Loved him at Wigan, and i assume most people know the reason we got shut, and wouldnt hold a grudge against the lad - Wigan were put in a dodgy position and i wish him all the best

Wigan have not "paid him off", they have terminated his contract.

We should have done a swap deal if he was just gonna sign for another club so much for sorting himself out I think lenegan has bo@@ocks this one up from all aspects

you know this how?

Meow.

i am not aware of why, i know the rumors but nothing thats accurate

£140k + Mathers (according to my reading of Wigan's published accounts)

Or been taken for a ride by Gleeson. Either way it leaves a bad taste. We've basically given him a free transfer to Hull without having a replacement lined up.

cant help but feel screwed over in this

no matter which way you look at this wigan have lost out. were they aware he would sign for another SL club so soon after mutually terminating his contract at wigan (if it was mutual) and if so surely wigan should have taken some sort of benefit from it but by the sounds of things we haven't.

bit gutted really. since gleeson has been out of the side we have struggled defensively on the whole due to the constant rotation of playing staff IMO.

seems a little double standards to me, making gleeson leave but signing hock back up, both different personal lives and reasons for their respective controversies obviously but on the whole both with their own personal demons. why get rid of one who can play now but "keep" hold of one who can't yet play?

good signing for hull IMO despite what he may be dealing with off the pitch. i don't think pairing him up with longy etc again will have any bearing whatsoever. if they are mates outside of rugby anyway then it will make no difference whether they are in the same team or not.

Its not really double standards though is it? Hock had ONE moment of idiocy that cost him two years of his lucrative career. Gleeson had at least 3 moments of idiocy that cost him his contract at the most famous club in the world. Hock i, in I think most fan's eyes, not as bad as Gleeson because he only did 1 thing wrong and it cost him more than it did Gleeson for his multiple idiotic moments.

didn't necessarily mean to compare their respective incidents as it were, more to the point of getting rid of gleeson who we could have kept hold of and used while on the other hand gaz hock has been of no use to wigan while serving his ban. glesson hasn't been banned for this. we've just got rid, which is why i feel we have lost out in the gleeson issue whereas we haven't gained anything while gaz has been banned.

basically what i'm saying is if gleeson is good enough to play for hull then why did wigan get rid. his circumstances haven't changed and he will still have his problems but hull have decided to risk it whereas wigan have lost out on probably one of our top two defensive players, certainly centres. the results since he has been ommitted fromthe team are evident.

Well worth the price of a title win.

When was your last BTW?