Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:25 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

So whats the difference with Hock leaving then? Wigan managed to survive those losses as did British rugby league.

How come Phil Clarke's departure to the Roosters didn't bring British RL to its knees - Clarke was a bigger player than Hock is.

0/10..... you know thats not what people are saying....

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:42 am  

Bridger wrote:

Wouldn't mind a swap for either Willie Tonga or Ben Smith.

I went on a Paramatta forum last night and they were talking about Willie Tonga possibly being released to get Folau in. Tonga had posted on his twitter that he 'had a big decision to make'.

I know not too many high profile Aussies will come over here nowadays but that guys 29 and am I right in thinking he isn't in the Queensland/Australia mix anymore?

I'd like us to be in for him if he's available but knowing our luck we'll probably lose Hock meaning Tonga gets forced out and will end up at somewhere like Hull or Leeds!!

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:17 am  

I heard that Jarryd Hayne fellow is pretty handy if we're swapping players .....

Tonga would fill the gap left by George but he only resigned for Parra at the start of the season, is he not injury prone ?

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

So whats the difference with Hock leaving then? Wigan managed to survive those losses as did British rugby league.

How come Phil Clarke's departure to the Roosters didn't bring British RL to its knees - Clarke was a bigger player than Hock is.

I don’t want to be a doom merchant (I know some will say I am) and would love to be wrong, but after all my years of watching and loving this great game of ours I’ve never been more in fear that a massive decline is coming. Hock is just a small part of the picture; it’s not just him or Wigan. There’s much that needs sorting in our game but the ones who have the power for change seem to have their heads in the sand. Every day we see more bad news, more signs of the game bleeding to death in this country. I’m talking about the game here now NOT JUST WIGAN and though we who love it will fight all the way, I think we are fast losing the battle this time. I HOPE I’M WRONG!

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:23 pm  

pies-r-us wrote:

I don’t want to be a doom merchant (I know some will say I am) and would love to be wrong, but after all my years of watching and loving this great game of ours I’ve never been more in fear that a massive decline is coming. Hock is just a small part of the picture; it’s not just him or Wigan. There’s much that needs sorting in our game but the ones who have the power for change seem to have their heads in the sand. Every day we see more bad news, more signs of the game bleeding to death in this country. I’m talking about the game here now NOT JUST WIGAN and though we who love it will fight all the way, I think we are fast losing the battle this time. I HOPE I’M WRONG!

I posted a large post on the previous page about this. Noone took note.

Theres a lot of fans with their heads in the sand too tbh. I think the game will be semi pro this decade.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:01 pm  

This doom stuff comes round all the time.

Remember around the time Jason Robinson, Iestyn Harris and Henry Paul went to RU, people were saying it was inevitable that RL and RU would merge and it would be a hybrid game, because the TV companies would force it and it would be the only way for league to survive.

Then a few years before that when SL came in, it was sold as the last chance to save the game from death.

Last year the average gates in SL were about 10700 which is the first time for a few years they have been above 10000. It's the second highest season for gates that there's been for a few decades now, the high point was 2007 which was just over 11000 and that was when the economy was at its peak. Compare this to ten years back when average gates were 7700 and twenty years back they were 6500. Thirty years ago they were 5300.

Now you can look at the international game which most people feel was much stronger back in the early to mid 1990s, with some very big crowds at Wembley, and I agree. There were guys like Hanley, Davies, Offiah, Schofield, Edwards around then and there aren't as many real class acts in British RL today. But in terms of popularity, the England v Australia games still get decent crowds today, that isn't the weak part of the international game. The weak part is mickey mouse stuff like Wales who have declined as they don't have all the Welsh RU players any more.

In terms of players leaving to RU, the 'mass exodus' that is always talked about hasn't materialised. When Eastmond and Joel Tomkins went there were people saying there was going to be a flood of RLs best players going, so why haven't they? Why haven't union been in for Sam Tomkins, Sinfield, Mcguire, Burrow, Charnley, McIlorum, Westwood, Tom Briscoe? Union has picked at the edges getting players here and there but never been able to get close to what RL did to union in years gone past where we picked off their best players and they went on to be greats in RL. Jason Robinson did well, Matt Rogers and Tuqiri for a while were good too, but still overall union has never been able to fill its ranks with guys like Offiah, Botica, Davies, Ricky Stuart, Michael O'Connor or going back further Van Vollenhoven and so on. Union ended up with a lot more "John Gallaghers" from league that never lived up to their reputation.

As for players going to the NRL I've already said my views on that are it's a positive sign for the talent pool in British RL. The reason guys like Graham, Burgess and so on are over there is because they are top young players in demand in the best league in the world, we haven't had that demand for a while.

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:55 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

This doom stuff comes round all the time.

Remember around the time Jason Robinson, Iestyn Harris and Henry Paul went to RU, people were saying it was inevitable that RL and RU would merge and it would be a hybrid game, because the TV companies would force it and it would be the only way for league to survive.

I don't think they were but if it helps make a point rewriting history is OK I assume!

Last year the average gates in SL were about 10700 which is the first time for a few years they have been above 10000. It's the second highest season for gates that there's been for a few decades now, the high point was 2007 which was just over 11000 and that was when the economy was at its peak. Compare this to ten years back when average gates were 7700 and twenty years back they were 6500. Thirty years ago they were 5300.

Not entirely comparing like with like here given 20 years ago we also had Regal Trophies and County Cups to satisfy the demand. The league wasn't the only competition running during the season. You also can't ignore the fact the Challenge Cup final got bigger crowds in the past then now and you are ignoring the crowd sizes in the early rounds of that competition and early round one of the play offs which are rubbish.

Now you can look at the international game which most people feel was much stronger back in the early to mid 1990s, with some very big crowds at Wembley, and I agree. There were guys like Hanley, Davies, Offiah, Schofield, Edwards around then and there aren't as many real class acts in British RL today. But in terms of popularity, the England v Australia games still get decent crowds today, that isn't the weak part of the international game. The weak part is mickey mouse stuff like Wales who have declined as they don't have all the Welsh RU players any more.

Why aren't there the Hanley and Edwards types in the game these days? A clue is when you see the likes of Owen Farrell playing RU. I'd argue they are not coming into the game at the same rate in the first place. Why would they when they can earn more playing RU? I can't prove it any more than you can say that isn't true but we can both see as you say "there aren't as many real class acts in British RL today".

In terms of players leaving to RU, the 'mass exodus' that is always talked about hasn't materialised. When Eastmond and Joel Tomkins went there were people saying there was going to be a flood of RLs best players going, so why haven't they? Why haven't union been in for Sam Tomkins, Sinfield, Mcguire, Burrow, Charnley, McIlorum, Westwood, Tom Briscoe? Union has picked at the edges getting players here and there but never been able to get close to what RL did to union in years gone past where we picked off their best players and they went on to be greats in RL. Jason Robinson did well, Matt Rogers and Tuqiri for a while were good too, but still overall union has never been able to fill its ranks with guys like Offiah, Botica, Davies, Ricky Stuart, Michael O'Connor or going back further Van Vollenhoven and so on. Union ended up with a lot more "John Gallaghers" from league that never lived up to their reputation.

There are far more players in RU and and in or heading to the NRL now than at any point in our recent history as a sport. That is a fact. Scott Moore is off to North Queensland Cowboys, Ainscough is off, Russell is off. They are not even to players. Graham and Burgess are already there. The point that escapes you is it doesn't have to be a player drain of any great proportion to affect out competition. As you have said yourself we do not have numerous players of the likes of Hanely and Edwards in the competition any more. So when Internationals like Hock leave for the NRL our competition is weakened far more now than back then.

As for players going to the NRL I've already said my views on that are it's a positive sign for the talent pool in British RL. The reason guys like Graham, Burgess and so on are over there is because they are top young players in demand in the best league in the world, we haven't had that demand for a while.

That has go to be your most idiotic point of the lot. Losing players is NOT a positive sign for the talent pool. That implies there is a pool and as you have pointed out, I will remind you once again, we don't have so many players like Hanley and Edwards any more.

I'd like you to tell me much how much this back handed compliment is actually worth to the game here?

How many bums on seats are there at St. Helen's because Graham plays in Oz?

How easy is it to persuade sponsors to cough up cash when they can see a clubs best players leaving for another competition? They aren't stupid.

SL needs to keep its top players otherwise it will become a very insignificant sport. It needs these players not just so the standard of the competition is worth watching but so it can be marketed.

One way that would help keep them is relax the salary cap rules about earnings related to the sport. There is no incentive for their agents to try and get advertising deals it counts a clubs salary cap. I remember Paul Sculthorpe being the face of GB RL for Gillette some years back. He will have got nothing for that.

The like of Sam Tomkins should be appearing on TV adverts and in magazines far more than he does. He and the other top players should be being used to promote the image of the sport. Do that and raise the games profile and you can secure better TV and sponsorship deals. You can't do it if they are not in the competition.

With no incentive for players to search out advertising and media opportunities a whole field of marketing and therefore potential income is lost to the sport and its one more reason to leave the sport.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:01 pm  

[quote="fleabag"]Are you being serious ?

Seems the trolls are just coming in to 'put the boot in' to Wigan RLFC and nothing more.[/quote]

Er, yes i'm being serious. I've been watching Wigan for 30yrs. Hock is a great player but jeez, i don't see what all the fuss is about. As long as any money we get for him is reinvested appropriately then all's good. The bigger issue here is the RFL and the direction they're taking the game in, not if Hock's going to Aus. If he wants to go, then fair play...

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:44 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I don't think they were but if it helps make a point rewriting history is OK I assume!

Not entirely comparing like with like here given 20 years ago we also had Regal Trophies and County Cups to satisfy the demand. The league wasn't the only competition running during the season. You also can't ignore the fact the Challenge Cup final got bigger crowds in the past then now and you are ignoring the crowd sizes in the early rounds of that competition and early round one of the play offs which are rubbish.

Why aren't there the Hanley and Edwards types in the game these days? A clue is when you see the likes of Owen Farrell playing RU. I'd argue they are not coming into the game at the same rate in the first place. Why would they when they can earn more playing RU? I can't prove it any more than you can say that isn't true but we can both see as you say "there aren't as many real class acts in British RL today".

There are far more players in RU and and in or heading to the NRL now than at any point in our recent history as a sport. That is a fact. Scott Moore is off to North Queensland Cowboys, Ainscough is off, Russell is off. They are not even to players. Graham and Burgess are already there. The point that escapes you is it doesn't have to be a player drain of any great proportion to affect out competition. As you have said yourself we do not have numerous players of the likes of Hanely and Edwards in the competition any more. So when Internationals like Hock leave for the NRL our competition is weakened far more now than back then.

That has go to be your most idiotic point of the lot. Losing players is NOT a positive sign for the talent pool. That implies there is a pool and as you have pointed out, I will remind you once again, we don't have so many players like Hanley and Edwards any more.

I'd like you to tell me much how much this back handed compliment is actually worth to the game here?

How many bums on seats are there at St. Helen's because Graham plays in Oz?

How easy is it to persuade sponsors to cough up cash when they can see a clubs best players leaving for another competition? They aren't stupid.

SL needs to keep its top players otherwise it will become a very insignificant sport. It needs these players not just so the standard of the competition is worth watching but so it can be marketed.

One way that would help keep them is relax the salary cap rules about earnings related to the sport. There is no incentive for their agents to try and get advertising deals it counts a clubs salary cap. I remember Paul Sculthorpe being the face of GB RL for Gillette some years back. He will have got nothing for that.

The like of Sam Tomkins should be appearing on TV adverts and in magazines far more than he does. He and the other top players should be being used to promote the image of the sport. Do that and raise the games profile and you can secure better TV and sponsorship deals. You can't do it if they are not in the competition.

With no incentive for players to search out advertising and media opportunities a whole field of marketing and therefore potential income is lost to the sport and its one more reason to leave the sport.

I fine well-structured post that makes many points superbly well. Thank you. The top and bottom of all are woes are that a fine sport is being run, and run into the ground by the idiots at the RFL!

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:27 pm  

If you wanted any indication if Hock's on his way out, that BBC interview just confirmed it...