Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:01 pm  

Pemps wrote:

Read my post again.

I've not said we shouldn't re-sign him. I've said we should look at signing him after his ban. We CAN'T sign him at the moment, he's banned from the game.

I Know my post wasnt aimed at you really just at anyone who says its a stupid move. I agree with the fact we cant sign him at the moment but we can still sign him from 2011 onwards cant we? Get there before anyone else does.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:03 pm  

any club would be insane to offer a 5 year deal to a player in his late 20's who wont have played the game for 2 years. there would have to be that many condititions and get out clauses in it, it wouldnt be worth the paper it is written on.

[Pemps]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:07 pm  

Mother Feka wrote:

I Know my post wasnt aimed at you really just at anyone who says its a stupid move. I agree with the fact we cant sign him at the moment but we can still sign him from 2011 onwards cant we? Get there before anyone else does.

I think his ban will expire midseason 2011. As I've said in the post above yours, I would hope that he'll give us first refusal on any contract. I can't see clubs clamouring over each other to offer him a big money deal (2 years out is a very long time for such a physical sport) so we should get first dibs. Hopefully the fact that the club has looked after him on a couple of occasions should hold some water with him and his advisors.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:12 pm  

5 year deal starting now or at the end of the ban?

Either way,, great news

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:21 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

any club would be insane to offer a 5 year deal to a player in his late 20's who wont have played the game for 2 years. there would have to be that many condititions and get out clauses in it, it wouldnt be worth the paper it is written on.

My thoughts upon hearing the news and knowing Lenagan you can be sure there will be.

I know Gareth physically is keeping in great shape. Mentally, I'm told (but I don't know myself admittedly) that his attitude has been the right one since the ban and the club are impressed with his response.

The bottom line is Gareth on his day is the very best in his position in this Super League.

The legalities etc of what sort of contract it is due to the ban if it is indeed an actual contract is something I'd be interested in knowing.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:35 pm  

like someone said if we dont sign him someone else will. Just imagine Hock tormenting our defence

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:50 pm  

As long as the legalities are ok then it's a very good move by the club.
Hock is an excellent player and if we didn't sign him there would be plenty others who would.
At the end of the two year ban Gareth Hock would get a club, I'm glad he's staying with us.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:53 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I'm not saying we shouldn't re-sign him but I'd imagine we'd have a good look at him and assess the situation when his ban is served.

Exactly. Who knows how the back row forwards at the club will be performing at the time his ban is up. We might not need him and signing a player still banned for 18 months on a five year deal sends the wrong message to players at the club IMO. Such a long contract might be construed to mean he will walk back into the side. Even if that is not the case the club can't predict the future, either Hock's or other players at the club so this just seems premature.

Assess the situation when his ban is up, take all things into account and if the club then felt he was needed then no problem.

Dave

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:59 pm  

Straight from an excited and made up Mr Hock himself this morning, he was over the moon that his future is now settled, bless him. He is boxing every day to keep his fitness, its not a rumour but a fact. http://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/wigan/?s=Viewtopic&o=616147 I don't believe it. I think it's a very good wind up. Would this be plausible - Hock signed a three year contract extension in 2008 (till 2011) - has he just been given 2 years added on to that? At least this has got the rumour thread going again

Straight from an excited and made up Mr Hock himself this morning, he was over the moon that his future is now settled, bless him. He is boxing every day to keep his fitness, its not a rumour but a fact. http://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/wigan/?s=Viewtopic&o=616147 I don't believe it. I think it's a very good wind up. Would this be plausible - Hock signed a three year contract extension in 2008 (till 2011) - has he just been given 2 years added on to that? At least this has got the rumour thread going again

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:03 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

As long as the legalities are ok then it's a very good move by the club.
Hock is an excellent player and if we didn't sign him there would be plenty others who would.
At the end of the two year ban Gareth Hock would get a club, I'm glad he's staying with us.

What about the other players at the club?

What happens if the likes of J Tomkins, Mossop or Farrell are ripping up SL in 18 months time?

In those circumstances would you replace them by a player who hasn't played for two years?

What guarantees are there no matter what his own personal training regime is or what his attitude is, that Hock will be able to regain his past form?

Even if it is within the rules to re-sign him now it is premature IMO. The team comes first and Hock should only be taken back on if in 18 months time (not now) when all things are considered about what the team needs it's deemed a good idea to sign him up.

If he would not wait that long and show any loyalty to the club, then let him leave. If he did wait and the club then said "no thanks, you are no needed" he would still find a club I am sure so given what he has done I don't think asking him to wait to see if he is needed is unreasonable.

Dave