Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:29 pm  

Hock says he would love to play in the NRL but deals not done yet. Que, he is gone

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:32 pm  

Madderzahatter wrote:

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

Agree totally, it seems to me from that interview Hock is on his way to the NRL.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:37 pm  

I can't understand how any Wigan fan is not disappointed by hock going to the NRL. Simply put, we are losing the best forward we have got. Any money we get from him will not be much use as the very low salary cap will prevent us from replacing him with a play of equal quality. The fact is that British RL is massively hindered by the lack of finance in our game. Union has much more money to offer players as does the NRL. As a result, sponsorship in SL is limited as our best players are being drawn away.

I'm sorry to say it but we are rapidly becoming nothing more than a feeder club to the NRL and RFU.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:43 pm  

Until Hock signs that contract then he's a Wigan player, only time will tell. If he does go then we have to look at our youth, as people have pointed out before, we have the best youth system in the league, maybe we should trust in it ?

Let's imagine at the start of the season Hock has left, we have the Hock money and we keep it in a safe. Tomkins departs the year after, we have the Tomkins money and the Hock money, if my maths is right we can afford pretty much anyone according to the rumours on here. I think people underestimate how much we are paying to keep Tomkins.

I'd rather have 12 months of rebuilding rather than 4 years of no silverware and buying random players to keep us going.

Lets look at this from a purely Wigan POV, if Hock leaves, it's a massive blow, but is it the end of our season ? The simple answer is no. Instead of knocking IL and Wane, let's have a bit of belief, it's not like we can get relegated is it !

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:44 pm  

Bigredwarrior wrote:

I'm sorry to say it but we are rapidly becoming nothing more than a feeder club to the NRL and RFU.

No, Super League is becoming a feeder for the NRL and Union. The refusal to amend the cap structure is killing the competition in combination with the rise in the NRL clubs cap. We just cannot compete when it comes to offering contracts.

Many more younger players know they can take a risk at having a shot at the NRL and earn a decent crust doing so too. The RFL and club chairmen have to take their heads out of the sand before it's too late.

They showed a list of British players who'll be in the NRL next season so far it's 10, even with Russell and Ainscough missing from that list. Things carry on the way they are and that list will grow.

Before people say it's great that British players are in the NRL, I pay for a season ticket to see Super League. If I wanted to watch the NRL I'd give up my season ticket and shell out for a TV subscription instead.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:51 pm  

Another one probably on his way.....Tom Briscoe possible move to the NRL in 2014. http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... in-the-NRL Our game will be diluted three ways over the next few years: Our top starts steadily leaving SL for the NRL (and RU). The last few quality imports that are over here will head home with nothing coming the other way. Young talent from the Academy leaving to go and play in the Australian reserves. Will need to change from 'Super League' to just 'League' in a few years time.

Another one probably on his way.....Tom Briscoe possible move to the NRL in 2014. http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... in-the-NRL Our game will be diluted three ways over the next few years: Our top starts steadily leaving SL for the NRL (and RU). The last few quality imports that are over here will head home with nothing coming the other way. Young talent from the Academy leaving to go and play in the Australian reserves. Will need to change from 'Super League' to just 'League' in a few years time.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:04 pm  

DaveO wrote:

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".

How come England RU are pretty average then? They have fallen a long way from where they were 10 years ago, when they were the best team in the world. Owen Farrell is not a Hanley or Edwards type player, there are no players of the calibre of Hanley, Edwards, Davies, Offiah or Schofield in English RU today. I follow RU to an extent (probably more than most do on here). It is certainly NOT the case that RU is creaming off all the best junior rugby talent. As for the question why aren't there there Hanley and Edwards types in the game these days, I think that's a valid question and I don't have the answer. But it's not because of RU. Also disappointing though, is why is Edwards in RU rather than RL as a coach as he is obviously a great coach like he was captain.

DaveO wrote:

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.

Funny thing about this is when it was the other way round it was seen as a reason why GB could never compete with Australia, too many rank average Aussies were turning up in SL and taking spaces away from our youngsters. All those English players going to Australia are filling up their spots and reducing the talent pool the Kangaroos can pick from. I wonder how long before they start saying we need an overseas quota to stop all these Poms from going on holiday to top up their pension funds in the NRL.

DaveO wrote:

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 agree with your points here. I do think the game is missing a lot of tricks and guys like Nigel Wood are not good enough.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:35 pm  

Some great points Sally - all the home nations in RU are average at best - Owen Farrell is no Johnny Wilkinson. Australian RU is no threat to league either. And, a lot of the RL talent that has gone over to RU has either been at the end of their careers or come back. I haven't heard much about Tomkins, Eastwood et al tearing it up. Give it time and they'll see the error of their ways.

And now that we can't afford to buy Aussies this should give our youngsters a chance to shine. Call me deluded but i think we make a give account of ourselves in the World Cup and if we do well, who knows, it could be the shot in the arm the game needs... But i'm thinking the doom and gloom merchants might think something completely different...

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:46 pm  

If this deal goes through I will be very interested to hear what IL has to say.
I can't see any benefit to this other than financially.
This is definitely a rare occasion which the old "the player wanted to leave so there is no point keeping him if his mind is elsewhere" wont be accepted. He is tied to a long contract and Wigan have stuck by him, so it should be a tough your staying. So what is the reason?

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:17 pm  

Smalls wrote:

If this deal goes through I will be very interested to hear what IL has to say.
I can't see any benefit to this other than financially.
This is definitely a rare occasion which the old "the player wanted to leave so there is no point keeping him if his mind is elsewhere" wont be accepted. He is tied to a long contract and Wigan have stuck by him, so it should be a tough your staying. So what is the reason?

I agree completely, you have to question the players "willingness to leave" they they sign a long term contract a year prior to wanting to leave. There where quite a few supporters saying he should leave Hock but the club stuck by him helped develop him back into a super league player, you'd expect a bit of loyalty in return.