Gleeson

[DaveO]

Well what I want to know is if the club have had to pay him off.

I suspect they have due to the way the statement is worded. "minor disciplinary problem" does not sound like a sacking offence (hence no compensation) to me. He has not announced his retirement due to injury which is the only other way you get away without it affecting the salary cap. And he doesn't seem to be annoyed at the parting of the ways which you would expect him to be if he had been shown the door minus a pay off.

If we are an experienced player down with no money freed up then the club has made a mess of this.

[Kiwiseddon]

Well what I want to know is if the club have had to pay him off.

I suspect they have due to the way the statement is worded. "minor disciplinary problem" does not sound like a sacking offence (hence no compensation) to me. He has not announced his retirement due to injury which is the only other way you get away without it affecting the salary cap. And he doesn't seem to be annoyed at the parting of the ways which you would expect him to be if he had been shown the door minus a pay off.

If we are an experienced player down with no money freed up then the club has made a mess of this.

A concern for me too Dave. Didn't you think that the press release was achingly short and to the point and yet had next to no information in it? Rounded off by "The Club and player will be making no further comment" or something similar. They might have well said "Gleeson's gone. There were issues and we're not saying what exactly."
It appears that the club are very keen for this to be kept in house as I (and you) fear that they may have made a bit of a mess of it financially.

[MD]

Or its an equivalent of 'by mutual consent' - having been very carefully worded by both sides to allow a little bit of external ambiguity but no legal comebacks? I'd imagine a sum of money has been paid to MG (an agreed proportion of his remaining contract value - I'd guess at about 25%).

I'd also guess that a part of the delay has been how to extract him from the contract and more importanly the salary cap but still allows us to spend the remains - again within the guidelines.

I think that MG, like many sports people, find themselves in bother and don't really have the ability to extract themselves until it's too late. I know that there is a school of thought that he should not have wasted the chances he had - and I agree - but there is also the thinking that too much free time for sports people with too much money will also cause them trouble. He won't be the last.

Too many people with provide the temptation and unfortunately well paid people will take it whatever walk of life thay are from.

[DaveO]

A concern for me too Dave. Didn't you think that the press release was achingly short and to the point and yet had next to no information in it? Rounded off by "The Club and player will be making no further comment" or something similar. They might have well said "Gleeson's gone. There were issues and we're not saying what exactly."
It appears that the club are very keen for this to be kept in house as I (and you) fear that they may have made a bit of a mess of it financially.

I think the fact this wasn't sorted out weeks ago only adds to the likelihood the club made a mess of it. There is no way any RL club would willingly compensate a player who they wanted rid of especially if disciplinary issues lay behind it. They are not charities and the salary cap is too tight for sentiment.

If he had a disciplinary problem that was a sacking offence he could have been sacked very quickly unless there was a screw up.

Mind you if the club decided he had to go because he wasn't focused due to off field problems I am not sure how they handle that one. He could simply refuse to leave and take his contract payments sat in the stands. So maybe they got shut for less than his full salary in compensation but if so its very odd to mention the disciplinary thing at all. It would be far better to say he has left due to injury and off field problems and leave it at that.

So thinking about it, it would not surprise me if that statement was very carefully worded so the club got the bit in about disciplinary issues so they don't look a soft touch and the player got the bit in about injuries and off field problems so he doesn't look too bad. And I reckon if that is the kind of thing that went on compensation will have been paid.

I think the only way we will find out if we got rid without any or a low amount of compensation is if we move to sign anyone else later in he season.

[Wes]

Hmmm not sure I can fully agree Dave O unless you know the full facts better to leave this one well alone, I dont know any facts on this only whats put up here and the many chinese whispers around the town, that said how would the club handle it if the police where involved? how would they handle it if legal people where/are involved? how have they handled it? could they have handled it better? have they handled it perfect? Only the club will know but damage limitation and reputations of the club are a must before any player, disrepute and media go hand in hand and are like a wrecking ball, but I (maybe you can maybe you cant)cant answer any of the above and dont want to. Just glad the situation has been put to bed and hope everyone can move on.

[Kiwiseddon]

Hmmm not sure I can fully agree Dave O unless you know the full facts better to leave this one well alone, I dont know any facts on this only whats put up here and the many chinese whispers around the town, that said how would the club handle it if the police where involved? how would they handle it if legal people where/are involved? how have they handled it? could they have handled it better? have they handled it perfect? Only the club will know but damage limitation and reputations of the club are a must before any player, disrepute and media go hand in hand and are like a wrecking ball, but I (maybe you can maybe you cant)cant answer any of the above and dont want to. Just glad the situation has been put to bed and hope everyone can move on.

As far as I can see, any Police involvement with Gleeson would be a separate matter to that of the club. The Police will have had no say in what the club will do with Gleeson. In fact they will have treated him as any other member of the public reporting an incident. The fact that he's a RL player will have no relevance at all unless the 'incident' in question affects the Club. The legal matters in relation to Gleeson/Club will be civil, not criminal as far as I can see.

[thomo]

I am curious to know the team plans

Joel to centre, gaz hock to cover the gap in the second row?
Young centres to fill it this season - signing in the off season.

Hoffman to stay - Joel to centres long term?

Just feel two young centres is a big ask for the rest of the year.

Question - how do loan signings work on the cap - if we brnig on someone for one month short term do they have 'a full season cap value

[Wes]

Point well taken.

[DaveO]

Hmmm not sure I can fully agree Dave O unless you know the full facts better to leave this one well alone, I dont know any facts on this only whats put up here and the many chinese whispers around the town, that said how would the club handle it if the police where involved? how would they handle it if legal people where/are involved? how have they handled it? could they have handled it better? have they handled it perfect? Only the club will know but damage limitation and reputations of the club are a must before any player, disrepute and media go hand in hand and are like a wrecking ball, but I (maybe you can maybe you cant)cant answer any of the above and dont want to. Just glad the situation has been put to bed and hope everyone can move on.

I am not speculating about anything Gleeson may have done outside of the club but wondering what the club has had to pay (if anything) in compensation.

As I said clubs are not charities and if a player committed a sack-able disciplinary offence any club would want to sack the player with no compensation.

Letting a player leave due to off field issues with his contract paid up in full is the opposite extreme and no club would want to do that either.

I hope Wigan have not handled this in such a way they have had to pay out a lot of money, preferably nothing at all. Gleeson was a well paid RL professional so was not poor and if he did something to break club rules such that the club wanted rid I hope the club has not had to pay him a penny but given the seemingly amicable parting of the ways I think that is highly unlikely.

[Wes]

True Dave O I take your point but Im sure we will never find out unless it becomes available in an autobiography lol. However in this situation who could we sign at centre is there any quality centres available at the minute??? Would you give Joel a chance with Hock coming back, Im not so sure but I cant think of any good uns available can you?