prisons up with criminals who pose little danger to the majority of us and let others roam the streets.



Besides this may not come to trial yet, a trial is very expensive both in time and money and the CPS will be talking as they do in cases to "cop a plea". This allows justice to be done and it does not cost a Kings ransom to proceed, the CPS pull many cases on costs alone. They will have case reviews and they decide it has an 70% chance of a succesful prosecution, they will try and bargain any lower and it gets dropped.



Tip, if you get caught at anything opt for trial by jury every time you have a very good chance of it getting dropped. If you end up in magistrates court you could well end up behind bars for urinating in the street or non payment of a speeding fine.

could be offer a month to month contract with crusaders

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

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...

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

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

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.

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)

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

With a suspended sentence already in place?



IMO he should have got 2 years for the assault anyway.

Ive said before, i agree re the assault. I just dont have any faith in our legal system. In an ideal world he would have done 2 years for assault and then this additional offence would have meant a 5 year stretch for me. He'll be lucky not to do time but i dont imagine he'll do more than 6 months of a 12 month sentence, he's not de-frauded a large enough amount to get anything more severe.

be interesting to see if they take his home under the proceeds of crime legislation, they should.

Would depend how much he would owe should he be found guilty i guess. If its 100k i would guess he wouldnt need to sell his house for example.

How about selling the shirt off his back?

Theyll take what they can to reclaim any monies made by illegal means.

Are we allowed the court case first?

Yes he should have, but as with Ben Cockayne, some sports stars seem to be able to get away with anything!

Read my posts back, ive said 'if'



There's nothing wrong with us discussing it, thats what this forums for.

Not just sports stars is it, its a wider issue to do with our entire legal system leaking money with very few people feeling it's fit for purpose. Sadly the decision makers senior lawyers are entirely happy to pick up fat salaries and dish out pitiful punishments.... and the senior bankers get stick!!