Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:05 pm  

[quote="Pemps"]Is it?

Anyway, we can't sign someone who's serving a ban fro a drugs offence. Not allowed by WADA or the RFL.

quote]

Incorrect ! We cant sign him as a 'player', but can we not sign him as a ticket seller/kitman/water carrier etc ? for 2 yrs, then add him to the playing register for the remaining 3 yrs [IF TRUE]

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:07 pm  

cadoo wrote: http://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/wigan/?s=Viewtopic&o=616147 I don't believe it. I think it's a very good wind up. The poster is not a wind up merchant but I'd be surprised if the rules allowed it. Mind you if he is still technically contracted to Wigan but not doing any RL or club related stuff as per the WADA rules I don't see why they could not extend his controct. I had a look at the WADA rules and can't recall anything about contracts. It was all about not being able to participate in sport which is different. Dave

cadoo wrote: http://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/wigan/?s=Viewtopic&o=616147 I don't believe it. I think it's a very good wind up. The poster is not a wind up merchant but I'd be surprised if the rules allowed it. Mind you if he is still technically contracted to Wigan but not doing any RL or club related stuff as per the WADA rules I don't see why they could not extend his controct. I had a look at the WADA rules and can't recall anything about contracts. It was all about not being able to participate in sport which is different. Dave

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:09 pm  

TheSurgeon wrote:

Incorrect ! We cant sign him as a 'player', but can we not sign him as a ticket seller/kitman/water carrier etc ? for 2 yrs, then add him to the playing register for the remaining 3 yrs [IF TRUE]

We can't sign him for any of those jobs either. Those are the rules. No involvement with the club at all.

The way I read the original rumour on the other site was the five year deal started at the end of his ban.

Dave

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:22 pm  

for those worried about the young second row forwards i would not be. I think Hock is almost certain to return as a Prop. I would not be surprised to see us let both Coley and Fielden go at the end of the season and only bring in 1 Prop start 2011 with Feka, New Prop, Prescott, O'Carroll, Mossop, and Davies as Frontrow options for the first half of the year, with Hock coming in mid season to add to our options.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:32 am  

jonh wrote:

for those worried about the young second row forwards i would not be. I think Hock is almost certain to return as a Prop. I would not be surprised to see us let both Coley and Fielden go at the end of the season and only bring in 1 Prop start 2011 with Feka, New Prop, Prescott, O'Carroll, Mossop, and Davies as Frontrow options for the first half of the year, with Hock coming in mid season to add to our options.

Fully agree, Hock is another Peacock type prop

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:45 pm  

DaveO wrote:

We can't sign him for any of those jobs either. Those are the rules. No involvement with the club at all.

The way I read the original rumour on the other site was the five year deal started at the end of his ban.

Dave

So would you be happy with this, or not?

You don't sound too happy on the other message board, which is a surprise given that you've been pushing for this situation to be resolved one way or the other.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:14 pm  

Question for jonh. Bradford have just signed Geoff Evans as head of strength and conditioning, and I'm just wondering with your knowledge in this area whether you've ever heard of the guy. Reading the link below he does seem to have a pretty good resume. http://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=16225

Question for jonh. Bradford have just signed Geoff Evans as head of strength and conditioning, and I'm just wondering with your knowledge in this area whether you've ever heard of the guy. Reading the link below he does seem to have a pretty good resume. http://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=16225

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:25 pm  

LondonRobster wrote:

Fully agree, Hock is another Peacock type prop

I never quite get it when people compare Hock to say a Peacock or a Morley in terms of him moving from second row to prop. IMO he's never been a second rower like either of those 2 were in that he doesn't put in the defensive graft either of those 2 do and he's more of an impact ball player then those 2 were in the position. They were top candidates to move upto prop from second row because they did alot of the things props do from that position.

Hock would really have to up his defensive workrate imo if he ever wanted to move up into that position. He's capable of doing that especially if his ban has given him a kick up the backside but i don't see him as a natural progresser to prop forward.

Mossop on the other hand.......

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:52 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

So would you be happy with this, or not?

You don't sound too happy on the other message board, which is a surprise given that you've been pushing for this situation to be resolved one way or the other.

What has wanting the club to make a decision got to do with being happy or not with what that decision is?

As previously stated in this thread never mind the other message board I think it is premature to be giving him a contract now and despite people saying he will be a prop and not a back rower we still don't know what the situation with the team or him will be 18 months down the line.

There is also no guarantee he will regain his previous form so a contract of five years for a player out for 18 months due to being banned for drug use seems an odd way to go about things to me. If the club want to give him a contract it ought to be one year with an option in the clubs favour for more years if things work out. If that isn't good enough for him I'd let him leave because it's him who owes the club and supporters not the other way around.

It may be that way once the official announcement is made but if he does get a straight five year deal I think that would be a mistake. It sends a message that if you are good enough you can do drugs, get banned and get rewarded with a five year contract . IMO he needs to prove himself worthy of such security of employment which is offered rarely to players not just get handed it on a plate if he keeps clean and fit for another 18 months.

We only have Sam on such a long term deal and he got it for the right reasons which I don't see applying to Hock at the moment.

Dave

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:05 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What has wanting the club to make a decision got to do with being happy or not with what that decision is?

As previously stated in this thread never mind the other message board I think it is premature to be giving him a contract now and despite people saying he will be a prop and not a back rower we still don't know what the situation with the team or him will be 18 months down the line.

There is also no guarantee he will regain his previous form so a contract of five years for a player out for 18 months due to being banned for drug use seems an odd way to go about things to me. If the club want to give him a contract it ought to be one year with an option in the clubs favour for more years if things work out. If that isn't good enough for him I'd let him leave because it's him who owes the club and supporters not the other way around.

It may be that way once the official announcement is made but if he does get a straight five year deal I think that would be a mistake. It sends a message that if you are good enough you can do drugs, get banned and get rewarded with a five year contract . IMO he needs to prove himself worthy of such security of employment which is offered rarely to players not just get handed it on a plate if he keeps clean and fit for another 18 months.

We only have Sam on such a long term deal and he got it for the right reasons which I don't see applying to Hock at the moment.

Dave

This list of concerns is pretty well the same list of concerns I gave you when you were demanding to know why the club hadn't sorted something out quickly.

I said myself that it was difficult to make a firm decision on this sort of thing when there are so many potential problems, and when the comeback date is still two years in the future. Presumably the club have now taken the necessary time to look at the situation from every angle and take all the required legal and medical advice, and I'm guessing that whatever agreement they reach with Hock will contain the sorts of provisos that IL has put into other recent contracts. Surely we've learned by now that it won't be anything like as simple as "Hock has been rewarded with a five-year deal".

Whatever your moral reservations about hiring someone who got fired for being on drugs - which you're perfectly entitled to hold - I feel that Hock signing for Saints or Warrington (because they were quicker to forgive him than we were, or, more likely, because they offered him better terms) would create a storm of annoyance among Wigan fans, not just on this board but among Wigan fans far and wide.

I haven't seen the deal yet, if indeed it exists, but I'd sooner we got Hock back than he went somewhere else, and that really is the bottom line.