[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:07 pm  

cadoo wrote:

What is the point in heavy investment in our youth setup, developing and nuturing these young RL players not just as a player but as men too, seeing them progress through our academy system, integrate them into the first team, establish themselves in the first team to eventually move up to England RL players to then see them as established players poached by Union or the NRL. And the only BS you hear in return is "well we got a substantial transfer fee" or "we'll develop another one" or "IMO -insert any young academy player- is going to be a better player anyway" - all ridiculous points to make. The transfer fee money is no use because we can't afford the salaries of a like-for-like replacement due to salary cap restraints i.e Blake Green (Brett Finch), Matty Smith (Thomas Leuluai), that young lad who people think will excel and replace the departed player will only end up being snapped again by the NRL/Union or might well just not be as good. I mean, will Wigan ever develop a player like Sam Tomkins in the next twenty years? Say the next ten years?

You are also missing a couple of the other platitudes handed out when we lose a player (particularly mid-contract) when they leave for greener pastures. The first is "I'd like to see how he goes in the NRL". Really? Why does anyone want to see our side broken up so we can watch a few highlights of the player running around in the NRL? The other is money related. Some player like Joel gets offered higher wages to play RU so "we should not stand in his way and you'd do the same if you got offered more money for doing a less difficult job" etc ignoring the fact the player signed a so called contract. Well if this move for Hock comes to pass then perhaps now everyone can see what the fact contracts aren't worth diddly squat means and where that gets you.

It's quite easy to hand out these sorts of platitudes when its just the odd player every now and again but when your side is transformed from one with several International class players to one consisting of mainly average SL level players then perhaps it may dawn on some people even if it looked like we could cover the loss of the likes of Joel easy enough you just can't keep doing it over and over.

And you are exactly right about the production line being no compensation. Where did Joel come from and where is he now? Ditto Hock if he goes and Sam if he follows? Produce another as good as any of them and off they will go as well. The idea often put forward by opposition fans that losses to RU or the NRL of players of the quality of Graham or Hock is of little consequence is rapidly being shown to be the joke it always has been. The trickle may not have turned into a flood of players leaving the game but it doesn't have to before even a steady stream of exits lowers the quality of the game here to a clearly visible degree.

For some reason at Wigan we seem to have got to a situation where not only have seemingly not got a cat in hell's chance of persuading players who are out of contract like Finch to stay on we can't even keep players who signed long term deals.

Lets hope this Hock rumour is not true and for once a player who signs a five year deal who in this case actually owes the club his very future in the game shows a bit of loyalty despite the fact another club has come knocking.

If on the other hand Wigan instigated this move to get Hock out for whatever reason then IL has in my opinion a lot of explaining to do to the fans as this move would continue the teams very recent and rapid decline in quality.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:10 pm  

cadoo wrote:

Feck it, I'll say it; this sucks and I am completely disillusioned with our game.

We've had Jeff Lima move to South Sydney, Brett Finch and Thomas Leuluai opt to move to the NRL, we've got rumours of Gareth Hock leaving to the NRL, Harrison Hansen set to be poached by New Zealand Warriors, strong rumours of Lee Mossop going on a 'sabbatical' leave to the NRL. Coupled with the fact Union snapped up Joel Tomkins - a tremendous talent lost to the game - and inevitably we resign ourselves to losing our star player, our competition's flagship player Sam Tomkins to Union when we allow ourselves to bend over and let him speak to whoever the hell he wants next year. This flat out sucks.

Okay, critics will say Wigan have poached Blake Green and Scott Taylor from Hull KR, but just say that to yourself, Blake Green and Scott Taylor. Wigan's star signing next season is Blake Green. Without getting all the scapegoat, give him a chance, stop writing him off before he's kicked a ball spiel, I never imagined for a second we would see a halfback combination of Matty Smith and Blake Green at Wigan. All our best players appear to be leaving/left/retired without any like-for-like quality coming in. Sam Tomkins, George Carmont, Jeff Lima, Brett Finch, Thomas Leuluai, Gareth Hock, Harrison Hansen, Lee Mossop etc and who are we bringing in? Epalahame Lauaki, Anthony Gelling, Ben Flower, Gil Dudson, Scott Taylor, Matty Smith, Blake Green - it makes for horrible reading. Finally the RFL will have the even competition they've been looking for when we're on the same level as Wakefield, Salford, London and all them other rubbish little clubs.

What is the point in heavy investment in our youth setup, developing and nuturing these young RL players not just as a player but as men too, seeing them progress through our academy system, integrate them into the first team, establish themselves in the first team to eventually move up to England RL players to then see them as established players poached by Union or the NRL. And the only BS you hear in return is "well we got a substantial transfer fee" or "we'll develop another one" or "IMO -insert any young academy player- is going to be a better player anyway" - all ridiculous points to make. The transfer fee money is no use because we can't afford the salaries of a like-for-like replacement due to salary cap restraints i.e Blake Green (Brett Finch), Matty Smith (Thomas Leuluai), that young lad who people think will excel and replace the departed player will only end up being snapped again by the NRL/Union or might well just not be as good. I mean, will Wigan ever develop a player like Sam Tomkins in the next twenty years? Say the next ten years?

Yes this is a dummy spit and probably makes for a tremendous laugh for some of the trolls on here but that is sad in itself. The glee other supporters will get when the best players from our competition (Finch/Leuluai/Carmont/Lima - possibly Mossop/Hock/Hansen/Tomkins) are poached to another sport/competition and Super League, the product they are paying for, is worse off for it, but who cares as long as we can finally compete with Wigan.

Completely agree.

The game appears to be run by idiots, nobody seems interested in the good of the game and instead everyone is only bothered in their own interests.

We have a shocking playoff system which rewards teams who finish in the bottom half of thr thr table with a chance to become champions. We have a corrupt disciplinery panel. A bloke in control of refs who doesnt seem to be on this planet.

And now with the NRL increasing their cap and Union sniffing around I truely believe our game will be semi-pro in the next 10 years. We'll then have a lovely competitve league everyone seems to want.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:27 pm  

People are looking for a conspiracy theory, but perhaps he saw an opportunity to go and live in Australia, in a completely different culture, for plenty of dollarydoos, and play in the 'best' rugby league competition in the world.

[Pemps]

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:33 pm  

Mr Carl wrote:

People are looking for a conspiracy theory, but perhaps he saw an opportunity to go and live in Australia, in a completely different culture, for plenty of dollarydoos, and play in the 'best' rugby league competition in the world.

Then that will seriously cheese a lot of Wigan fans off considering the way the club has stood by him over recent years.

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:37 pm  

Mr Carl wrote:

People are looking for a conspiracy theory, but perhaps he saw an opportunity to go and live in Australia, in a completely different culture, for plenty of dollarydoos, and play in the 'best' rugby league competition in the world.

You get the prize for the first bunch of platitudes related to this to be posted.

He has (had?) four years of a five year contract to run which should mean he doesn't (didn't?) actually have any such opportunity. The only reason he can go is because Wigan agree to it and if the club trots out something similar to what I already posted about "not wanting to stand in a players way, blah, blah" then they are as good as admitting we are never going to keep any good players on the books.

Whatever Hock's reasons are the CLUB is party to this move and so has to explain why it is letting an England International leave one year into a five year deal especially after it has invested so much time and effort into his rehabilitation. Not standing in his way just won't cut it.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm  

Parramatta Eeels forum claiming hes signed a 4 year deal with them. Its going mad on there !!!

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:01 pm  

DaveO wrote:

You get the prize for the first bunch of platitudes related to this to be posted.

He has (had?) four years of a five year contract to run which should mean he doesn't (didn't?) actually have any such opportunity. The only reason he can go is because Wigan agree to it and if the club trots out something similar to what I already posted about "not wanting to stand in a players way, blah, blah" then they are as good as admitting we are never going to keep any good players on the books.

Whatever Hock's reasons are the CLUB is party to this move and so has to explain why it is letting an England International leave one year into a five year deal especially after it has invested so much time and effort into his rehabilitation. Not standing in his way just won't cut it.

Sporting contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on anymore. People on here seem resigned to the fact that Tomkins will only be a Wigan player for another 12 months, despite the fact he has a long contract with you. He has a clause preventing him speaking to other clubs, which isn't as long as the contract. What does that tell you about the worth of the contract?

Yes, Wigan fans probably can feel aggrieved that (if the rumours are true) Hock isn't repaying the faith shown in him by the club. But ultimately, that is down to Hock's own conscience; if the club don't have a legal contract that stipulates that the rehabilitation excludes Hock from signing professional terms with any other sporting club for a certain term, he can move on, and let his future club pay Wigan any compo.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:06 pm  

Honestly would be devastated if Hock left, nothing would hurt more than that. He is our best forward by a long way, creativity in abundance, the only one who bothers to offload, yes he is a bit of a nutcase and loves a rumble, but I adore watching him in our second row, knowing he can change a game in an instant and there are very very few forwards on this planet who can do that. He would be fantastic in the NRL, but I’d be very sad and peed off to see him go, because we’re going nowhere but down the table very very quickly

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:12 pm  

If Hock moves it is 'The king is dead, long live the king' scenario. The same will be said with Tomkins, SOL, HH, or anybody else who moves on to pastures new for more money. One day all these players will be retired and forgotten, the same with Faz, Rads and the others from the team from 10 years or so ago.

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:15 pm  

Mr Carl wrote:

Sporting contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on anymore. People on here seem resigned to the fact that Tomkins will only be a Wigan player for another 12 months, despite the fact he has a long contract with you. He has a clause preventing him speaking to other clubs, which isn't as long as the contract. What does that tell you about the worth of the contract?

It tells me exactly what is says on the tin. That he has a five year contract which within the first three years precludes him speaking to any other club and that this is enforceable.

Yes, Wigan fans probably can feel aggrieved that (if the rumours are true) Hock isn't repaying the faith shown in him by the club. But ultimately, that is down to Hock's own conscience; if the club don't have a legal contract that stipulates that the rehabilitation excludes Hock from signing professional terms with any other sporting club for a certain term, he can move on, and let his future club pay Wigan any compo.

The fact Wigan can enforce Tomkins contract means contracts are enforceable and I am sure all clubs do not employ legal numpties who draw up contracts with more holes in them than a sieve. The idea any player can sign a deal with another club and just walk out without his current clubs agreement is nonsense. If Wigan refused to release him there is no way on earth another club would risk signing the player and if you think that isn't a problem you have clearly forgotten what happened to Bradford when they felt free to sign Harris.

Leeds sued them for signing a player who's registration they held and they won. That shows you there is legal authority behind contracts and means Wigan must agree to any move.

Therefore as a Wigan fan as I said I want to see the clubs justification for this as much as I do Hock's. Regardless of what I may think of the way he has treated the club and fans, the club is IMO in the dock as well.