Saints star banned after drink driving (From Daily Echo)

he is stupid. never drink and drive he could have killed someone. should drop him as-well he might learn

This was not a rural location but a city centre with transport easily available. He's been found guilty he now pays the price. That's how justice works.

In his defence people can forget that in some countries this would have been dealt with by means of an on the spot fine or bribe. Cultural differences can be massive particularly with Latin America, Asia and Africa.

I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

Errmmm... I haven't read the Telegraph article that you elude to, but:

1. Drinking heavily? 57 mircograms could be as little as 3 glasses of wine (depending on physiology). I'm not excusing Guly in any way (drink driving is drink driving) but it's wrong to suggest that he was 'out on the lash' necessarily.

2. Clubbing til 4am? The Coriander Lounge is a restaurant, and there's no mention in this article of clubbing (I confess there may be in the Telegraph article, but do they know for sure?)

3. Treating the legal process with contempt by turning up in ripped jeans? So what? He wore a suit jacket and waistcoat - you want top hat and tails too?

4. Team of minders? More likely just his entourage, and a bit of protection maybe. Surely people who can afford it are allowed to protect themselves any way they see fit (within reason)? (Plus he's created jobs!)

5. A fine of £2500 is probably the maximum punishment the LAW allows - magistrates can't make it up based on what they fancy charging someone. And how does that reflect on the 'state of football today' (or Guly) anyway?

6. 1-year driving ban - again, probably the maximum permissable punishment for this offence.

7. Victim surcharges are also set in stone.

I think you've got a chip on your shoulder mate.

By the way, I am in no way justifying Guly's behaviour - if you drink drive you should receive the punishment that the law allows. He pleaded guilty, took his punishment and is not looking to weasle his way out of anything. He was lucky to get away without injuring or killing someone, but thankfully he got caught before he could.

Sainty saint saint wrote:

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

Errmmm... I haven't read the Telegraph article that you elude to, but:

1. Drinking heavily? 57 mircograms could be as little as 3 glasses of wine (depending on physiology). I'm not excusing Guly in any way (drink driving is drink driving) but it's wrong to suggest that he was 'out on the lash' necessarily.

2. Clubbing til 4am? The Coriander Lounge is a restaurant, and there's no mention in this article of clubbing (I confess there may be in the Telegraph article, but do they know for sure?)

3. Treating the legal process with contempt by turning up in ripped jeans? So what? He wore a suit jacket and waistcoat - you want top hat and tails too?

4. Team of minders? More likely just his entourage, and a bit of protection maybe. Surely people who can afford it are allowed to protect themselves any way they see fit (within reason)? (Plus he's created jobs!)

5. A fine of £2500 is probably the maximum punishment the LAW allows - magistrates can't make it up based on what they fancy charging someone. And how does that reflect on the 'state of football today' (or Guly) anyway?

6. 1-year driving ban - again, probably the maximum permissable punishment for this offence.

7. Victim surcharges are also set in stone.

I think you've got a chip on your shoulder mate.

By the way, I am in no way justifying Guly's behaviour - if you drink drive you should receive the punishment that the law allows. He pleaded guilty, took his punishment and is not looking to weasle his way out of anything. He was lucky to get away without injuring or killing someone, but thankfully he got caught before he could.

Don't forget 'flaunting his wealth by driving around in a flash car...' :)

ffs you expect him to buy an old banger or what? I'm a businessman and know many people driving cars far more expensive than that. I'm past all that now and can't be bothered with it but used to drive Aston Martins myself.

He's been foolish and been made to pay the price. The club will also have taken a dim view so lets move on and stop the Gully hating for the reasons we all know.

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

Jealous, much?

he should have used a taxi.

57 micrograms isnt a particularly massive amount though.

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

What a load of sanctimonious tosh!
The old limmit was .08, then .05 (still is here in Oz) & now your saying that he was drinking heavily & abusing his bod y by drinking heavily when he was within the old limit and only a gnats c@ck over the last one so that equates to one standard drink over the current limit! get a life you sad tw@t & let him enjoy his money while it lasts!
Sorry I am sick of people like you who are so quick to slag some one who likes a drink!

Pogle wrote:

Crossley Place Saint wrote: I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

What a load of sanctimonious tosh! The old limmit was .08, then .05 (still is here in Oz) & now your saying that he was drinking heavily & abusing his bod y by drinking heavily when he was within the old limit and only a gnats c@ck over the last one so that equates to one standard drink over the current limit! get a life you sad tw@t & let him enjoy his money while it lasts! Sorry I am sick of people like you who are so quick to slag some one who likes a drink!

Pogle, i agree with your post 100%.

report in todays hants chronicle drink drivers could be fined up to £5,000 and up to 6 years in prison. got off way to lightly one rule for high profile people another for the rest of us.take a bl**dy taxi your paid enough money moron

What guly did was against the law and irresponsible. He has been dealt with by a judge and by the club : it should be the end of the matter and hopefully he will of learnt a lesson but he should be judged on what he does for the saints on the pitch and not off it, so let's lose this booing and constant criticism of one of our players , never met a player yet who plays better cos of it !

He did not employ the super lawer who can get clebrities off a drink driving charge on a technicality, but amitted the charge.

Give the guy a break

Pleaded Guilty in court - has been punished - Case closed.

lillylooper wrote:
report in todays hants chronicle drink drivers could be fined up to £5,000 and up to 6 years in prison. got off way to lightly one rule for high profile people another for the rest of us.take a bl**dy taxi your paid enough money moron

Show me one person who has ever been given 6 years in prison or fined £5,000 for having 57 micrograms of alcohol in their blood (and who didn't cause an accident or injury) and I'll show you one helluva messed up judicial system.

lillylooper wrote:
report in todays hants chronicle drink drivers could be fined up to £5,000 and up to 6 years in prison. got off way to lightly one rule for high profile people another for the rest of us.take a bl**dy taxi your paid enough money moron

"Could" being the operative word. Thankfully, the people putting laws together understand that being slightly over the limit isn't as bad as being extremely over the limit. Disagree? Think "The law is the law, and all transgressions are equal"? Ever heard the phrase "May as well get hanged for a sheep as a lamb"?

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

How dare someone wealthy spend their money!

So he can supposedly afford a chauffeur? So what? What are you suggesting? The court amputate his legs and superglue his torso to the ground, to compensate?

OK case has been done and dusted- he has pleaded guilty and been punished.it is now time for him to get his head down and get back to banging in the goals like he did early last season.if he doesn't,despite appearing to be one of Adkins favourites i reckon he could be on his way as early as the next transfer window.

magistrates probably didnt know who he was or cared who he was. The law is the same for everyone. He pleasede guilty, he's been dealt with in accordance to the law so let it be.

It's a shame that someone who is getting a lot of flack for underperformance is attracting this sort of negative attention. I'm sure if it was Lambert some people on here would be asking him to be let off!

Take a leaf out of andy murrays book! at the US open after party his bar bill was £6000 but all he had was a soft drink.

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
I have to say that this case typifies all that is wrong about football today. A young man of relatively modest talent, in the 2nd or 3rd rank of his profession and who is often criticised for under-performance. Paid a weekly salary that exceeds what many ordinary supporters earn in a year. He flaunts his wealth by driving aroud in a flash car (£70000 according to the report in the Telegraph). His performance at work and duty to his employer depends on maintaining the highest levels of physical fitness and mental concentration, but he abuses his body by drinking heavily and clubbing until 4am. He treats the legal process with contempt, turning up to court in ripped jeans (and with a team of minders - also according to the Telegraph report). The fine of £2500 - what, one day's wages? The 1-year driving ban - when he knows he can well afford a chauffeur. And finally to have to pay a "victim surcharge" of £15 - well I bet that has made him see the error of his ways. Sorry, but I am sick of players with his type of attitude.

This post typifies all that is wrong about self opinionate egotistical and ignorant posters, sorry mate, but you are OTT on an everyday event, the guy made a mistake, has paid the price, twice because he has been punished by the Justice System plus the Football Club. The Victim surchage is paid by every single person that is found guilty, it's a standard fee.

OK, I made my comment in good faith but I see that my opinion is a minority one.

Jealous of him? No, after a very successful career I could afford to spend £70K on a car, but I choose not to do so, because I think it is money that can be put to better use elsewhere, and in my experience to drive a flash car in Southampton is asking for trouble from thieves and vandals. You can buy a very decent car for a third of that with every luxury (aircon, hifi, cruise, etc) but without the bling, of course.

Concerning the money, I have followed Saints home and away for 40+ years, the length and breadth of the country and even our occasional European games. I would not like to calculate the total amount of money I have spent. But a rough estimate in equivalent value: this season ST plus away tickets plus travel and hotels comes to £2K. Times 40 = £80K. Yes in years gone by tickets were relatively cheaper. But I was younger then with a smaller income. So the arithmetic is fair. As I get older I like what I see in the finance and attitudes in the sport less and less. Think about your increased ST ticket prices this year and think about where all that money goes.

I have had my say now and you are free disagree with me.

Sorry hit submit key in error.

I have had my say now and you are free to disagree with me. But I don't expect to receive a dogs b*ll*cks of abuse from fellow Saints fans for expressing an honestly held opinion.

Crossley Place Saint wrote:
Sorry hit submit key in error.

I have had my say now and you are free to disagree with me. But I don't expect to receive a dogs b*ll*cks of abuse from fellow Saints fans for expressing an honestly held opinion.

What I said had no bearing on my being a Saints supporter, just an opinion about another human being, who has made an error and now has to live with it for the rest of his life, he doesn't need it rubbed in over and over again by people who are opinionated, as he cannot answer for himself. I don't think I abused you, just making my own opinion clear.

I find it interesting that should a celebrity be excused a wrong-doing in some way, the blowhard community is up in arms with "one law for them, another for the rest of us" type comments, yet whenever a celebrity actually does receive the same treatment as the rest of us would, the self-same people are once again crying foul, and demanding that the law treat these people differently.

The lad has payed the price for his misdemeana.
Luckly for him with only limited implications.
I hope this kick in the @rse is a wake up call for him.
I so want to see him use the talent that Nigel Adkins has obviously seen in him and used to the Saint's best advantage.

Guly, wake up, knuckle down,become the great Brasilian player that we all want to be able to tell our grand children about.
COYR.

Good! Cretin.

What a cheeseball. Who would buy a Panamera in the first place? He should have been fined for driving the wrong Porsche. As for his footballing prowess, come on, he's lazy and sloppy on the pitch.
Adkins needs to keep his players in check because they are underperforming on the pitch, maybe not getting enough sleep?
We need some **** results pronto, Aston Villa ain't gonna be easy as everyone knows. So, maybe the boys need to wake up and put the booze away until they have something to really celebrate, like a point?
Yes, I am and angry **** but a realist at the same time.

Shoong wrote:
Pleaded Guilty in court - has been punished - Case closed.

How else could he have pleaded mate?