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?

Similar situation to the Sean Long scenario.
Wigan had to get rid and another team got the benefit (albeit Gleeson is in his thirties and Long was about 20).

Yeah Gareth Hock only had one moment of idiocy not like that ex-Academy player Gareth Charnock.

He did one thing wrong repeatedly over the course of several months.....

its a fine line between what Hock did and what charnock did

Gareth Charnock NEVER played for Wigan academy.

Enlighten me then because I am absolutely p!ssed that Wigan are down a top quality centre that we paid 100K for who now has a Super League contract and Hull FC have a top draw British centre.

I don't know the truth in all these dubious rumours, but on the cold hard face of it we've been screwed over.

Oh, I guess he had already "left" the club by then.

At least Gareth Hock isn't a repeat offender though Rogues?

+1

Were the only real losers from this situation IMO. The only saving grace from this being I hear Gleeson was a disruptive entity at training, and tried to lead other players down the slippery slope that he was on.