Re: ZAK : Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:22 am  

Returnee wrote:

The individuals health and well being over anything else. You sure about that?

‘We have thought long and hard about what the correct thing to do is for Wigan’.

I don’t doubt that’s what they want folk to believe; they just forgot to tell the bloke writing the script!

The correct thing for Wigan has to be looked at in more detail than just what ZH can offer as a player. There’s a significant reputational risk to the club either way. If they sacked him and he imploded and in the worst case scenario followed the Terry Newton path, the club would be heavily criticised for not placing his welfare at the forefront of their decision making. By keeping him on there’s an element of fans from both inside and outside of the club who think he’ll let the club down again and that the club are condoning all his misdemeanours.

By sending him to residential rehab, the club has acted very responsibly. He addresses his issues from a welfare perspective and has the best possible chance of rebuilding his life and his career. He is more inclined to feel a commitment to the club in return for their support and hopefully will deliver on the field.
In addition any player who is considering joining the club will clearly see that welfare is important to the management team.
All in all the club were in a very difficult position and in considering what’s correct for the club, they have managed the situation perfectly. Demonstrated a real focus on welfare, minimised reputational risk and retained a very good player.
Let’s not forget that as well as being rugby players, these are also just people and sometimes, people need to be put first.

Re: ZAK : Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:18 pm  

Bigredwarrior wrote:

Returnee wrote:

The individuals health and well being over anything else. You sure about that?

‘We have thought long and hard about what the correct thing to do is for Wigan’.

I don’t doubt that’s what they want folk to believe; they just forgot to tell the bloke writing the script!

The correct thing for Wigan has to be looked at in more detail than just what ZH can offer as a player. There’s a significant reputational risk to the club either way. If they sacked him and he imploded and in the worst case scenario followed the Terry Newton path, the club would be heavily criticised for not placing his welfare at the forefront of their decision making. By keeping him on there’s an element of fans from both inside and outside of the club who think he’ll let the club down again and that the club are condoning all his misdemeanours.

By sending him to residential rehab, the club has acted very responsibly. He addresses his issues from a welfare perspective and has the best possible chance of rebuilding his life and his career. He is more inclined to feel a commitment to the club in return for their support and hopefully will deliver on the field.
In addition any player who is considering joining the club will clearly see that welfare is important to the management team.
All in all the club were in a very difficult position and in considering what’s correct for the club, they have managed the situation perfectly. Demonstrated a real focus on welfare, minimised reputational risk and retained a very good player.
Let’s not forget that as well as being rugby players, these are also just people and sometimes, people need to be put first.

Top post.

Re: ZAK : Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:25 pm  

Ok lets be honest he's already let the club down with the drink driving conviction.

He has had support and chances at both his SL clubs and let them down.

He wasn't at Featherstone long enough to get in trouble clearly a talented player attracting the attention of a number of SL clubs and he opted for Rhinos and Rovers got some brass out of it.


A happy ending would be great for him and the game but the odds are against him, he's really starting from less than zero, unfit, overweight, possible short/long term effects of his drug and drink abuse, mental health issues,will he come back anywhere close to being SL standard? A frighteningly steep hill to climb and his track record, well no one can deny it's p@ss poor

Re: ZAK : Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:03 pm  

Whilst I agree with pretty much all Bigredwarrior says, nevertheless I am very pessimistic about outcomes. I can't see ZH being a long-term success on the field after all this. As Rick points out above.

Re: ZAK : Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:38 am  

I have to say as an outsider looking in, Wigan seem to have dealt with this matter in a very professional manner. Well done.

Hopefully, as a club, they can get Hardaker to knuckle down and toe the line.

We need our best players on the back pages not the front.

Re: ZAK : Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:02 pm  

Davc1h wrote:

I have to say as an outsider looking in, Wigan seem to have dealt with this matter in a very professional manner. Well done.

Hopefully, as a club, they can get Hardaker to knuckle down and toe the line.

We need our best players on the back pages not the front.

Hiya Zackariah good to see that it has only taken you until Tuesday to recover from your Friday night out in Pontecarlo.
You're fitness levels are obviously are on the up because you looked so ruff on Friday I thought that we wouldn't hear from you until at least the end of the week.
A bit of an update from over here in Wigan is that The Tudor pub has reopened and this should be a regular haunt for you as you can make lots of new chums there with the students from the college across the way.

Re: ZAK : Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:15 pm  

Re: ZAK : Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:28 pm  

Bigredwarrior wrote:

The correct thing for Wigan has to be looked at in more detail than just what ZH can offer as a player. There’s a significant reputational risk to the club either way. If they sacked him and he imploded and in the worst case scenario followed the Terry Newton path, the club would be heavily criticised for not placing his welfare at the forefront of their decision making. By keeping him on there’s an element of fans from both inside and outside of the club who think he’ll let the club down again and that the club are condoning all his misdemeanours.

By sending him to residential rehab, the club has acted very responsibly. He addresses his issues from a welfare perspective and has the best possible chance of rebuilding his life and his career. He is more inclined to feel a commitment to the club in return for their support and hopefully will deliver on the field.
In addition any player who is considering joining the club will clearly see that welfare is important to the management team.
All in all the club were in a very difficult position and in considering what’s correct for the club, they have managed the situation perfectly. Demonstrated a real focus on welfare, minimised reputational risk and retained a very good player.
Let’s not forget that as well as being rugby players, these are also just people and sometimes, people need to be put first.

Yet if a lesser player does something no where near as bad you fine him 10 grand, suspend him for 4 weeks and tell him to look for another club? How does that link in with your post then?

Re: ZAK : Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:48 pm  

homme vaste wrote:

Yet if a lesser player does something no where near as bad you fine him 10 grand, suspend him for 4 weeks and tell him to look for another club? How does that link in with your post then?

Well for a start Joel Tomkins hasn’t been sacked by two previous clubs and doesn’t have alcohol addiction issues. Joel just got drunk and behaved in a very stupid but uncharacteristic manner. We as fans, don’t know the exact details of what he disclosed to the club or what was said in his meetings with the management team. A ban and a fine were imposed and then a second video emerged. It appears that only after the second video went public was a decision was made to release him. It was also reported that it was a mutually agreed decision but read into that what you will.
That is a totally different set of circumstances and if you refer back to my post, I spoke about reputational risk the club.
In Joel’s scenario, the reputational risk was greater in keeping him on. Another club were happy to take him and his career carries on.
The Hardaker situation is unique and the club have acted correctly in both situations in my opinion.

Re: ZAK : Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:36 pm  

Sometimes things go on that aren't reported.