WiganWarriorsFans.com

josie andrews wrote:Zak Hardaker has been convicted, fined and banned from driving.

But a big question still looms over his drink-driving episode: What next for his playing future?

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... -1-9392781

He obviously has a drink problem.
Until he has demonstrably proved he has conquered his demons he is too big a risk for Wigan - or any club for that matter.
Gazza comes to mind.

Exiled Wiganer wrote:It is a simple enough line of reasoning...

1) someone says that we should not keep Zak because of his issues. Drink related issues. Therefore we should have kept Tomkins.

2) it is relevant to point out that Tomkins this year brought shame on the club through his drinking, and that he missed masses of 2017 through a self inflicted drinking injury. There aren’t opinions these are facts.

3) we are doomed apparently because (our non running fullback) Sam has been so marvellous. And yet our best and most fluent performance did not feature him. Another fact.

Even by DaveO’s one eyed obsession with criticising the club for any real and imagined failing, his rant is thick.

I find it very ironic that you call DaveO's post a 'rant' and 'thick' after you have posted the above!

1. Zak has been convicted of drink driving, we are unsure about what the club are going to do about this, however he could have killed somebody. Joel's behaviour was disgusting but to compare it to Zak is ludicrous, however he was moved on and rightly so. Sam however was nowhere near as bad as Joel and certainly not Zak, so he stayed at the club and it was the right decision. To state that Sam has a 'drink problem' because of the incident with his brother again is ridiculous.

2. Yes Sam didn't cover himself in glory with the drunken video but does it mean he has a drink problem? Wild assumption there in my opinion. Have you any evidence that he was injured due to a drinking incident and only a drinking incident? However, which ever way you look at it, one night of drinking with his brother and one rumoured injury due to drink is hardly enough evidence to suggest he has a drink problem.

3. The fact you have said that our best performance of the year was without Sam away at Stains IS A FACT is again absolutely ridiculous, it isn't a fact, it is YOUR OPINION. Yes we played well with Morgan at FB that day but we have played equally as well if not better IN MY OPINION with Sam at FB for Example last week's semi final against CAS.

Finally, when it comes to obsession's, the biggest one on here is your hatred for Sam, you are not Stefan Marsh by any chance are you?

I still am at a total loss how anyone can still want him at the club,an arrogant, unreliable serial offender with no thought for anyone other than himself.

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

Exiled Wiganer wrote:It is a simple enough line of reasoning...

1) someone says that we should not keep Zak because of his issues. Drink related issues. Therefore we should have kept Tomkins.

2) it is relevant to point out that Tomkins this year brought shame on the club through his drinking, and that he missed masses of 2017 through a self inflicted drinking injury. There aren’t opinions these are facts.

3) we are doomed apparently because (our non running fullback) Sam has been so marvellous. And yet our best and most fluent performance did not feature him. Another fact.

Even by DaveO’s one eyed obsession with criticising the club for any real and imagined failing, his rant is thick.

I find it very ironic that you call DaveO's post a 'rant' and 'thick' after you have posted the above!

1. Zak has been convicted of drink driving, we are unsure about what the club are going to do about this, however he could have killed somebody. Joel's behaviour was disgusting but to compare it to Zak is ludicrous, however he was moved on and rightly so. Sam however was nowhere near as bad as Joel and certainly not Zak, so he stayed at the club and it was the right decision. To state that Sam has a 'drink problem' because of the incident with his brother again is ridiculous.

2. Yes Sam didn't cover himself in glory with the drunken video but does it mean he has a drink problem? Wild assumption there in my opinion. Have you any evidence that he was injured due to a drinking incident and only a drinking incident? However, which ever way you look at it, one night of drinking with his brother and one rumoured injury due to drink is hardly enough evidence to suggest he has a drink problem.

3. The fact you have said that our best performance of the year was without Sam away at Stains IS A FACT is again absolutely ridiculous, it isn't a fact, it is YOUR OPINION. Yes we played well with Morgan at FB that day but we have played equally as well if not better IN MY OPINION with Sam at FB for Example last week's semi final against CAS.

Finally, when it comes to obsession's, the biggest one on here is your hatred for Sam, you are not Stefan Marsh by any chance are you?

Excellent post

I do not condone off field behaviour but I am looking forward to seeing him play for Wigan and see what talent we have there. That’s if Wigan keep him. Sport isn’t an ethical business.

I also favour fracking, it must be the emerging geography teacher in me...

shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:

ian b wrote:Craig Mullen looked good against Wakefield so why don't the club give him game time next season at 1 along side Morgan ?

Mullen is a better fullback than Escare.

so build him up so he gains experience next season

shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:

ian b wrote:Craig Mullen looked good against Wakefield so why don't the club give him game time next season at 1 along side Morgan ?

Mullen is a better fullback than Escare.

He has looked good, and has been played everywhere except his favoured position of full-back! But it's a big claim to say he's better full-back than Escaré when he has zero first-grade experience there.

I'm all for giving him a shot, though.

josie andrews wrote:Zak Hardaker has been convicted, fined and banned from driving.

But a big question still looms over his drink-driving episode: What next for his playing future?

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... -1-9392781

If Wigan do keep him on, how long before he gets arrested for driving while disqualified???

The man doesn't seem to be able to help himself and I can really see this becoming a reality.



Matt

Its a difficult one. There's part of me that say's get rid, send him on his way and be done with it. But my gut feeling is that if we do get rid, there will be someone else who will take him on (for peanuts) him having used our facilities to get himself into shape and my instinct is saying that I would rather he put in big performances in a Cherry and White jersey rather than in another jersey against us.

I reckon there will be a club statement this week, reading something along these lines
"The club have taken note of the recent court case and conviction involving Zak Hardaker. The club takes this offence very seriously and internal disciplinary actions have also been taken against the Player, the details of which will not be disclosed. The player is deeply sorry for his actions and has accepted that any repeat of this behaviour will result in the termination of his contract. Zak is fully committed to the club and continues his preparations for the 2019 season with the club. The club considers the matter closed and no further comment will be made with regard to this issue"

Club need to put into his contract that he is going to be tested for alcohol whenever they want to. Some can turn up and train/play whilst tanked up. Brian Robson of Man U was well known for it as well as Paul Mcgrath but Ferguson got rid of one and kept the other as it did not affect him on or off the field.

Problem is with Zak it is not an on the field issue its off and he needs to understand that the club will not tolerate him turning up drunk to anything. If he engages his brain he moves to Bateman's house asap. And starts looking for a permanent home in the Wigan borough far away from Cas/Leeds area.


Ironically he can not now commute in every day as some have done in the past, which is of a benefit to the club.