It’s a weird one this. On one hand his talent is for all to see and the chance of a former MOS in on a freebie is tempting. On the other his signing would be a massive risk (yes there would be clauses to protect the club) but the danger out there is the club’s reputation as a family club.

What would this say to the young lads on scholarship, or the lads and girls coming through the local amateur clubs? The club are making strides in the community (Ladies team...etc) but to me this would set the wrong message in my opinion, he’s not even been informed how long his ban will be yet (two years is being quoted).

Could a banned & bored Hardaker even stay out of trouble for 18 months? With the media frenzy it could very well be a unwanted distraction to our next two seasons.

Nah....not for me, but I’m not the Chairman.

If the deal was good for the club then yea go for it although he's a heed the ball, a great player, one who could if he can find his form again do good things for the club on the field at least.

I'm not sure that taking the high moral ground is a luxury the club can afford.

Doing the right thing is of course important - but there is that old argument that when someone has done their time, past indiscretions should be scrubbed. If you don't believe in that, then I'd suggest you're not actually a moral person, despite your protestations.

I'd point to the fact that many RL stars of past and present - Wigan heroes among them - would not have graced our fields had we adopted a blanket 'you must be perfect' approach.

I'd agree if it was just the drug use, but this guy repeatedly does things that bring his club into disrepute and rules himself out of big games (2 x World Cups, 1 x Grand Final, 1 x relegation battle so far). Even taking the morality standpoint out of it, what are the odds that he leaves us in the lurch when we need him?

I totally agree that's a risk.

So IF it happens, I'll be interested to hear what safeguards the club has built into the contract. As long as we can kick him out at no cost to ourselves if he fouls up again, I don't see too much to worry about on that front. It's not like we've shed players of great value in order to bring him in. FPN and Gells? Personally, I'm not bothered about losing either of those two.

Gells money presumably spent on Sarginson, I'm guessing if we had much money left under the cap, then we would have retained McIlorum. Granted FPN has left since then, but doubt that he was on a similar wage to what Hardaker would command (bloody hope not anyway!).

You know how it is with a salary capped sport, you can only afford a few big names, and can't generally have quality experienced players sat in reserve waiting to step up. My guess would be that Escare+1 would have to go, Tomkins would play in the halves, and Hardaker ballsing up would mean someone having to step up to play halfback, so that Tomkins could go to Full Back. Of course that's speculation and loads can change in two years or so, but what we can be sure of, is that there will be a salary cap in place, and he would take a chunk of it, meaning we would need to be able to rely upon him.

Ultimately, we won't know what's happening until it happens, cliche though that is.

I should state that I'm not 100% in favour of signing Hardaker. But I've said a number of times that I think we are star-lite at present. We simply don't have enough game-breakers, and the insurmountable problem these days - salary cap, etc - is that they aren't as available as they once were. So, on the rare occasions when they come along, what do we do?

On another thread, Jonh, a poster I respect a lot, is expressing concern about us signing bad boys. My own feeling is that, while signing bad boys is never ideal, sometimes you've no option if you want to get great players on the field. Aussie stars only tend to come here these days if they've messed up Down Under. Obvious recent examples are Chris Sandow and Ben Barba; both were high-risk signings, and Sandow ultimately didn't work out (who knows what'll happen with Barba), but these guys are the kind of mercurial talents we rarely see on British RL pitches these days. I wouldn't quite put Hardaker in that category, but we know that he's capable of astonishing performances - and at Wigan we are really in need of something like that.

So, while I'm unsure about this, I think there are potential positives as well as negatives.

I reckon Hardaker will play at centre if his ban is 12 matches and plays this season. We have plenty players for all other positions but centre. We now have Sarge out of form and at Wire it looks like Bateman will play there.
If is a 2 year ban then who knows what the squad will look like for the start of the 2020 season.

FPN was in a hefty whack. I would guess hardakers wages pre the balls up would be not far off/similar to FPNs deal. It was cheap to us originally as Canberra were paying part of it for 18months, the issue was when we had to pay it in full (and shock horror to all those who thin I'm a happy clapper) and I'm not sure even though I didn't think he was as bad as some portrayed he was ever going to be worth what we had to pay him in years 2/3 & was a poor piece of business by the club.
That bullet now dodged I would suspect that "if" hardakers on his way then he won't command anything like what he currently had or anywhere near to FPNs current deal and would be pretty sure there would be some "Get out of jail" (pun inteneded) clauses built in.

I'm in agreement with you though that hardakers balling up part way through the season whilst not creating an issue money wise would create an issue playing wise due to potentially having to let go players prior to him signing purely from a lack of opportunity view and also the fluency/options available part way through a year.

Is it worth it?it'll all come out in't wash as they say.

PS
Mccollorum wasn't necessarily about wigan fitting him in under the cap, it was other issues AND fitting what he wanted extra under the cap.

Where is the 12 matches coming from? If it's from the Barba ban then they're completely different cases and Hardaker's is worse.

Its been rumoured by the Yorskshire Press for a few weeks.

I wouldnt be surprised if thats all he gets. I suppose it will depend on his defence.

if I were stains, I'd be talking to him, Barba will be back to NRL when he can set something up, mark my words.
Straight swap for them, one cokehead for another, even same position.

We have 2 very handy full backs, unless we see him as a centre?

Must be plucked from the Barba case which is silly because it was a ban handed down from another organisation in another country out of competition. What examples are they of UKAD only giving out 12 match bans for in competition failures? Not any I believe. No chance he'll only be getting a 12 match ban.

Barba was out of season (albeit straight after the Grand Final). My understanding is that that’s the difference in the regulations. Out of competition is 12 matches, during competition is generally 2 years.

Hock is a more comparable case IMHO

OOC isn't actually a ban, that was an NRL imposed ban because it was his 2nd strike regarding cocaine

Without muddying the water, and I must state I have zero idea what the outcome will actually be, I believe the argument regards OOC is whether or not the Play Off Series/Grand Final is officially classed as a stand alone event or classified as a fixture within the Super League season. If a stand alone event, the days leading up to the said event would be classed as OOC. If that makes any sense?

That makes sense to me, however even if the Play Offs etc are standalone, they're still a sporting competition and must be governened by UKAD/WADA rules surely?

True, hard to dissect the little information I've heard, but it seems to around the days before/after a stand-alone event even if governed by UKAD. Very tough one to call as it really sets a precedent for future cases.

Say for instance his sample is from the day after the Saints game, then if the play off fixture was a stand alone event, the next stand alone event would be the Grand Final and between those two fixtures Zak would be OOC.

Sounds like his legal rep will have something to play with.

I completely understand that, although if it is the case it does set a dangerous precedent! It's obvious that the situation isn't straightforward as there's been no official ban yet has there? Unless I've missed something

Not really because it was after the Super 8's game vs Leeds a few weeks before that he failed.

If we want to as a club help someone with "issues" why don't we go and find a 16 or 17 year old lad with "issues" but with potential? It'll be just as hard but with less financial outlay.
I cannot agree with the signing of Hardaker in any circumstance other than perhaps he has served say a 5 year ban from playing and has also evidence to show that he has for example done lots of community work within the amateur game.

Cruncher nobody is perfect but where do you draw the line?
What does a player need to do before you say "Nah, no matter how good you are you are we wont touch you with a bargepole"?

How many other players have we signed where we knew for a fact that they take Class a drugs??

If it was a first offence then I would like to think that Cas or any other club would support him however, it isn't.
I very uncomfortable that this sounds like a done deal.