Only time will tell whether this turns out to be the correct decision or not.

To answer Biffs question, absolutely, playing ability has a lot to do with whether a club sticks by a player or not. Sean Long at St Helens is a classic example of that.

Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't [uMossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman[/u (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'" not entirely true

Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't [uMossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman[/u (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'" not entirely true

I think it's called hypocrisy. Using duty of care as the excuse (and that it what it is) to retain Hardaker has left IL open to that charge given how the club treated Joel Tomkins. Applying different rules for different people is also not good management and inspires mistrust not loyalty. I expect the club to behave consistently, not selectively regardless of whether or not the player in question is deemed good or at the end of his career or whatever. It bins off a player who had played 237 games for the club on his first offence of being under the influence and behaving like a prize idiot (to put it mildly) and made no attempt to adopt a duty of care with him. No second chance for JT yet it rolls out the red carpet for a player that has been a serial offender who has never played a game for the club citing duty of care as the excuse. It owes Hardaker no loyalty whatsoever. The fact it has got two ready made replacements is every reason to walk away. Yes we'd probably be worse off as a team if Hardaker can find his old form but it's so transparently obvious what is going on here it puts IL and the club in a bad light. If Mo Lindsay had done this, the forum would be in meltdown.

Disagree completely!!

Where has the club rolled out the red carpet?

Sent a player to residential rehab, without doubt, the conditions of this is sort your alcohol abuse or bye -bye.

JT was filmed abusing Wigan people in a Wigan pub, slagging off Wiganers, his career at the club was untenable.

Your dislike for Lenners is well known, and the fact you mention Mo is laughable.

Check Wigans record under Lenners, pretty good reading for me, the best chairman we've ever had!!

Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'" Great post Lets go back a few years. At Featherstone under Powell Zac was no problem but he moved on to Leeds and went off the rails. Back at Cas under Powell he was no problem (not seen "up ponte") but then by his own admission he got drunk at home and took cocaine. It seems it was then only after his suspension he went completely off the rails and was spotted almost nightly with his "plastic gangster" mates. I thought that once he got back training and playing with Wigan he would be ok but this sadly hasn't been the case. I know his mates get a lot of the blame but any one who has seen it will tell you it is Zac that wants to be one of them and not the other way round. Best of luck for Zac and Wigan but I feel IL has taken the option that see's the best financial option for him.

Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'" Great post Lets go back a few years. At Featherstone under Powell Zac was no problem but he moved on to Leeds and went off the rails. Back at Cas under Powell he was no problem (not seen "up ponte") but then by his own admission he got drunk at home and took cocaine. It seems it was then only after his suspension he went completely off the rails and was spotted almost nightly with his "plastic gangster" mates. I thought that once he got back training and playing with Wigan he would be ok but this sadly hasn't been the case. I know his mates get a lot of the blame but any one who has seen it will tell you it is Zac that wants to be one of them and not the other way round. Best of luck for Zac and Wigan but I feel IL has taken the option that see's the best financial option for him.

Under " Lenners" how much have they lost in the last 2 years? Its another reason he's kept an asset (not a player) with a price tag on it like a lump of pork.

Doesn't matter, no new ground, mend a hose or something.









Lenners has loads of cash, so if he wants to spend he will, but he is very shrewd si will only spend when needed..

I think Wigan have done the right thing what’s happened has happened hope Zak can get sorted. Time to sit back and wait for the new season and the new look of the team and management taking shape .Heres to 2019!!

Anyone who believes that IDIOT BOY just go drunk and decided to have a white powder chaser as a one off and then unluckily has the drug testers knocking on his door is very much deluded.

I would suggest he has been the best full back but at the moment he's had over a year out the game, clearly not been involved in any keep fit regime for his return, used cocaine, drank regularly and clearly has mental health issues and people expect him to stride back into SL as good as he was before he drifted into drink and powder as a pastime that's a big ask.

Makes you wonder if Joel was forced out and didn’t get paid off if he’s speaking to a solicitor playing the one rule for one and one rule for another card. This decision is quite hypocritical of IL but guessing he didn’t make this decision alone.

Of course he’s taken the best result financially and in terms of sporting success, why would he do anything different? People seem to forget sport is a results business, not a community interest company or charity.

Nobody moaned this much about Ben Barba, who had many many misdemeanours before coming to Super League.

So here is my take.

Wigan have done the correct thing as an employer. They have considered the health and well being of a troubled individual over and above him as an asset and are sending him to rehab under the treatment of a professional service with the sporting chance. clinic. Zak has never been in to rehab and had serious help from one of these organisations. If wigan cut him loose, he would have simply imploded.

In this instance if he self distructs again, absolutely no one in world rugby will ever touch him. This is his last chance.

Dont forget what happened to Terry Newton when he was banned. Zak has an issue and the consequences of the easy option could have been severe.

Well done Wigan, your approach is professional, considered and thoughtful, looking after the individuals health and well being over anything else.

Yes if it works, its a huge benefit to Wigan however there is a long road for ZAK to go before he hits the heights of where he has been before.

Will it pay off, time will tell but Wigan have taken a responsible approach.