I agree to an extent and his mistakes were frustrating at times but on his day he could be devastating and I think we miss an unpredictable forward like that. He always made things happen good or bad and the way Maguire has come in and improved players games already i'd have backed him to get more out of Hock.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I remember IL saying that while Hock was banned from playing Wigan had retained his playing registration so once his ban has been served we have first refusal on offering him a new playing contract. Is this right or am I making things up?

I heard that last week

great punisment for druggies i see

Expecially when it happens at Wigan, eh?

Grow up, you Leyth cliche.

Yea, i posted it a few week ago, he has signed a new deal, no question, just not sure how long for.

I guess losing an estimated £300K - £500K isn't a punishment then?

That's quite a wide estimate margin. Do you fit windows?

From what Iv been told he has all but signed a 4 year deal when he returns, taking into consideration he keeps himself fit and focused to coming back fitter and better than ever. Hes currently training harder than he ever has and is really lean. Look forward to seeing him back

With the strength in our backrow and it is long term strength, I think as I have said on many times Hock needs to be brought back as a Prop. We have an ageing frontrow and Hock is currently in the position where he has an opportunity to have the best off season ever, namely 2 years of getting into the shape of his life.

As I understand it he has/is being bulked and he continues to do so. Physically he should be in the shape of his life when he returns and have more power than we have ever seen from him in the past, considerably so. What will be lacking will be his skills and the time it takes to get up to speed on that score will affect his return.

I personally think we could have a monster on our hands when he returns and as a Prop he could stick to the basics and still be a devastating player. I feel we will retain the services of Fielden, Coley and Feka on 1 year deals at the end on 2010, and perhaps bring in an overseas Prop. When Hock returns in 2011 he could form part of a formidable pack and float between Front row and Prop then move forward permanently in 2012 to replace Fielden or Coley long term.

It may sound daft but i feel his suspension could be the best thing to happen to him regards reaching his potential. I feel he was floating along and not looking ever likely to reach his potential IF he learns his lesson I feel he could kick on to become a World Class player, that he seemed capable of once being as a junior, but in truth never looked likely pre ban.

That's an estimate of losing his salary for two years circa £130K p.a. and a reduced contract if and when he returns.

His first year is about a 3rd of what he was on and thats before he was going to get his raise at the end of that season so its quite close.

You're an idiot

I was under the impression he could not sign for any club until his ban was up.

As to the length of any deal he may sign rumours four or five year deals are way OTT IMO because as others have posted we have no idea what sort of form he will have when he returns and for that matter we don't know how well whoever else is in the team at that time will be playing.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility he will be surplus to requirements and so for Wigan to commit to a four or five year deal [inow[/i is IMO completely stupid.

If he comes back at all for me it would be on a "pay as you play" deal for a season to see how he went. At best I'd give him a 12 month deal with options in the clubs favour for longer. But a straight four or five year deal? I can't believe IL would take such risky action.

Dave

Definatly at least 4 years if my memory serves me right on less than a 3rd he was on.

I can understand the club putting a long term deal on the table for Hock if they think it means they'll get him for peanuts. To have a player of his ability back on much reduced terms will be superb.

He just needs to keep behaving himself and keep proving to the club that he's doing that.

I hope everything works out.

But you are assuming he will still have the ability and ignoring what else may have happened to the side by then. As I said he may be surplus to requirements.

What happens if he isn't the player he once was and we end up stuck with him for four of five years? We have had enough of that sort of thing already IMO.

Dave

I said the club can have a long term deal on the table but that doesn't mean it will or can be signed until is ban is finished anyway. If come July next year we don't need him then it's the clubs right to pull that deal and leave him to find a new club.

Something drastic will have to happen in our playing staff for us not to want to sign up a player of Hocks abilities for a minimul salary though. If things don't work out because he's not the player he once was then fair enough but I very much doubt that will be the case. He should be wiser and by all accounts is fitter then ever and you don't lose natural abilty. He'll still only be 27 when his ban's finished aswell so he'll have time on his side.

exactaly my thoughts too

Id have give Flanagan a 5 year deal over Hock.

Flanagan wouldn't get near the present Wigan side.
He would be behind Bailey, O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop and Joel Tomkins.
Then there is Liam Farrell

I can see Hock coming back as a prop forward.
Bailey will have gone and we will still have O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop ,Joel Tomkins and Liam Farrell.

No doubt at least one more talented back row forward will also emerge from the junior sides.

he is already contracted in aus for 2 years dont think he will be in any big rush to come back

Flanagan's on the bench for Wests this weekend. I hope he really comes on there.

Re Hock, I hope he keeps as fit as he can and comes back desperate to play again, as physically he's a tremendous second rower.

Thats the thing.

A half ars*d and unprofessional Hock was a physical freak and probably the biggest handful in backrow terms in superleague. If he was that before with those problems this lad could be anything if he's learned a few lessons and starts to concentrate fully on carving out a good rugbyleague career for himself.

Thats why I can't understand a few people questioning him coming back. He's been an idiot no doubt about it but aslong as theres a promise there to not do it again and to prove he's behaving himself on a regular basis we simply can't turn this lad away.

But why must it be a long term deal no matter when he signs it (if he does)?

I can't think of a valid reason to give a player coming off a two year ban a four or five year deal.



If we can sign him on a minimal salary for 12 months with an option in the clubs favour (and not his) for future years fair enough (ignoring the moral aspects). What I just do not get is offering a four or five year deal to him without such options after what he has done and how long he will have been out of the game.

The idea we would offer any player in his situation a five year deal even if on peanuts seems insane to me.

Some people seem to think getting him on the cheap for a full five years is a good deal. Well how long do you think the novelty of playing for Wigan again would last before he got fed up of his peanuts salary?

Contracts are not unbreakable so if he came back as some awesome monster and we paid him next to nothing he's be mad not to want out. So all this talk of getting him on the cheap is not very constructive IMO. If he's worth the money,pay him the wage but the only way to find out if he is, is to give him a short term deal with options.

Dave