Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:21 pm  

St pete wrote:

Hock told Wane he didnt want to play for Wigan.

That I doubt. Had he in fact said that, Wigan would have been within their legal rights to fire him. I've heard a few different versions of what happened, the most common being a clash between Wane and Hock. But whatever the truth of the matter is (and it won't be Hock refusing to play), he was binned by Wigan while being one of their most valued players.

Longy was a nobody when Wigan binned him. In fact Wigan give him many chances before they actually binned him. The last one being a pretty bad one to be honest.

They still binned him. And from what fans around at the time said, he was recognised as being a real talent by Wigan.

We gave Scott Moore a couple of chances didn't we? Now he had a drinking problem, which is a real problem when you consider the risks on a rugby pitch to self and to others. Yet we bin off Gaskell who hasn't done anything like that apparently (if indeed he has done anything other than been born with a face that doesn't make Mike Rush happy). The decision to let Gaskell go given our circumstances still looks as dumb now as it did when it was made.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:22 pm  

St pete wrote:

Hock told Wane he didnt want to play for Wigan.

Longy was a nobody when Wigan binned him. In fact Wigan give him many chances before they actually binned him. The last one being a pretty bad one to be honest.

She just proved the point the rest of us were making by using the Longy example. If she'd been watching Rugby more than 5 minutes she'd also know Wigan tolerated characters like Hanley many years before because just like Longy at Saints he was special.

The Hock example is another appallingly bad one given they gave him a brand new contract and supported him after he'd been caught sniffing coke If he was a kid like Gaskell he'd have been booted out of the club in a microsecond.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:26 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

She just proved the point the rest of us were making by using the Longy example. If she'd been watching Rugby more than 5 minutes she'd also know Wigan tolerated characters like Hanley many years before because just like Longy at Saints he was special.

The Hock example is another appallingly bad one given they gave him a brand new contract and supported him after he'd been caught sniffing coke If he was a kid like Gaskell he'd have been booted out of the club in a microsecond.

Yep, players like joe "the beast" lydon

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:27 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That I doubt. Had he in fact said that, Wigan would have been within their legal rights to fire him. I've heard a few different versions of what happened, the most common being a clash between Wane and Hock. But whatever the truth of the matter is (and it won't be Hock refusing to play), he was binned by Wigan while being one of their most valued players.

They still binned him. And from what fans around at the time said, he was recognised as being a real talent by Wigan.

We gave Scott Moore a couple of chances didn't we? Now he had a drinking problem, which is a real problem when you consider the risks on a rugby pitch to self and to others. Yet we bin off Gaskell who hasn't done anything like that apparently (if indeed he has done anything other than been born with a face that doesn't make Mike Rush happy). The decision to let Gaskell go given our circumstances still looks as dumb now as it did when it was made.

God your naive, or maybe dumb. Why would wigan fire an asset they could command a fee for ???

This is the real world and not everyone is equal or treated equally , in sport if your a world class talent you are a world class asset and are treated as such. If your a novice and you misbehave you get the boot.

Moore had talent but had problems, Saints gave him a chance and then he was released. How do you know Gaskel hasn't repeatedly broken club rules? The answer is you dont.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:28 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That I doubt. Had he in fact said that, Wigan would have been within their legal rights to fire him. I've heard a few different versions of what happened, the most common being a clash between Wane and Hock. But whatever the truth of the matter is (and it won't be Hock refusing to play), he was binned by Wigan while being one of their most valued players.

They still binned him. And from what fans around at the time said, he was recognised as being a real talent by Wigan.

We gave Scott Moore a couple of chances didn't we? Now he had a drinking problem, which is a real problem when you consider the risks on a rugby pitch to self and to others. Yet we bin off Gaskell who hasn't done anything like that apparently (if indeed he has done anything other than been born with a face that doesn't make Mike Rush happy). The decision to let Gaskell go given our circumstances still looks as dumb now as it did when it was made.

You think Wigan would sack a player they stood by for 2 years after drug ban, then give him a new deal and the fact he's one of the best players in super league (on his day world class) leave the club for nothing?

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:33 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

We gave Scott Moore a couple of chances didn't we? Now he had a drinking problem, .

For every pint Scott Moore's drunk I bet Garry Connolly's had about 10 yet the goons stuck by him as yet again he was world class. Exceptions are made for world class talent .

Oh and on Longy at wigan , he had also had a bad knee injury which had taken away some of his pace so a cynic might have suggested that given they had other players in his position , more in reserve and he had a question mark over his physical well being his naughtyness may have been a convenient way to ship him off the wage bill (and get Lee Hansen LMAO)

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:34 pm  

St pete wrote:

You think Wigan would sack a player they stood by for 2 years after drug ban, then give him a new deal and the fact he's one of the best players in super league (on his day world class) leave the club for nothing?

like I said naive

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:44 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

That I doubt. Had he in fact said that, Wigan would have been within their legal rights to fire him. I've heard a few different versions of what happened, the most common being a clash between Wane and Hock. But whatever the truth of the matter is (and it won't be Hock refusing to play), he was binned by Wigan while being one of their most valued players.

If they fired him they'd have the legal costs to pay for the subsequent tribunal and wouldn't be able to get a fee for him.

We gave Scott Moore a couple of chances didn't we? Now he had a drinking problem, which is a real problem when you consider the risks on a rugby pitch to self and to others. Yet we bin off Gaskell who hasn't done anything like that apparently (if indeed he has done anything other than been born with a face that doesn't make Mike Rush happy). The decision to let Gaskell go given our circumstances still looks as dumb now as it did when it was made.

Scott Moore was released as soon as his behaviour off the field stopped being counterbalanced by his performances on it, by either his off field behaviour getting worse or his worth on the pitch decreasing. I don't know which. We binned Ellis for the same reason.

In reality no one on here really knows what has gone on behind the scenes in regard to Gaskell, yet you are quite willing to accept that it isn't his fault and is all down to Rush. Why is that?

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:51 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

If they fired him they'd have the legal costs to pay for the subsequent tribunal and wouldn't be able to get a fee for him.

Scott Moore was released as soon as his behaviour off the field stopped being counterbalanced by his performances on it, by either his off field behaviour getting worse or his worth on the pitch decreasing. I don't know which. We binned Ellis for the same reason.

In reality no one on here really knows what has gone on behind the scenes in regard to Gaskell, yet you are quite willing to accept that it isn't his fault and is all down to Rush. Why is that?

I know Scotty very very well. He's had more chances than I can remember (more than people will ever know) and still messed up pretty bad with his last one but McManus still stuck by him and kept him until the end of the year after tell Scott he can find another club.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:13 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

If they fired him they'd have the legal costs to pay for the subsequent tribunal and wouldn't be able to get a fee for him.

I doubt it would get to tribunal. If an employee refuses to do the work for which they are contracted then disciplinary proceedings begin. If the employee continues to be in breach of their contract in this way then dismissal would be both inevitable and justified.

Scott Moore was released as soon as his behaviour off the field stopped being counterbalanced by his performances on it, by either his off field behaviour getting worse or his worth on the pitch decreasing. I don't know which. We binned Ellis for the same reason.

No idea about Ellis but Moore's form was fine when he was binned.

In reality no one on here really knows what has gone on behind the scenes in regard to Gaskell, yet you are quite willing to accept that it isn't his fault and is all down to Rush. Why is that?

I'm just joining in the speculation. It's ok for everyone else to do that, why not me?