Absolutely right and who can blame him.

He’s been given a three year deal and has every right to sit on it and keep picking up his wages. He didn’t hold a gun to the clubs head to sign him. Anybody who says they’d walk away from a big contract by some moral obligation of not being able to earn their salary isn’t being honest with themselves.

It still amazes me that so many fans have the unrealistic view that you can just get rid of a player who is contracted. GB is unlikely to be offloaded unless someone else makes the same mistake that we have made, he is unlikely to want to retire until there is no chance if his recovery and there must be cap implications if he is "paid off". Until Boris changes the rules we still have some protection under employment law.

The same hip problem that everyone knew was the reason south’s wanted rid because he couldn’t train properly and was common knowledge for the past 3 years?

And then to pay him marquee? LMAO!

Who gave the go ahead to sign him? That’s what should be investigated, not his George’s hip

Yep, my point exactly.

It’s the equivalent of someone earning a great wage in a job they are not very good at and quitting (without a job to go to) because you know they could employ someone better at it than you are.....

Nobody would leave their family in the “lurch” to help their employer.


It’s not like he’s a lifelong Pie-eater......





BUT if you have a contract, your employer can’t just get rid of you. They have to adhere to the terms of your contract....








And Merry Xmas to everyone, ally or rival in this great game of ours.

Surely that cuts both ways though - if through injury he cannot fullfill his part of the contract then the club would have a right to terminate the contact, which would be unlikely it would must usually end in some kind of agreed termination/mutual ending. Not an easy situation for all concerned.

He’s still entitled to his full contract regardless of the circumstances he finds himself in now, unless he’s signed a “pay as you play” deal (which is as highly unlikely) or some kind of caveat regarding being unfit to play (Again very unlikely, it makes the contract worth nothing because anyone can get injured whilst playing)

Imagine Jackson Hastings or Bevan French saying he has a knee injury, you terminate their contract and they pop up in Australia playing for Gold Coast Titans....... Knee injury magically cured and you’ve lost out.

If Wigan have the correct insurance, it MAY cover for an injury forced retirement however as an already present injury, that’ll unlikely be an open and shut case, and as we all know insurance companies prefer NOT to pay out if they can.....

More likely is the “mutual parting” scenario in which GB will likely hold all the cards.....

Agreed but this is slightly different in that it is by all accounts a chronic injury that has been well known about (if rumours are to be believed) in which case I would imagine the club would have (or perhaps should have) some kind of clause or insurance protecting them in the event of the injury preventing him from playing- whatever it is a very unfortunate situation all round. I hope that some kind of cure or management can be found that enables him to play and reach something like his full abiklity in which case we would have a very good player - that would be the best outcome for all.

I can’t help but think that the club knew there was a risk but decided to take a gamble and perhaps something has been included in the contract which is not public knowledge in relation to his salary.

I think we will see some sort of mutual agreement at some point next season if things don’t improve significantly.

Interesting to hear he has moved out of his premises recently.

Unless your a self employed contractor like me and then your screwed, if I'm not fit or healthy to work i get zero money.
Obviously i was being a bit over simplistic but i think that stems from frustration about us being stuck with a player clearly unfit and taking up a huge chunk of the SC

Don't get me wrong, I want him off the cap too, but I don't think he's doing anything wrong.

I'm not naive enough to not know why he's sticking with his contract and not just retiring, just frustrated with the situation as i said in my previous post

IF he retires and we pay him off, does that then count against the cap?

I get the cap needs to safeguard against false situations created as a backdoor for getting rid of deadwood, but in this instance there's a major player welfare issue.

If paying him off does count against the cap, then it's almost forcing the club to keep trying different things. That's not good for GB and could seriously impact his long term health.

The club need to be able to strike a deal with him that, not only suits both parties financially, but also doesn't impact our cap spend too.

If you're going to pay him his full contract then you might as well count it and try to get something out of him to be fair. If you're trying to pay him less then there is negotiating to do, in which he holds the cards. Plus potentially the accusation of not supporting his return to work if we are trying to get him off the books rather than get him back on the pitch.

I can't help but think that there's more to this than money . Rads himself has said that this is impacting his quality of life outside of rugby, which has to be a massive worry for GB. It's all good other poster's saying "I wouldn't walk away from guaranteed money" etc, but the fact this might literally impact his ability to walk in a few years means there's more to it.

An agreement is just that too - one that both parties agree to so I can't see why there'd be any accusations.

There's probably a deal to be had there that's satisfactory to both GB and Wigan. It's just finding it & what impact that has on the cap.