exactly. there are players of equal ability to Hock in Aus, but without the extra baggage he would bring with him.

I think a few on here may have to offer some apologies in the not to distant future.

he is banned, the club didnt fire him though I believe so still hold his registration.

surely there is no registration though? the RFL banned him - therefore he isnt currently a registered RL player, therefore there is no registration held at Red Hall.

that is my understanding of the situation anyway.

they imposed a ban thus suspending his registration. I dont know if it was tore up or just suspended for the duration of the ban.

Well I know the o/p is convinced his source is legit so are you saying you believe there is something in it?

Dave

But he will be out of contract either because it was revoked because of the ban or because his contract will have expired by mid 2011 anyway.

I don't see how a club can still hold the registration of an out of contract player and use that to prevent him from signing for another club or to demand a transfer fee. That is surely what the Bosman ruling prevents from happening.

Dave

He was last registered with Wigan, therefore they still hold his registration, and will continue to do so wether banned or not, in contract or out of contract.

But that's essentially what happened with Karl Pryce when he left Bradford for Union - they still held his League registration, and we had to pay a transfer fee to Bradford (£28k, IIRC).

I'd forgotten about that. It's a bit odd any club can prevent an out of contract player signing for another club if no fee is forthcoming.

That said is there such a thing as an international transfer fee anymore? I am sure some Aussie players have played in SL while their NRL club prevents then playing for another side in Oz. Wasn't Lyon at Saints such a player?

Dave

There is alot of speculation and from a lad who knows his family well this is what they are saying after he completed 12 months rehab and had urine and blood tests to see if he is clean he sat down with ian lenegan and signed a premlinary 5 yr deal with wigan which will run out on 2016 he will not be on anywhere near the wages he was on before at the start but his contract is subject to performance and appearance mr lenegan will not come out and anounce anything as he does not want to be seen condoling drug use. But wigan have been paying an ex royal marine to train with gaz for three days a week since his ban also all the rumours about the nrl canbarra raiders offered him a 12 month contract aswell as celtic crusaders and salford but he want to repay wigan and there fans

you heard it here first !!!!!!!

That's the only thing we know is 100% true

due to his age, probably.

out of contract players under 23 are subject to a transfer fee based on how long they have been at a club.

edit: or, Karl Pryce signed a new contract when he left saying that Bradford had first refusal on him should he return. Similar to the Iestyn Harris situation.

no banned player can sign for any team, preliminary or not so this is pointless. He has undoubtedly had discussions with lots of clubs, and he should, he was, and i presume still will be top class. The fact remains he cant sign for anyone until his ban expires.
I'm unclear about the issue of registration, but it WAS my understanding that a banned player cannot be registered.

Parramatta agreed to let Lyon play in Super League. They held his registration in the NRL, and refused to release him to Manly until his contract with them expired. Once it expired, they had no hold over him - regardless of the fact that they were the last club to hold his NRL registration.

Once a player is out of contract, and is over the age of 23, the fact that another club was the last to hold his registration has no bearing on his ability to sign for another club. If they are under 23, the new club has to pay a transfer fee as long as the original club makes him a contract offer equivalent to his current deal.

In which case Wigan have no hold over Hock.

Dave

Every bit of this is true i got told a month or 2 ago everything there

I know its true king warrior but you always get a few on here who are doom and gloom merchants ha

plus the coke over there is soo expensive! lol !

sorry had to be said

Not accusing you of being a liar or anything, because that could be true. But why on earth would Wigan employ an ex-royal marine to train him, unless he is an ex-royal marine who happens to be a Rugby coach? And only 3 days a week?

If Lenegan is so confident that they are going to be retaining his services, I'm sure that they would be giving a player who is going to miss two years more than military strength and conditioning three days a week. It would seem pointless for an athlete who has been training for over fifteen years in the sport and knows exactly what he is doing with his conditioning routines, even more so when that time and money could be used to send a skills/wrestling coach to give him something of benefit.

Whether its true or a load of blocks I just hope your closer to the truth than the OP. If G H can rejoin us next year half the player he left us then I for one will be a very happy bunny. Bigger than when he took his sabatical he is gonna be a monster,bring on the Hockster.

He trains with an ex royal marine for fitness only three days a week !!!!!! Dont know dont care what other training he does aslong as he makes it back on the field in a warriors shirt

it's the 5 year contract part that stinks imo, why would a banned drug user out of the game for 2 year be awarded with a 5 year contract, world class players rarely get that amount and lets face it Hock certainly isn't world class

Quote ="Saint Simon"no banned player can sign for any team, preliminary or not so this is pointless. He has undoubtedly had discussions with lots of clubs, and he should, he was, and i presume still will be top class. The fact remains he cant sign for anyone until his ban expires. I'm unclear about the issue of registration, but it WAS my understanding that a banned player cannot be registered.'" Yes he could. See Matt Stevens case in RU, who was also banned for cocaine. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html

Quote ="Saint Simon"no banned player can sign for any team, preliminary or not so this is pointless. He has undoubtedly had discussions with lots of clubs, and he should, he was, and i presume still will be top class. The fact remains he cant sign for anyone until his ban expires. I'm unclear about the issue of registration, but it WAS my understanding that a banned player cannot be registered.'" Yes he could. See Matt Stevens case in RU, who was also banned for cocaine. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html

Because although 5 years sounds like a reward, it may not be.

Imagine if he got a 2 year contract on an average squad player wage, after those 2 years (assuming he got back to the form he displayed beforehand) he could then command top dollar again from us, or any other club.

In a structured 5 year contract, his wage could be slowly built up year on year until after the 5 years it reaches a point at where he was before.

Obviously there would be clauses and stuff written into the contract, but he'd have to work harder and longer to get the top wage back.