Everyone is entitled to make a mistake, and everyone is entitled to make up for that mistake.

What's the problem with that?

People need to stop banging on about what someone might do in the future - if the man is keen to make up for his mistake and for letting our club down, then who are we to turn him away?

That you don't need to be given a five year deal to make up for the mistake.

He has done nothing to deserve such a long contract and so should IMO prove he is worthy of the shirt a season at a time.



Well the club ought to be taking a view of whether they think he will stay on the wagon in future. Long contracts are a risk at the best of times never mind when the player has a history of drug use. Its basic risk assessment to consider if they think he will stay clean and what his attitude will be. Given no one really knows the answer to that then giving out a five year deal is a risk. The fact he is remorseful and is training hard is no guarantee the wheels won't come off again. Hock is statistically bound to be a bigger risk of (re-)offending than other players because ex-users are more likely to fall off the wagon. It's just common sense saying giving him a five year deal is a risky move by the club when IMO they don't need to.

Dave

Very well put

As much as I'd like to see him back, a 5 year deal is just lunacy.

Hock has a two year ban not a life sentence.
There is nothing confirmed about this five year deal and it will be negotiated by Ian Lenagan with I'd imagine legal advice.
There's a lot on here about "in Madge we trust" so when it comes to contracts I certainly trust the judgement of IL.
Whatever the deal is it will be good for Gaz Hock and good for Wigan RL.
If the coaching team can improve Hock the way they've improved the rest of the squad Gaz will be some player when he returns.

I agree. Thats a massive contract "reward" which I don't think he deserves BUT it depends to me if he's taken a big pay cut from what he had previously.

The stance I take is that if he has signed on a 5 year deal the terms must be fantastic for Wigan.

The concern is if he comes back and kills it and we only have a 1 year deal in place he could ask for a significant increase if he is to be retained.

I assume the deal put in place will be very beneficial to Wigan for a player of Hocks potential qualities, and when squeezing every penny out of the cap is crucial the longer deal may well prove to be an astute bit of business.

Good point. He could come back and play the kind of rugby we know he's capable of and is in a position to drive his wages up. I think Lenagan has enough about him to weigh up what the club and squad would benefit most from, but 5 years really would surprise me.

Thats how I take it to be.

If he came back and had a storming first year or two, then at the end of his initial contract he could probably command higher wages than he was on before. At least this way its likely that he'll be working his way up to his previous wage by the 3rd/4th/5th years of his contract.

Its more of an insurance policy if he comes back and is as fantastic as we hope he will be, because he won't stick around on pittance, but if he's attached to a 5 year deal at wages dictated on the clubs terms. I'm all for it.

If he does re-offend, the length of contract would be irrelevant.

I don't understand peopel saying he doesn't deserve this it's a risk etc.
He will have served his very lengthy ban, his punishment, out of work for 2 years. And getting things back on track and keeping fit is commitment that shows he's unlikely to mess it up again, and if he does, the length of the contract will be irrelevant because he'll get banned again. People talk about him as though he some sort of horrific criminal or scum, he made a mistake and is paying for it, at the end of the day it's better for Wigan to sign him on whatever deal than for another lub to take him, which they would. He's a fantastic player and if he's bothered to stay fit and is commited to get back then surely it's worth the 'risk'

Exactly my thoughts too. You can argue the case for and against the length of the contract (it seems a bit lengthy for me TBH) but the chances of him going off the rails again are irrelevant.

But giving him a shorter contract is in no way akin to extending his punishment beyond his sentence. ANY contract given to him even if it were one year is giving him another chance.

He does not need a five year contract to be given another chance.

Dave

That is an incredibly glib way to be looking at it IMO.

As a player banned for using drugs he doesn't deserve a five year deal on his return never mind what the financial terms are IMO. It just sends out the wrong message. If the club want to let him resurrect his career at Wigan then I would far rather see some sort of rolling contract (options for future years in the clubs favour) because that publicly shows the club hasn't just handed out a five year deal to a drug offender and is simply keeping its fingers crossed he does not re-offend.

Dave

Well, we don't know all the details of the contract (if in fact it exists, of course!), but from what we've seen of the way IL works, I'm pretty sure there will be all kinds of conditions attached, not least regarding his off-field behaviour.

I totally agree if this is true. It is a joke that a player that has just been banned for 2 years is rewarded with a 5 year deal. Even if you do not take into account his ban he has never had the best of attitudes with regards to training etc and that coupled with his off field behaviour mean this is just madness and it is a deal that he simply does not deserve. It also makes the club a laughing stock.

Also after 2 years out of the game no one really knows what he will be like as player and an awful lot of assumptions are being made as to how good he is going to be. We could be saddled with a dud for 5 years.