: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:34 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

No.

You've got him worried now. He'll be begging next.

[DaveO]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:36 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

If he is guilty he will have to take the punishment. After that as far as I am concerned he could come back into the Wigan team with no questions asked, and no explanation necessary.

I think to take him back as a player the club would be asking a lot of questions and seeking a lot of assurances. They would be stupid not to.

The question is can he do it? Will he want to?

No idea but I think what people are forgetting when discussing the possibility of him rejoining the team in two years is - the rest of the team! In two years time we will have hopefully seen the progression of some of the young forwards people rave about. If we have, why should they stand aside for Hock?

He will be after all have been a player who was banned for two years for doing Cocaine whereas these lads will have spent those two years establishing themselves in the 1st team. I don't quite see them having to possibly move aside for him as sending the right message.

Whether sending the right message is an issue or not one thing is for sure and that is the team will have moved on and so he may well find himself in a position where Wigan would rather put any wage he would get (however small he could then command) towards other players.

Dave

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:39 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

:lol:

To quote you in an earlier post:
.

the reason why I put silly boy is unless you sold em the gear or you were in the room doing it with the plays you think you have the dirt on it's all he said she said and hear say! Basically rugby league BS!!

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:41 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think to take him back as a player the club would be asking a lot of questions and seeking a lot of assurances. They would be stupid not to.

No idea but I think what people are forgetting when discussing the possibility of him rejoining the team in two years is - the rest of the team! In two years time we will have hopefully seen the progression of some of the young forwards people rave about. If we have, why should they stand aside for Hock?

He will be after all have been a player who was banned for two years for doing Cocaine whereas these lads will have spent those two years establishing themselves in the 1st team. I don't quite see them having to possibly move aside for him as sending the right message.

Whether sending the right message is an issue or not one thing is for sure and that is the team will have moved on and so he may well find himself in a position where Wigan would rather put any wage he would get (however small he could then command) towards other players.

Dave

I think you're right.

Sadly, my personal view is that Hock is very possibly finished. The way SL seems to move on in leaps and bounds these days could see him left too far behind. Not only will be be two years older, he'll be two years more inexperienced, and, unless he's very disciplined with his fitness, two years behind the rest of the team physically.

I think Wigan should do what they can, legally of course, to keep him onside. But in truth it's difficult to see how they give him any firm guarantees about what may happen in two years' time.

Let's hope this example is not lost on other players who may indulge in nose whiskey. Gareth has basically ruined a very, very promising career.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:44 pm  

sgtwilko wrote:

the reason why I put silly boy is unless you sold em the gear or you were in the room doing it with the plays you think you have the dirt on it's all he said she said and hear say! Basically rugby league BS!!

Oh is it BS again because I won't tell you - bless.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:44 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

:lol: You've got him worried now. He'll be begging next.

Im not as worried as gas hock and family about his future!

The reason why he won't give the names through a pm is because he is a bull $hitter!

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:46 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

Oh is it BS again because I won't tell you - bless.

In a word yes

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:48 pm  

I think sgtwilko's dummy may have made it over to Wigan it was such a big spit. Can someone send it back over, thanks.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:49 pm  

DaveO wrote:

No idea but I think what people are forgetting when discussing the possibility of him rejoining the team in two years is - the rest of the team! In two years time we will have hopefully seen the progression of some of the young forwards people rave about. If we have, why should they stand aside for Hock?

He will be after all have been a player who was banned for two years for doing Cocaine whereas these lads will have spent those two years establishing themselves in the 1st team. I don't quite see them having to possibly move aside for him as sending the right message.
Dave

Good point tbh.

I think it would have to be looked at in two years time. If his two years where up right now, and I was in charge, I would test him fitness wise (with the view it is up to him to be fit enough, I'm not going to give him a contract if we have to get him up to fitness) then give him a reserves contract for a year or let him go based on that. He then has to prove himself all over agian. If he is a different player after the year and isn't up to it, then its a small wage on a player who we all know has the ability to win us games, if he can return to where he was two years ago.

I think thats how I would deal with it.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:50 pm  

sgtwilko wrote:

Im not as worried as gas hock and family about his future!

Get your consolation any way you can.