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.

The stance I take is that if he has signed on a 5 year deal the terms must be fantastic for Wigan.

The concern is if he comes back and kills it and we only have a 1 year deal in place he could ask for a significant increase if he is to be retained.

I assume the deal put in place will be very beneficial to Wigan for a player of Hocks potential qualities, and when squeezing every penny out of the cap is crucial the longer deal may well prove to be an astute bit of business.

Good point. He could come back and play the kind of rugby we know he's capable of and is in a position to drive his wages up. I think Lenagan has enough about him to weigh up what the club and squad would benefit most from, but 5 years really would surprise me.

Thats how I take it to be.

If he came back and had a storming first year or two, then at the end of his initial contract he could probably command higher wages than he was on before. At least this way its likely that he'll be working his way up to his previous wage by the 3rd/4th/5th years of his contract.

Its more of an insurance policy if he comes back and is as fantastic as we hope he will be, because he won't stick around on pittance, but if he's attached to a 5 year deal at wages dictated on the clubs terms. I'm all for it.

If he does re-offend, the length of contract would be irrelevant.

I don't understand peopel saying he doesn't deserve this it's a risk etc.
He will have served his very lengthy ban, his punishment, out of work for 2 years. And getting things back on track and keeping fit is commitment that shows he's unlikely to mess it up again, and if he does, the length of the contract will be irrelevant because he'll get banned again. People talk about him as though he some sort of horrific criminal or scum, he made a mistake and is paying for it, at the end of the day it's better for Wigan to sign him on whatever deal than for another lub to take him, which they would. He's a fantastic player and if he's bothered to stay fit and is commited to get back then surely it's worth the 'risk'

Exactly my thoughts too. You can argue the case for and against the length of the contract (it seems a bit lengthy for me TBH) but the chances of him going off the rails again are irrelevant.

But giving him a shorter contract is in no way akin to extending his punishment beyond his sentence. ANY contract given to him even if it were one year is giving him another chance.

He does not need a five year contract to be given another chance.

Dave

That is an incredibly glib way to be looking at it IMO.

As a player banned for using drugs he doesn't deserve a five year deal on his return never mind what the financial terms are IMO. It just sends out the wrong message. If the club want to let him resurrect his career at Wigan then I would far rather see some sort of rolling contract (options for future years in the clubs favour) because that publicly shows the club hasn't just handed out a five year deal to a drug offender and is simply keeping its fingers crossed he does not re-offend.

Dave

Well, we don't know all the details of the contract (if in fact it exists, of course!), but from what we've seen of the way IL works, I'm pretty sure there will be all kinds of conditions attached, not least regarding his off-field behaviour.

I totally agree if this is true. It is a joke that a player that has just been banned for 2 years is rewarded with a 5 year deal. Even if you do not take into account his ban he has never had the best of attitudes with regards to training etc and that coupled with his off field behaviour mean this is just madness and it is a deal that he simply does not deserve. It also makes the club a laughing stock.

Also after 2 years out of the game no one really knows what he will be like as player and an awful lot of assumptions are being made as to how good he is going to be. We could be saddled with a dud for 5 years.

Nice of you to make an assumption.

can you not see the irony in your post???

Where?

I dont want to get into things but mabye he wasn't turning upto training cause of why he got banned

Look hocks been banned do you not think he **** himself thinking what is he going to do job wise?

He's no einstein when he comes back there is no way he's going to mess this 2nd chance he's got up