Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 pm  

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.

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:10 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

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.

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

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:28 pm  

DaveO wrote:

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.

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:59 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

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 finished aswell as he'll have time on his side.

exactaly my thoughts too

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:06 pm  

Id have give Flanagan a 5 year deal over Hock.

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:05 pm  

AJ wrote:

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.

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:18 pm  

AJ wrote:

Id have give Flanagan a 5 year deal over Hock.

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

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:13 pm  

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.

Re: hock tested. : Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:30 pm  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

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.

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:19 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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