His first year is about a 3rd of what he was on and thats before he was going to get his raise at the end of that season so its quite close.

You're an idiot

I was under the impression he could not sign for any club until his ban was up.

As to the length of any deal he may sign rumours four or five year deals are way OTT IMO because as others have posted we have no idea what sort of form he will have when he returns and for that matter we don't know how well whoever else is in the team at that time will be playing.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility he will be surplus to requirements and so for Wigan to commit to a four or five year deal [inow[/i is IMO completely stupid.

If he comes back at all for me it would be on a "pay as you play" deal for a season to see how he went. At best I'd give him a 12 month deal with options in the clubs favour for longer. But a straight four or five year deal? I can't believe IL would take such risky action.

Dave

Definatly at least 4 years if my memory serves me right on less than a 3rd he was on.

I can understand the club putting a long term deal on the table for Hock if they think it means they'll get him for peanuts. To have a player of his ability back on much reduced terms will be superb.

He just needs to keep behaving himself and keep proving to the club that he's doing that.

I hope everything works out.

But you are assuming he will still have the ability and ignoring what else may have happened to the side by then. As I said he may be surplus to requirements.

What happens if he isn't the player he once was and we end up stuck with him for four of five years? We have had enough of that sort of thing already IMO.

Dave

I said the club can have a long term deal on the table but that doesn't mean it will or can be signed until is ban is finished anyway. If come July next year we don't need him then it's the clubs right to pull that deal and leave him to find a new club.

Something drastic will have to happen in our playing staff for us not to want to sign up a player of Hocks abilities for a minimul salary though. If things don't work out because he's not the player he once was then fair enough but I very much doubt that will be the case. He should be wiser and by all accounts is fitter then ever and you don't lose natural abilty. He'll still only be 27 when his ban's finished aswell so he'll have time on his side.

exactaly my thoughts too

Id have give Flanagan a 5 year deal over Hock.

Flanagan wouldn't get near the present Wigan side.
He would be behind Bailey, O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop and Joel Tomkins.
Then there is Liam Farrell

I can see Hock coming back as a prop forward.
Bailey will have gone and we will still have O'Loughlin, Hansen, Mossop ,Joel Tomkins and Liam Farrell.

No doubt at least one more talented back row forward will also emerge from the junior sides.

he is already contracted in aus for 2 years dont think he will be in any big rush to come back

Flanagan's on the bench for Wests this weekend. I hope he really comes on there.

Re Hock, I hope he keeps as fit as he can and comes back desperate to play again, as physically he's a tremendous second rower.

Thats the thing.

A half ars*d and unprofessional Hock was a physical freak and probably the biggest handful in backrow terms in superleague. If he was that before with those problems this lad could be anything if he's learned a few lessons and starts to concentrate fully on carving out a good rugbyleague career for himself.

Thats why I can't understand a few people questioning him coming back. He's been an idiot no doubt about it but aslong as theres a promise there to not do it again and to prove he's behaving himself on a regular basis we simply can't turn this lad away.

But why must it be a long term deal no matter when he signs it (if he does)?

I can't think of a valid reason to give a player coming off a two year ban a four or five year deal.



If we can sign him on a minimal salary for 12 months with an option in the clubs favour (and not his) for future years fair enough (ignoring the moral aspects). What I just do not get is offering a four or five year deal to him without such options after what he has done and how long he will have been out of the game.

The idea we would offer any player in his situation a five year deal even if on peanuts seems insane to me.

Some people seem to think getting him on the cheap for a full five years is a good deal. Well how long do you think the novelty of playing for Wigan again would last before he got fed up of his peanuts salary?

Contracts are not unbreakable so if he came back as some awesome monster and we paid him next to nothing he's be mad not to want out. So all this talk of getting him on the cheap is not very constructive IMO. If he's worth the money,pay him the wage but the only way to find out if he is, is to give him a short term deal with options.

Dave

It doesn't but if the club can get him cheaper with a long term deal then they could with a short term one i'd take the chance.

Either deal should have water tight clauses in that makes the lad prove he's cleaned up his act though imo. That way we've got oursleves covered should he mess up again.

I really don't think he would be behind Bailey to be fair but its just a matter of opinion of course. Flanagan is a good player who got upto speed with Super League really well in a short space of time. Regardless of who's better than who it highlights how strong we are in those positions but they're going to be on a fair bit of money between them all in a couple of years but how many back rowers can you justify having under your salary cap?

Hock has lots of talent that's without question. What has to be questioned though is his professionalism.

The club and management will need to make a decision based on their opinion as to whether Hock is wanted. Maguire has already warned the club away from certain players we are led to believe due to their unprofessionalism or disruptive influence, and we are already seeing certain other players in SL being pushed around clubs due to the same (Cooke?)

What needs to be really considered is will he add to the team? Not just on the field but off it. Only the club and management can make that call.

I'd have dropped Hock for a few games anyway before the ban, particularly in the previous season for compounding the problem (in games where we've been on the back foot) by dropping the ball at dummy half on the second tackle or giving away a penalty. We need players who stand up and be counted when we go behind. This is probably an exaggeration but he was only any good when Wigan were any good. Sure, he helped in getting us a lead regularly but when we were in games where everything seemed to be against us Gaz Hock would have one of his random brainfarts. A kick up the backside is what he needed and this is probably the hardest boot possible. If he can come back determined to earn his place then give him a chance to do it on a one year contract. The talk of it being totally on the cheap is unrealistic because we will not be the only team interested. I think with his offloading he could become a decent prop but match fitness could take some adjusting to after 2 years out.

Every player has improved under MM and Hock I imagine will be no different. I have real issues with getting players on the cheap.. give him a one year deal see how he goes.. If he isnt as good as what we have at the club after the year, then get rid. there is no room for passengers at wigan. 5 year deals are pie in the sky IMO..

I am with you here because I think just about every player we tried to get on the cheap because they had some baggage has not worked out. Mather's, Pryce and T Smith have not or did not workout as good moves even though they cost little. I can understand why the club did it at the time given the salary cap constraints but that won't apply when Hock's ban is up so getting Hock simply because he's cheap isn't the right reason to do it IMO. He's got to be deemed still good enough to be a top class player.

Dave

Let's be honest, a shrewd IL will get a good deal for Wigan be it long or short term. I would go with 2 years with all sorts for break clauses on his performance both on and off the pitch.

Having said that IL might get him on a deal for 5 years but with options for get outs by us and salary increases for Hock on games played and performance.

I agree getting Hock on 5 years cheap will not work but a well arranged contract for 5 years with break clauses for us and a sliding scale of salary on performance for Hock is possible, if a little unnecessary.

Lets be honest most of this is rumour and conjecture. What we can state is that IFL has proven he is a shrewd opperator when it comes to manipulating the sallary cap and ensuring we get value for money. Whatever contract Hock is given I am certain it will include several clauses relating to discipline, performance etc etc. Lets not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" until further details if any are confirmed.

I personally have great faith in IFL and his ability to run the club and have no reason to think he will be throwing about 5 year contracts willy nilly to a lad coming back off a 2 year ban, its simply not that simple or realistic.

Why there is this clamour to hang our administration out to dry over every rumour is beyond me.

No player coming back from a 2 year ban has been the same, the game moves on and these players need to get back up to speed. Look at Ryan Hudson, I know it's a different position but he's been a shadow of his former self at Cas. He also spent a lot of time down the gym and kept himself fit whilst banned.

There's no guarantee that he will be anything like as effective as he was (on the occasions he wasn't having brain farts), so I find it hard to believe that Leneghan would offer a five year contract to him, more like 12 months with an extension option. Given the potential being shown by the youngsters in your team at the moment, unless you desperately need him I'm not sure you will resign him.

Wendall Sailor has done very well since his return.

It all depends on how he applies himself early doors. lets be honest (if) he comes back at Prop, like some have speculated, as long as he can run very hard and tackle strongly initially then he will be off to a good start. the other things will come soon enough. Its not like he is a halfback who needs his skill levels to be at a high level.

This is an important point, some are going on like he was some form of super gifted halfback who relied on slight of hand and skill.

Hock has always and will always rely on his physical gifts and aggression. His off loads were born from his basic strength, they were not sublime pops, they were hit the opposition player hard and if they fall from the tackle/lose the collision then get rid of the ball.

After 2 years out Hocks physical attributes should have improved no end, he basically will have the best off season imaginable as this is the basis of his game I see no reason why he should not come back and make an instant impact.