Could you let gaz know wigan hold his registration until november 2011 then, ta

defies logic if its true, makes no sense

he could come back and be an absolute pudding, then there the posability that he hasnt changed, then theres the fact that they arnt short of players in oz and they only sign sure things from this country, dont think they would take the chance to be honest , maybe 12 months after his return , but not now

If he's going to be a pudding he might as well do it on £200,000 a year rather than £90,000 though eh?

Don't think it's true but it's not the end of the world if it is, we're not exactly lacking back-row forwards at the moment and there are some pretty big if's about him coming back to Wigan and taking the place by storm.

I assume were it true a transfer fee would have to be agreed or Hock would be allowed to leave by Wigan, I cannot see Wigan being happy to let him walk for free given the support they seem to have given him, so unless a club was happy to stump up a fee, which lets be honest would be a huge risk given he is out of the game then I cant see him going anywhere.

To be honest it does not add up, but stranger things have happened.

So he is still contracted to Wigan?
The clubs also hold his registration?
If was going to Aus then surely the NRL would have to register him as a players for Penrith.
Do they not also abide by the WADA drug rules?
I simply can't believe that the NRL would register him until his 2 year ban is completed. That's is any of this is true.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was Gaz Hock (horses mouth remember) having a joke with the locals. He must get stopped in the street and asked a dozen times a day from strangers 'Are you going back to Wigan', it must get on his nerves - therefore it must be tempting for him to change his story now and then.

Hock to Penrith, Hansen to Salford, Roberts to oz, Richards to NFL, Wigan to play at Knowsley road next year, you heard it here first!

You know he might be going around saying things like this to see which idiot is dumb enough to post the latest 'gossip' on rlfans....

Paying a transfer fee and registering a pommie drug ban player, are not things the NRL are likely to do.

well done Hindley he's off, and with a certain Mr. Noble!!

who owns his registration? I thought that as he is banned, he is therefore not a RL player therefore he cant be registered by any club.

He may have an informal agreement with Wigan, but as a free agent he can sign for whoever he wants.

exactly. there are players of equal ability to Hock in Aus, but without the extra baggage he would bring with him.

I think a few on here may have to offer some apologies in the not to distant future.

he is banned, the club didnt fire him though I believe so still hold his registration.

surely there is no registration though? the RFL banned him - therefore he isnt currently a registered RL player, therefore there is no registration held at Red Hall.

that is my understanding of the situation anyway.

they imposed a ban thus suspending his registration. I dont know if it was tore up or just suspended for the duration of the ban.

Well I know the o/p is convinced his source is legit so are you saying you believe there is something in it?

Dave

But he will be out of contract either because it was revoked because of the ban or because his contract will have expired by mid 2011 anyway.

I don't see how a club can still hold the registration of an out of contract player and use that to prevent him from signing for another club or to demand a transfer fee. That is surely what the Bosman ruling prevents from happening.

Dave

He was last registered with Wigan, therefore they still hold his registration, and will continue to do so wether banned or not, in contract or out of contract.

But that's essentially what happened with Karl Pryce when he left Bradford for Union - they still held his League registration, and we had to pay a transfer fee to Bradford (£28k, IIRC).

I'd forgotten about that. It's a bit odd any club can prevent an out of contract player signing for another club if no fee is forthcoming.

That said is there such a thing as an international transfer fee anymore? I am sure some Aussie players have played in SL while their NRL club prevents then playing for another side in Oz. Wasn't Lyon at Saints such a player?

Dave

There is alot of speculation and from a lad who knows his family well this is what they are saying after he completed 12 months rehab and had urine and blood tests to see if he is clean he sat down with ian lenegan and signed a premlinary 5 yr deal with wigan which will run out on 2016 he will not be on anywhere near the wages he was on before at the start but his contract is subject to performance and appearance mr lenegan will not come out and anounce anything as he does not want to be seen condoling drug use. But wigan have been paying an ex royal marine to train with gaz for three days a week since his ban also all the rumours about the nrl canbarra raiders offered him a 12 month contract aswell as celtic crusaders and salford but he want to repay wigan and there fans

you heard it here first !!!!!!!

That's the only thing we know is 100% true

due to his age, probably.

out of contract players under 23 are subject to a transfer fee based on how long they have been at a club.

edit: or, Karl Pryce signed a new contract when he left saying that Bradford had first refusal on him should he return. Similar to the Iestyn Harris situation.

no banned player can sign for any team, preliminary or not so this is pointless. He has undoubtedly had discussions with lots of clubs, and he should, he was, and i presume still will be top class. The fact remains he cant sign for anyone until his ban expires.
I'm unclear about the issue of registration, but it WAS my understanding that a banned player cannot be registered.

Parramatta agreed to let Lyon play in Super League. They held his registration in the NRL, and refused to release him to Manly until his contract with them expired. Once it expired, they had no hold over him - regardless of the fact that they were the last club to hold his NRL registration.

Once a player is out of contract, and is over the age of 23, the fact that another club was the last to hold his registration has no bearing on his ability to sign for another club. If they are under 23, the new club has to pay a transfer fee as long as the original club makes him a contract offer equivalent to his current deal.