Zak Hardaker (Merged threads)

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

Different situation, Wigan didn't sack Joel, he chose to move on.

Sorry, that is very naïve.  The club used the situation to move Tomkins on.  The conversation will have been something like "as we investigate this further it may become gross misconduct but we won't stand in your way if you want to look for other opportunities".

With Hardaker, they have decided to keep him.

With Tomkins they let him go.  With Hardaker they kept him under the 'duty of care' line.

And the main difference between the two? Hardaker's misdemeanour was far worse but Wigan wanted him to play for them.

[RidingPie]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, that is very naïve.  The club used the situation to move Tomkins on.  The conversation will have been something like "as we investigate this further it may become gross misconduct but we won't stand in your way if you want to look for other opportunities".

With Hardaker, they have decided to keep him.

With Tomkins they let him go.  With Hardaker they kept him under the 'duty of care' line.

And the main difference between the two? Hardaker's misdemeanour was far worse but Wigan wanted him to play for them.

So you're saying the player lied in the press when he said that HE quit Wigan

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/11/joel-tomkins-resigns-wigan-joins-hull-kr-super-league

 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Wigan brought in Tony Adams recently to talk about how he conquered his own drink demons. The key parts of this statement to me are:

1) he is going to spending a lot of time in the Sporting Chance clinic; and 

2) in his statement he admits he has a problem and it needs to be addressed.

i don’t know whether he has been in this sort of programme before, but it looks to me like a reasonable approach. They have agreed on a structure and he at least in his statement that he has a problem. They were essential first steps for him to sort himself out. 

I am surprised that at the focus here on the throw away duty of care platitude when in fact we have a concrete plan, and seemingly someone acknowledging that he has to change. It is far more than a slap on the wrist or keeping our fingers crossed. I hope it works. 

I am focussing on the duty of care line because the raging hypocrisy it exposes.

Wigan's statement should have read... 'we have decided Hardaker is important to the club so we are helping him.  Joel Tomkins wasn't important so we didn't'.

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I can't agree with this.  I have a led a team of several hundred people and the easiest thing in the world to do is to keep your best people if they transgress because you know it would be hard to replace them.  The difficult (but correct) approach is to ensure that everybody is treated the same and you are a fair and equal boss.

As for this instance.  Drink driving does put others at risk.  You have to look at not just the action but the environment in which you employ people.  This 'may' be tolerated in some sectors but Wigan have a community approach to their customer base and they do things like school outreach and run academy programmes for under 16's.  The morally correct thing to do here would have been to say that these types of actions will not be tolerated by any member of the club.

Wigan have taken the path of least resistance here because they want to keep a good player.  They should not be commended. 

On the contrary, they should be commended for the action they are taking. I think the club statement says it all. Sure, the action seems to be in the best interests of the club in protecting an asset, and in Hardacre's best interest in investing time and money and effort to set him on the straight and narrow. It seems a pretty comprehensive plan. The fact they may not have done such a thing previously with other "troubled" players illustrates how far the club has come in player welfare. Just because they havd not done such a thing in the past should not stop them from doing it now. 

[Thunder Road]

Duty of care for a drink driver..??

 

That's a new one on me.....

 

Similar to duty to care  for King Herod ??

Put him in charge of the local maternity ward.??

 

Afraid there is no duty of care for a person who knowingly gets in a car hammered then tries to do one from the Police. ...

 

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, RidingPie said:

So you're saying the player lied in the press when he said that HE quit Wigan

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/11/joel-tomkins-resigns-wigan-joins-hull-kr-super-league

 

Maybe wrong but I’d say that was just for perception . You often seem to get this when people say they’ve resigned rather than being sacked . It looks better 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

So you're saying the player lied in the press when he said that HE quit Wigan

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/11/joel-tomkins-resigns-wigan-joins-hull-kr-super-league

 

Yes.

I have sent enough emails explaining that somebody has decided to look for other opportunities when in reality they were engineered out.

It is called saving face... usually happens after both parties have arrived at a sensible compromise.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I am focussing on the duty of care line because the raging hypocrisy it exposes.

Wigan's statement should have read... 'we have decided Hardaker is important to the club so we are helping him.  Joel Tomkins wasn't important so we didn't'.

You can choose to focus on it as much as you like. I would suggest that the actual actions outlined and Zak’s own words deserve greater weight. 

[JohnM]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am focussing on the duty of care line because the raging hypocrisy it exposes.

Wigan's statement should have read... 'we have decided Hardaker is important to the club so we are helping him.  Joel Tomkins wasn't important so we didn't'.

No.

[JohnM]

On 10/15/2018 at 4:59 PM, Desert Skipper said:

Chuffer you beat me to it!

Plus, what about the thread on crowd trouble at the GF?   Where's the help for those alcohol-addicted, negative mental-health sufferers who throw bottles on the pitch?   Or is it different because they aren't on a marquee salary?

Can't help everyone, so should not help anyone.  Nice. 

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

1 hour ago, Allora said:

How many last, last chance Saloons are there?

I'm not sure to be honest, I'd have thought signing for Wigan was his last chance but obviously not.

At the Grand Final I spoke to many fans, some who I knew very well and some less so. This frequently came up and I would estimate that there was about a 60-40 split that he'd had his last chance or he should be given another. I think Wigan have invested a lot, not just financially but reputationally and, if rumours are to be believed it has even led to their coach moving on. This has probably made it difficult for Wigan to get rid at the first sign of trouble on their own doorstep.

Will he get a last final chance? who knows? I might, and I stress might have let this one go but I definitely would put up with another incident

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

Just in case people do not realise, players are NOT employees as Ian Legagan suggests in his  statement, they are all self employed contractors with their own businesses.

This is absolutely no different to the decorator or the sparky the comes around your house.

Obviously as form dictates Zak's company accounts are well overdue to be filed at Companies House!!!

[Exiled Wiganer]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes.

I have sent enough emails explaining that somebody has decided to look for other opportunities when in reality they were engineered out.

It is called saving face... usually happens after both parties have arrived at a sensible compromise.

But if you are arguing that people say things in press releases that don’t hold up why are you so stressed about the throw away duty of care comment? Wigan have set our precisely what they are doing and he has said he accepts he needs to change (.if what he says can be believed). If all we had said was we are not sacking him because we have a duty of care and left it at that then I could see that would be a stupid whitewash but we go much farther than that. 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

But if you are arguing that people say things in press releases that don’t hold up why are you so stressed about the throw away duty of care comment? Wigan have set our precisely what they are doing and he has said he accepts he needs to change (.if what he says can be believed). If all we had said was we are not sacking him because we have a duty of care and left it at that then I could see that would be a stupid whitewash but we go much farther than that. 

Because as a community focussed club they should have sacked him and made it 100% clear that the club has standards of behaviour that it expects everybody to adhere too.

[JohnM]

On 10/15/2018 at 4:58 PM, Desert Skipper said:

I think it's unfair to look badly upon Wigan if they sack him.   I don't remember anyone on here being so quick to defend Joel Tomkins harassing a bar maid, and his subsequent 'moving on'...?

"Sigh" . Hardacre has been rounndly condemned for his actions on here, in the press and by Wigan. Indeed, a number of Wigan fans on here have openly criticised the club for signing him in the first place. What Wigan are doing is exactly what you'd expect and require from the country's top club. Its called leadership, something for others to follow. 

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

9 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

You can choose to focus on it as much as you like. I would suggest that the actual actions outlined and Zak’s own words deserve greater weight. 

It is the same recycled rubbish that he has said after every other incident.

Boy who cried wolf anyone?!?

[RidingPie]

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes.

I have sent enough emails explaining that somebody has decided to look for other opportunities when in reality they were engineered out.

It is called saving face... usually happens after both parties have arrived at a sensible compromise.

any evidence? Wigan after all have very good form on letting players who wish to leave go.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

1 minute ago, RidingPie said:

any evidence?

Jeez come on, you see it in all walks of life all the time.

People are pushed out of the door but are given the good grace of saving face. My great namesake was one of them.

[RidingPie]

1 minute ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Jeez come on, you see it in all walks of life all the time.

People are pushed out of the door but are given the good grace of saving face. My great namesake was one of them.

You know the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not evidence right.

Wigan have good form in letting players who want to go.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

any evidence?

You are just going to have to trust me on this one.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

"Sigh" . Hardacre has been rounndly condemned for his actions on here, in the press and by Wigan. Indeed, a number of Wigan fans on here have openly criticised the club for signing him in the first place. What Wigan are doing is exactly what you'd expect and require from the country's top club. Its called leadership, something for others to follow. 

We might just start taking you seriously when you spell the chaps name correctly.

[Dunbar]

Read this RidingPie

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/rugby-league/joel-tomkins-joins-hull-kr-quits-wigan-warriors-resigns-video-scandal-barmaid-watch-a8393386.html

It even includes this line:

"Tomkins was also fined £10,000 and told he would be subject to further investigations but says he took the matter into his own hands by offering his resignation to Wigan executive director Kris Radlinksi".

Just as I said. further investigations or you have the option to leave and save face.

Are you really telling me that Tomkins wanted to leave and join Hull KR?

And so I ask the original question again.   If Wigan are so keen on providing care for their players why did they not provide this support to Joel Tomkins?

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Read this RidingPie

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/rugby-league/joel-tomkins-joins-hull-kr-quits-wigan-warriors-resigns-video-scandal-barmaid-watch-a8393386.html

It even includes this line:

"Tomkins was also fined £10,000 and told he would be subject to further investigations but says he took the matter into his own hands by offering his resignation to Wigan executive director Kris Radlinksi".

Just as I said. further investigations or you have the option to leave and save face.

Are you really telling me that Tomkins wanted to leave and join Hull KR?

And so I ask the original question again.   If Wigan are so keen on providing care for their players why did they not provide this support to Joel Tomkins?

I think I can hear Riding Pie's wife singing.

[Damien]

46 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Just in case people do not realise, players are NOT employees as Ian Legagan suggests in his  statement, they are all self employed contractors with their own businesses.

This is absolutely no different to the decorator or the sparky the comes around your house.

Obviously as form dictates Zak's company accounts are well overdue to be filed at Companies House!!!

That is not true at all. They are employees of the club and pay tax and NI on their pay just like anyone else.

[Exiled Wiganer]

If we take what Joel said and Zak said with a large pinch of salt - and I can see that - then why is any weight given to Wigan’s duty of care platitude? Strip all that out and you are left with wigan setting out the plan of action. And that looks to me to go far beyond “he’s learnt his lesson and this time we hope it will be different because he is a really good player”. It may fail of course but it looks thought through from where I am sitting.