Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:44 pm  

I'd just like to know if its the case that Hock has gone to IL and said I'm grateful for everything you have done but I have a great desire to play in the NRL. What is stopping IL from saying sorry Gaz your contracted to this club and at this moment we can't afford to lose you.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:53 pm  

Smalls wrote:

I'd just like to know if its the case that Hock has gone to IL and said I'm grateful for everything you have done but I have a great desire to play in the NRL. What is stopping IL from saying sorry Gaz your contracted to this club and at this moment we can't afford to lose you.

You have to feel with Joel Tomkins leaving one year into a 5 year contract IL has set a precedent to letting people go if they want to leave.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:57 pm  

Or perhaps IL has said, or words to the effect of :-
"We have invested a lot of time and money in you Gareth and you are a massive playing asset for this club.
I know you now want to play down under but I have to treat you as an asset of Wigan Rugby League. Therefore Gareth, I will only release your registration if we get a transfer fee of (say£200k). If we get it you can go with our best wishes, if we don't get that amount we won't release you"

It is then that circumstances will dictate the outcome.
It does seem that he will leave, the Eels have just had their central funding increased by $2m. There appears no reason why Gaz won't go, after all Parramatta can afford him. Whether they can get him under their salary cap is up to them.

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:58 pm  

BrettFinchsGumshield wrote:

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 ?

Because none of them are anywhere near Hock's experience or quality and we are already having to rely too much on young players as it is given who else has already left. I would have thought this was obvious.

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.

What is the point of keeping Hock's money in the safe for a year? This is a rugby club not a bank! The idea is toi win trophies not generate cash.

As to what Sam is on just how much is he on then? Are you implying we have to sell Hock to afford Sam's wages? That can't be the case given how much we spent on Green and Tylor.

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

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

This isn't rebuilding. It's demolition.

It's going to take a lot longer than 12 months to replace the quality that has just left. The young players are not going to be able to deliver the quality and skills of the likes of George, Tommy, Finch, Lima and Hock (assuming he goes).

In any case IL said when he arrived he expected year on year improvement. He won't get it if he sells the teams best players. There was no need to see the side dismantled as it has been but it's as if it all came as a big surprise. What is the point of adding to it by selling Hock?

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 !

If he sells Hock, IL wants knocking all round Robin Park. You don't sell your best players. He will deserve all the criticism he gets. I can't imagine Wane is thrilled by the idea either.

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:03 pm  

Smalls wrote:

I'd just like to know if its the case that Hock has gone to IL and said I'm grateful for everything you have done but I have a great desire to play in the NRL. What is stopping IL from saying sorry Gaz your contracted to this club and at this moment we can't afford to lose you.

As was shown earlier this week when Bradford knocked back Leeds offer for a contracted player, nothing.

If he goes it will be because IL decided to sell. No other reason.

He will make the usual excuse of not wanting to stand in a players way blah, blah but if he does you can treat it with a huge pinch of salt. It will just be an excuse for what he, IL, wanted to do.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:10 pm  

That may well be the case and to be honest I accepted the Joel T transfer a lot more as its a different scenario with how Wigan have stuck by Gaz. But if IL does make a statement to say Gaz wanted to leave and we have received a significant transfer fee for him it would not soften the blow. I know how important it is for the club to be financially sound but I don't invest my time and money every year to sit in the stands and be happy that we are the most well run club financially. It really does make we worry about the next few years. What if Rhodri Lloyd, Ryan Hampshire, George Williams fulfills their expectations they will no doubt be continuously linked with moves away and going off the last two years it won't take long for them to leave. Forgive me if I am wrong but I haven't seem the Leeds and Warrington players rushing to leave?

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:38 pm  

Smalls wrote:

I'd just like to know if its the case that Hock has gone to IL and said I'm grateful for everything you have done but I have a great desire to play in the NRL. What is stopping IL from saying sorry Gaz your contracted to this club and at this moment we can't afford to lose you.

IL is not going to come out and say anything, never has and wont start now.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:55 pm  

That can be the only reasonable explanation. Hock is a disruptive influence on the group. I can't think of any other good reason for him to go.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:46 pm  

Smalls wrote:

That can be the only reasonable explanation. Hock is a disruptive influence on the group. I can't think of any other good reason for him to go.

That may well be the case. Hock comes in the category of "great player but...." and has had his history of trouble. Also there is always the possibility that Wigan have had his best days and whilst still good he is a player approaching 30 and Wigan may want to focus on the next generation.

What Wigan are going through with this high turnover of players now, is what Warrington and Leeds will go through in 2013-14, so you may as well have a bit of a shake up now and then get a settled squad in place to take advantage of the time when two of your rivals are in a rebuilding phase.

Re: Hock : Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:52 pm  

Your probably right Sally. But if we are thinking along those lines I think Saints may have a head start on us!