Saints launch gambling site

[Fairleigh Good!]

As this season seems to be quite uneventful in comparison with the usually rollercoaster life of St Helens RLFC, the club has devised a genius new way to risk it all.

No its not drugs this time, nor salary cap offenses or even off the field bad behaviour like those gym destroying thugs at Leigh.

No instead Saints have decided to launch an official St Helens RLFC gambling/betting/bingo/online casino. They are even promising the chance to play poker against the cream of the first team players.:shock:

Rumours that Sean Long is being paid in casino chips to save room on the salary cap are as yet unproven.

But although on the one hand it seems an easy and clever way to print money, it also smacks of being unethical and immoral, especially given what that naughty Martin Gleeson did to the club with his betting scams. Perhaps a bit naughty and risky for this particular club?

The national media in the UK seemed to find it quite amusing. I'm expecting several rehashes of the front page exclusives of Sean Long being woken up by the Daily Mail after the Gleeson-gate affair.

 

[bartman]

It's a strange endeavour, that's for sure.

I guess things like that are an easy money spinner, but the ethics involved will open Saints up to some criticism.

Guess it gives them a way to make sure players stay out of trouble when there's no training schedule on - stick 'em in the computer room and get 'em trying to play poker with fans?

 

[deluded pom?]

Strange how the Worky player received a years ban for betting on a game . What was it Long and Gleeson got again ?

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

Strange how the Worky player received a years ban for betting on a game . What was it Long and Gleeson got again ?

Different circumstances. The Worky bloke bet on games he was playing in that weren't open and shut affairs. The 12 months hints that he was probably found guilty of trying to affect the outcome of the games.

Long didn't do anything particularly bad, he wasn't playing in the game and although Gleeson played in the game, it was clear that he wasn't attempting to affect the outcome to suit the bet, but that he was merely trying to cash in on the knowledge that Millward was going to field the kids.

 

[terracesider]

Strange how the Worky player received a years ban for betting on a game . What was it Long and Gleeson got again ?

Not really strange, DP. It's the RFL. :crazy:

Crooked central

 

[deluded pom?]

So the game Gleeson played in was a foregone conclusion before they even kicked off then Fairleigh ? That figures . One rule for SL and another rule for the NL .

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

So the game Gleeson played in was a foregone conclusion before they even kicked off then Fairleigh ? That figures . One rule for SL and another rule for the NL .

Yes.

The thing about this is that the rule didn't exist pre-Gleeson gate. It was never written in the rules what players could or couldn't do or how severe the punishment would be.

The RFL brought the rules in because of the affair to stop players doing it in future.

 

[deluded pom?]

I think you'll find that even before Gleesongate there were rules in place to prevent players gambling on matches they were involved in . Saints aren't the catalyst for every rule change you know .