On Sky news Shaun Wane said he would be interested in Zac Hardaker.

I'll be the odd one out and say I'm quite happy we are linked with him.

He also said that he’s not heard anything and that he leaves that up to Rads and Lenegan

sorry what? Our head coach doesn’t have a say in what players we sign?

He says whose he’s interested in and Rads tries to get them.

if and its a big if he only gets 12 weeks how can they say walkers and chases bans are fair would open a big can of worms

If his case is treated similar to Hock's and he's looking at 1-2 year ban, it might make more sense that we're interested. By that time, Bateman is likely to have gone to the NRL and Lockers will have probably retired so there should be enough space under the cap. I'd be amazed if he gets anything like 12 weeks.

You can bet that there are lawyers involved and they may feel that he has a case to make sure he only gets a 12 week ban.

It’s very easy to take the moral high ground, it’s also a lot easier to stick to it if we a are talking about a mediocre player. Hardaker is a top class player, plenty of clubs will be clambering over each other to get his signature once whatever ban he receives is up. Looking at it pragmatically When a player of that quality is available we’d be pretty stupid not to see if we can lick up his signature. If we do he may end up doing something stupid again, he may not. These things come down to the quality of the player and Hardaker imo is worth taking the gamble.

I’d draw the line higher than this, to be honest. There have been at least two players at Wigan in my lifetime who came to the club with serious criminal records – which Zak Hardaker does not have. Both went on to entertain the crowds for years, and are only remembered now for all the right reasons. They turned their lives around despite very poor starts, and were great servants to the Cherry and White.

I’d be very hopeful this can happen with Zak. But in case it proves otherwise, the club needs to ENSURE that the contract protects us.

Also, while I don’t like drugs or drugs-dealers, I don’t totally buy into the argument that having someone like Zak at the club sets a bad example for youngsters. On one hand it does, but let's not overstate it. The youngsters of Wigan hit the clubs and pubs every Friday and Saturday night, and drugs are for sale in large numbers of them. They’ll meet drugs-users and drugs-peddlers throughout their lives, they’ll see them on TV etc. If at some point they are turned onto drugs, it will be very hard to say with certainty that Wigan signing Zak Hardaker was the cause.

In light of all this, and in light of how good ZH is - and you can guarantee that if Wigan don't snap him up, one of our rivals will! - I feel we should give him a chance.

What's easier than saying if he's a good player there are no standards however, if he's shoite then he's got be whiter than white and keeping to standards is a prerequisite to getting on at the club?
I didnt think I could oppose a view so dramatically than this in my wildest dreams.
I don't think Hardaker is the anti Christ but he ain't the second coming either.
Personally I couldn't give a fishes tit if other clubs are clambering over him.

I will have to respectively disagree. The 2 players I assume are Gill and Hanley. Without knowing either of them I doubt that either of them would take a class a drug days before a major final with the debris that was left behind for their teammates. The guy is selfish and until I see something tangible that demonstrates he has changes I don't buy into his self pity

I was going to reply earlier to a post about where the bar should be set (but it may have been on the other site?)
Anyway, the point i was going to make is bear in mind "That incident" of 18/20minths ago and there were many many different views.
BUT a lot of them seemed to want a certain player (who we all seem to ackowledge due to the amount of the ban etc believed to be the agressor) to stay, whilst the victim was booed by some on his next appearance at Salford and wanted out of the club by some.
Now I don't know how said player avoided prosecution etc but even before we knew that a lot of people wanted that player to stay due to his on field performances etc and as far as im concerned if theres any truth in what ive been told (and not just in a a bar room etc.) Then that player should have gone in my book.
Plenty ifs and buts there I acknowledge but I'm just pointing out that what that player did could have damaged someone else and imo potentially in a far worse way and no-one now even blinks an eye or remembers.

As cruncher has pointed out, it's a fine line with many differing points to be taken into account, there's no doubt there are risks associated with this potential signing in many fronts, but I do hope that Wigan have doneb thwir homework and at least looked into all possibilities rather than take a moral high ground that isn't enforceable.
Ask yourself the same question, where is that bar? How high or how low?
In that same season there were other things that went on in the background that weren't publicised (involving well known players) and that behaviour was questionable to say the least. Those players continue to play and are cheered on by all fans.
I'm not saying we should ignore people's past, but we should also look to see if we can potentially work together and if that could be mutually benefitable to both then at least consider it (and cover yourself with some really good Philadelphia lawyer speak).

Having read Shaun Wane's comments I'd be very worried if he was coach and took on Hardaker. These are quotes from him:

"I don’t know all the details of what Zak has done – I would never ask him about that. But I know him as a person, I’ve met him many times and he’s a fantastic character. There will be more to it but I’m not really interested, I just know Zak is a very good player and we want good people at this club. If Zak has made an error, he’s going to be punished for it. There’s nobody more difficult than Micky Mac in other areas off the field and we stuck with him and made him into a fantastic person. We’re a club that looks after our players.”

I've read similar quotes before when clubs look at taking on troublemakers - he's a great lad, we can help him etc, which IMO is completely delusional - whether Hardaker comes back and is any good after a ban is 100% down to him changing his whole attitude, and is very little to do with what any club can 'do for him'.

Personally I have no problem with Wigan or anyone else signing him post ban, and from England's perspective I genuinely hope he comes back as good as ever. But there really needs to be some onus on Hardaker here. This isn't a naughty boy, he's a grown man who has let himself, his teammates and supporters down on numerous occasions, and some of his comments about Leeds for example after he left were symptomatic of a guy with virtually no self awareness. If he hasn't got that by 26 I'm not sure he ever will, unless this ban shocks him enough to really change.

I'll never understand why people read stuff into quotes from coaches.

Even if he thinks it, SW is hardly going to say something like: "Zak's a real problem and we're taking a massive chance."

Exactly, the only thing we can realistically read into it, is that it wasn't a flat denial.

There is no doubt that Hardaker is a top class talent and IMO the best English FB in the game sorry Tomkins fans.
He has been given numerous chances not all known to the public by Leeds and he was bailed out by Powell who clearly thought he was getting a good un even though he knew only too well of his off field antics.
Cas is very much a club who look after their players and have taken on mis fits before and thought they could tame Hardaker too.
But he let them all down as he did Leeds and no doubt he will do it again.
I do not think for one minute Wane has better man to man to skills than the likes of Powell, Sinfield, Peacock, McDermott or Hetherington.
Even if his man to man skills are on a par with the above he will struggle to keep Hardaker on the straight and narrow and eventually it will come back to bite him and the club.
The key for me is the eventually bit in my previous sentence.
In that time Hardaker might have helped you to a GF win and possibly more and as long as he does not influence others you might feel it was money and time well spent.
For me it is probably worth the gamble as long as he keeps himself fit during his ban.
I do hope he can get back to the form he is capable of and stars for England in the future.

It was more an observation than an opinion. Look through the history of sport, top quality international commits an offence and is is far more likely his club wish to retain him, mediocre player does similar and is sacked or moved on. It’s a results based business. I doubt anyone in St Helens will be worrying about what BB has done if he helps them to Trophey’s.

Yes, in an ideal world the players would be squeeky clean and upstanding citizens, one thing many seem to forget is they are human beings and make mistakes in life like the rest of us.

Hardaker has enough quality that a large number of clubs will be after his signature once available, bottom line is he would improve our side.

Your points noted and understood Trainman.
I totally agree that we are human and we all make mistakes the problem with ZH is that he just keeps on repeating and for me it obvious he cares about himself and nobody else. I like to think I have a generous spirit but guys like that I wouldn't give a shiny shoite until he demonstrates that he wants to and can actually change.

I am with you on the "glass door affair" . If proven I would have binned him through process within 2 weeks of the incident and other the 3 guys involved would have got unpaid suspensions which by the way may have occurred.

I think I know about the "other incident" you refer that season and the 4 guys concerned were just lucky. Thick but lucky. Legally I think the club couldn't do much but for me I would have marked their cards and would have worked on getting them out of the club as soon as unless they agreed to regular "reviews" and even then I would probably still be thinking of getting rid. Yes all top players but for me it wouldn't have mattered because the board have to set the bar and in those 2 instances they didn't appear to do that.

Just seen Zak in a gym wearing a Wigan vest. One of them new ones with the 4 stars above the crest. Looks in good nick

Well, after reading this thread I will sleep very well tonight knowing we have so many saintly supporters whose farts smell like roses. You are all truly a credit to the town and club. Never put a foot wrong in your entire lives, well done!

Hardaker is literally Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Corbyn rolled into one! I mean he sniffs waff and called someone a faggot once, I’d throw away the key personally.

Exactly. Perfectly put



Some of the long winded posts here aimed simply at chastising him for his previous wrongdoings are laughable. None of us are fit or qualified to be judge, jury or executioner in his, or anyone else's case. I don't ever seem to remember reading any of this tosh regards John Bateman and that whole sorry saga.

Bottom line, he himself wants a fresh start and is more positive than ever to change, he has friends at the club and also in the Wigan area all of whom want him to be here and are supportive. He will improve the playing roster and is not commanding a large chunk of the salary cap. He is committed to charitable work and helping others and bottom line, the club has protected itself with numerous clauses within the contract*

*allegedly

You must be up at UCLAN then...where he most certainly is in the gym, doing a fitness test, but your mistaken, he's wearing a MusclePharm t-shirt

Who has said that?
Where is that posted?

Richie where as anyone posted that he Hitler or the devil incarnate??

Do you want single line replies or some reasoned explanations for peoples views?? If I take the time and effort to write something more than a few lines and try and explain logically how I feel with hopefully some balance to the posts why is that laughable??

What is "laughable" is that people cannot accept that other people have different views and then come and take the urine when differs from their own.

I have stated that when he demonstrates he wants to change then as a starter for 10 that is a good start. If he is committed to charity work and keeps to it then great but its only a start. Why hasn't he stated that already?