Hock for me can give us the impact that Feka brings and the offloads but he also has the stamina and mobility to really be a top 60 minute Prop.

Its a frightening prospect for other teams.

Hock comes in as prop is a what Wigan have been looking for. An aggressive prop who can off load. Madge has a lot of work to do though to keep him straight.

Can wait to see him again with a shirt on.

Can't wait either, top class player.

He's got 2 years to make up for
If his attitude is right, it should be great to see him back!

Slotting back into an improved Wigan team will make it easier than if we were still a mid-table side. I predict he would be a success on the field, as long as he has full control of his actions off it!

When we look at the improvement MM & the coaching team have made to the squad, imagine how good Hock could be if he improved by the same extent.

Just think what a boost it will be to the squad adding a new signing to the team at this time of year. It will be a big boost to the second half of the year next season

How old is Hock going to be when he comes back

27

I still don't get the concept of rewarding a player who got banned for two years for doing drugs with a five year deal.

Dave

Personally, I'll believe it when I see it.

I can understand the advantage to Wigan of having a fit and raring to go Gareth Hock back in the team. But after what's happened, I would expect them to proceed with caution.

I don't think he's being rewarded, he's being given a second chance. He's going to have to prove himself time and time again that he's worthy of such a deal.

I'm sure the contract will have all kinds of clause's in it to protect the club and to encourage Hock to perform consistently well on and off the field.

A five year deal is one hell of a second chance.

It's not the giving him a contract that bothers me so much (though I'd be concerned if it were at the expense of any player not out of contract) but the idea of a [ufive year[/u deal off the back of a two years drug ban.

Five year deals are given out to players like Sam T and Mossop but I find it odd a five year deal would be given to a 27 year old who had been out of the game for two years and like it or not the fact he was out due to being banned for drugs will raise eyebrows if he indeed gets a five year deal.

If Wigan had to enter a bidding war to get the services of a player half way through a two year ban I just find this all a bit bizarre. (The article implies the five years was required to see off three year offers from elsewhere).

Dave

Even though this is all pure speculation at the momment i do agree that a 5 year deal seems extra ordinary considering the circumstance.

However as we all know IL is a shrewd operator when it comes to clauses in players contracts.

Perhaps it is a rolling 1 year deal with the clubs approval for subsiquent renewals totaling 5 years?

I doubt very much that it would be a bog standard agreement?

At the end of the day he's served his punishment.

It's not a reward for Hock, it's an opportunity to start a clean slate.

If Hock does sign a 5 year deal for us then I presume it will be have been part of an gentlemans agreement that will have been put in place around the time he was first banned and would mean that we have a world class, Wigan born player in a contract that probably suits Wigan very well.

And I'd guess it's on vary favourable financial terms for the club.

would have to be.

with regular checks (both by the club and rfl) taking place that give us a get out of jail card should the lad not have learnt his lessons, as everyone assumes he has.

imagine its not long til this becomes the norm with all players.

If the contract is real and it is for 5 years, nothing I have seen from IL since taking over would suggest that this is some kind of knee-jerk reaction due to offers being made to Hock from other clubs.

IL will have done his 'due diligence' and any offer to Hock will be heavily weighted with clauses and stipulations to both benefit and protect the club.

Don't see why that would be the case. From the article it would seem that a number of clubs were interested in Hock and would have approached and discussed terms with his agent.

An agent has a vested interest in negotiating terms as good as possible for the players they represent.

I would suggest that Hock's contract will reflect the going rate for a top super league player who has been banned from the game for two years bacause that is what the other interested clubs would have been offering. Even more so as if it is for five years as this will be "THE" contract where Hock will earn the majority of his money from his career (not sure it will be for 5 years when/if announced, at the very least I would imagine it would have extension options built in for the club's benefit) and he would not settle for "reduced" terms over such a duration.

But that has got nothing to do with the risk there is of signing a player who took drugs onto a five year deal.

[iNot[/i giving him a five year deal is not extending his punishment beyond his sentence it would be taking the cautious (and IMO) sensible approach.



Hock stopped being world class the minute he started taking the drugs and by all accounts missing training or turning up when he felt like it. He was also inconsistent when playing for us. Brilliant one week, not the next. He was doing a good job of throwing away his career so perhaps getting caught has saved him from himself but I still don't see why he warrants a five year deal. If the club give him a straightforward five year contract and he reverts to his bad old ways (by no means impossible as it happens to former drug users a lot) then the club will look mighty stupid. If on the other hand they give him a one year deal with a rolling option in the clubs favour to ensure he stays clean then OK.

Dave

Everyone is entitled to make a mistake, and everyone is entitled to make up for that mistake.

What's the problem with that?

People need to stop banging on about what someone might do in the future - if the man is keen to make up for his mistake and for letting our club down, then who are we to turn him away?

That you don't need to be given a [ufive year[/u deal to make up for the mistake.

He has done nothing to deserve such a long contract and so should IMO prove he is worthy of the shirt a season at a time.



Well the club ought to be taking a view of whether they think he will stay on the wagon in future. Long contracts are a risk at the best of times never mind when the player has a history of drug use. Its basic risk assessment to consider if they think he will stay clean and what his attitude will be. Given no one really knows the answer to that then giving out a five year deal is a risk. The fact he is remorseful and is training hard is no guarantee the wheels won't come off again. Hock is statistically bound to be a bigger risk of (re-)offending than other players because ex-users are more likely to fall off the wagon. It's just common sense saying giving him a five year deal is a risky move by the club when IMO they don't need to.

Dave

Very well put

As much as I'd like to see him back, a 5 year deal is just lunacy.

Hock has a two year ban not a life sentence.
There is nothing confirmed about this five year deal and it will be negotiated by Ian Lenagan with I'd imagine legal advice.
There's a lot on here about "in Madge we trust" so when it comes to contracts I certainly trust the judgement of IL.
Whatever the deal is it will be good for Gaz Hock and good for Wigan RL.
If the coaching team can improve Hock the way they've improved the rest of the squad Gaz will be some player when he returns.

I agree. Thats a massive contract "reward" which I don't think he deserves BUT it depends to me if he's taken a big pay cut from what he had previously.