Mine as well.

Now, im no employment expert, but I very much doubt you could sack someone with conditions such as a first option should he return to rugby league in 2 years.

It's a simple issue of holding a registration.

You can end someone’s contract but still hold their registration to play RL –look at Pryce and Harris for examples of this. We should at the minimum hold his registration meaning we get first refusal or a compo.

Why can't we also sign a pre contract agreement with him 2?

We could state in the pre contract that we can terminate that he gets regular drug test and that we can terminate the contract at any time should he fail those drug test or should he return after his two year ban in a unfit state to play RL.

Again, I cant see it. The poster I quoted said they would be silly to let him go with out something in place so that they have first option. By letting go, I thought he meant sacked which again, you wouldnt have his registration because he is sacked. I think a way around this, is keeping him employed. In what capacity I dont know, but if you sack someone, there is no way you can keep their registration.

Pryce and Harris is different. They werent sacked. If Hock agrees to being sacked, but signing a pre contract agreement, I would imagine this is possible yes. But by just sacking him, there is no way you will hold his registration, or at least if you tried and it was challenged I would imagine the challenge would be successful.

Ok instead of sacking him why doesn't Hock just sign a 'contract' of employment with someone else for two years and we simply let him go that way? Thus it would be the same situation as Harris or Pryce as they left the sport to work somewhere different?

Hock is going to have to get a new job either way so we may as well do it that way rather than just sack him out of the blue.

He should be sacked we dont need drugs in rugby league or any sports, We need to send a message that it will not be tolerated at Wigan or any other club.

As I said, my original post was towards you and I thought you meant by letting go you meant sacking. If you sack him, you arent sacking him from rugby league, you are sacking him from your club which means you cant hold his registration. Pryce and Harris went to play a different sport.

There will be ways to hold his registration etc, im just pointing out that you cant do that if you sack him

Wigan RL needs a shake up top to bottom - Sacking Gareth Hock should be the start of a new era for this club , the end of the little boys club who take playing for wigan lightly. The symbol of keeping him would send out the wrong message , as for sending him out into the community - what would be the point in that - "listen kids dont take drugs but if your good enough Wigan will still keep you anyway"

From my understanding he became de-registered as sonn as his A sample was found to be positive.

My initial reaction was to sack him.

But everyone knows Gaz Hock is thick, they know he loves his recreational drugs and they also know the one thing he is good at is rugby league.

If we can keep him on in some non playing capacity and hel rehabilitate him then I'd certainly keep him. We'd then have an awesome player waiting in a couple of years.

It will also help prevent him getting into prison.

Just a thought but why would the club want to offer a role to a person whose stupidity has tarnished the name of the club and let them down extremely badly?

I think a lot of people give him a role simply as a title, to hold him to the club.

Not to take any active role, apart from his participation in rehabilitation.

his registration with the RFL will be cancelled.