Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:35 pm  

thepimp007 wrote:

Chuffed Wigan are standing by and trying to help him. If he can't get it right at Wigan he won't anywhere

Yep. With their record of players doing the right thing he couldn’t be anywhere better!

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:45 pm  

JWarriors wrote:

Absolutely gutted with this decision. We got rid of Joel Tomkins didn’t we? Double standards here.

We should be getting rid of him. It’s making a mockery saying he was on the last chance saloon when we signed him, then giving him another chance after that.

This will only go one way.

Sadly I think you are right.
Basically you are doing what we did at Leeds.
You are keeping him because he will be the difference in getting you the win as opposed to you losing.
JT couldn`t do that.
If he was crap at Leeds we would have shown him the door many times over not only for all his publicised wrong doings. But for all the other things he got up to such as not turning up to training or training whilst still under the influence.
I really do hope you can get the best out of him as there`s a flipping good player in there.

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:50 pm  

JWarriors wrote: Absolutely gutted with this decision. We got rid of Joel Tomkins didn’t we? Double standards here. We should be getting rid of him. It’s making a mockery saying he was on the last chance saloon when we signed him, then giving him another chance after that. This will only go one way. I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?

JWarriors wrote: Absolutely gutted with this decision. We got rid of Joel Tomkins didn’t we? Double standards here. We should be getting rid of him. It’s making a mockery saying he was on the last chance saloon when we signed him, then giving him another chance after that. This will only go one way. I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:21 pm  

The Biffs Back wrote: I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions? I 100% agree with Lenners decisions. He got rid of two overrated and overpaid deadbeats for free and is keeping hold of when in form the best no 1 in Super League. I think it's called management, and Lenners is one of the best in that business. If it goes pear-shaped at the rehab or after we can just sack him no trouble, we already have two players that can comfortably cover fullback so it's not really that much of a gamble TBH.

The Biffs Back wrote: I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions? I 100% agree with Lenners decisions. He got rid of two overrated and overpaid deadbeats for free and is keeping hold of when in form the best no 1 in Super League. I think it's called management, and Lenners is one of the best in that business. If it goes pear-shaped at the rehab or after we can just sack him no trouble, we already have two players that can comfortably cover fullback so it's not really that much of a gamble TBH.

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:23 pm  

Yes I'm OK with the way it is being handled.
Zak has a problem with alcohol which obviously he has now admitted to himself.
Only known two people with the same problem. One a lady who drank a half bottle of gin prior breakfast and a bottle of whisky before lunch. She went for rehab became tt and is leading a full and rewarding life. The other a bloke who always said drink would never get the better of him and refused help offered. His funeral was very sad, as they all are.
Zak could come back having ditched the booze and become the better player and better person he mentions in his statement.
I certainly do hope he does for mainly his benefit but also the club's who have shown a duty of care to an employee and given him the best chance he can have to overcome his problem.
Well done IL and Rads and good luck to Zak Hardaker.

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:33 pm  

Tick Tick TICK

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:15 pm  

Only time will tell whether this turns out to be the correct decision or not.

To answer Biffs question, absolutely, playing ability has a lot to do with whether a club sticks by a player or not. Sean Long at St Helens is a classic example of that.

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:34 pm  

The Biffs Back wrote: I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions? not entirely true

The Biffs Back wrote: I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions? not entirely true

[DaveO]

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:32 pm  

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

I 100% agree with Lenners decisions.

He got rid of two overrated and overpaid deadbeats for free and is keeping hold of when in form the best no 1 in Super League.

I think it's called management, and Lenners is one of the best in that business.

If it goes pear-shaped at the rehab or after we can just sack him no trouble, we already have two players that can comfortably cover fullback so it's not really that much of a gamble TBH.

I think it's called hypocrisy. Using duty of care as the excuse (and that it what it is) to retain Hardaker has left IL open to that charge given how the club treated Joel Tomkins. Applying different rules for different people is also not good management and inspires mistrust not loyalty. I expect the club to behave consistently, not selectively regardless of whether or not the player in question is deemed good or at the end of his career or whatever. It bins off a player who had played 237 games for the club on his first offence of being under the influence and behaving like a prize idiot (to put it mildly) and made no attempt to adopt a duty of care with him. No second chance for JT yet it rolls out the red carpet for a player that has been a serial offender who has never played a game for the club citing duty of care as the excuse. It owes Hardaker no loyalty whatsoever. The fact it has got two ready made replacements is every reason to walk away. Yes we'd probably be worse off as a team if Hardaker can find his old form but it's so transparently obvious what is going on here it puts IL and the club in a bad light. If Mo Lindsay had done this, the forum would be in meltdown.

Re: ZAK : Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:43 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think it's called hypocrisy. Using duty of care as the excuse (and that it what it is) to retain Hardaker has left IL open to that charge given how the club treated Joel Tomkins. Applying different rules for different people is also not good management and inspires mistrust not loyalty. I expect the club to behave consistently, not selectively regardless of whether or not the player in question is deemed good or at the end of his career or whatever. It bins off a player who had played 237 games for the club on his first offence of being under the influence and behaving like a prize idiot (to put it mildly) and made no attempt to adopt a duty of care with him. No second chance for JT yet it rolls out the red carpet for a player that has been a serial offender who has never played a game for the club citing duty of care as the excuse. It owes Hardaker no loyalty whatsoever. The fact it has got two ready made replacements is every reason to walk away. Yes we'd probably be worse off as a team if Hardaker can find his old form but it's so transparently obvious what is going on here it puts IL and the club in a bad light. If Mo Lindsay had done this, the forum would be in meltdown.

Disagree completely!!

Where has the club rolled out the red carpet?

Sent a player to residential rehab, without doubt, the conditions of this is sort your alcohol abuse or bye -bye.

JT was filmed abusing Wigan people in a Wigan pub, slagging off Wiganers, his career at the club was untenable.

Your dislike for Lenners is well known, and the fact you mention Mo is laughable.

Check Wigans record under Lenners, pretty good reading for me, the best chairman we've ever had!!