Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:14 pm  

fleabag wrote:

So we 'are' trying to do it on the cheap ?

If Hock goes, the quality in the team will fall even more.

Sam T will certainly be off if he thinks he is having to do everything. That scenario didn't help us when we had Trent Barrett.

Tomkins is leaving after the world cup next year, never been any doubt about that with the contract he signed

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:24 pm  

Bobby Goulding reckons it's a done deal and that Parramatta have paid a big fee. 3 seasons of making a title challenge then rip the team up. Joke, What is the point of even watching next year. Won't surprise me if Sam just decides to announce this WILL be his last season. I thought IL taking over was supposed to be the best thing to happen to us. We got 3 world class players by fluke and had a stormer in 2010.

Since then they have all gone, Tommy has gone, Hock (allegedly) gone, Fielden gone, Russell gone, Joel gone, Gleeson done for drink/drugs (delete as applicable), Coley, Roberts and Deacon retired and not replaced with the same quality, forward line destroyed, Rumblings about Sam going.

Doesn't really bode well. The players brought in are the equivalent of schoolboy players in comparison to what we have let go.

Someone on the Saints board has hammered the nail on the head.

'Rats leaving a sinking ship'

Sinking very very quickly. And the silence from the club is deafening. It isn't fair on the fans. They want bums on seats then they have to prove they want us there rather than just pocketing the gate cash.

At the moment we are on par with the likes of Huddersfield and Hull KR, the likes of Wire and Saints will smash us next season.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:28 pm  

bazdev wrote:

Tomkins is leaving after the world cup next year, never been any doubt about that with the contract he signed

Onion or NRL?

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:30 pm  

Just been reading the Oz links posted on here, and apart from the Hock story, there is also mention of George Carmont being signed. We were told he was 'retiring' . Meanwhile, Hock's Wigan teammate George Carmont is expected to be among four signings new Warriors coach Matthew Elliott hopes to announce later this week, Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2AniI26E0

Just been reading the Oz links posted on here, and apart from the Hock story, there is also mention of George Carmont being signed. We were told he was 'retiring' . Meanwhile, Hock's Wigan teammate George Carmont is expected to be among four signings new Warriors coach Matthew Elliott hopes to announce later this week, Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2AniI26E0

[DaveO]

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:01 pm  

AJ wrote:

We cant keep losing the quality we do, IL's ability to release anyone from a contract is ridiculous......

It is his inability to hold them to contracts that is the problem. There is no doubt in my mind a reason for this will be the club is being run as a business rather than being bank rolled at least to some degree by a wealthy owner such as at Warrington. In order to be able to resist offers of large doses of cash and hold players to contracts you have to be prepared to forgo the cash and let players leave for free at the end of contracts. We seemingly prefer the cash.

I fail to see the point of spending money supposedly got for selling Joel on Taylor if a few weeks later we have to replenish the coffers by selling Hock!

Unless Wigan want rid - for whatever bad apple reason - which doesn't seem to be rumored, I cant understand why we are letting him go.

I can't see it. Being able to sell a player for big fee when you would be offering him around for sale doesn't work. That makes it a buyers market. A big fee, if that is what Wigan got, implies compensation not a nominal fee I'd expect for a club to take an unwanted player off our hands. In fact such a player would more than likely just be released not sold.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:11 pm  

just about to get my season ticket but it makes you wonder if its worth bothering.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:15 pm  

DaveO wrote:

It is his inability to hold them to contracts that is the problem. There is no doubt in my mind a reason for this will be the club is being run as a business rather than being bank rolled at least to some degree by a wealthy owner such as at Warrington. In order to be able to resist offers of large doses of cash and hold players to contracts you have to be prepared to forgo the cash and let players leave for free at the end of contracts. We seemingly prefer the cash.

I fail to see the point of spending money supposedly got for selling Joel on Taylor if a few weeks later we have to replenish the coffers by selling Hock!

I can't see it. Being able to sell a player for big fee when you would be offering him around for sale doesn't work. That makes it a buyers market. A big fee, if that is what Wigan got, implies compensation not a nominal fee I'd expect for a club to take an unwanted player off our hands. In fact such a player would more than likely just be released not sold.

What sort of fee do you think would be appropriate if Wigan do sell Hock.

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:23 pm  

If only Parra had the decency and bought Hock before Ellis came available, I don't see any feasible replacement to Hock and if he does leave it'll be another set back in what has already been a talent depleted off season. Central contracts for the England team any one?

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:34 pm  

Talk about feeling disillusioned with the club, after the feel good of 2010 we are now looking at serious player drain if Hock does leave, which he will. Next years squad looks average at best at the moment.

Either Hock has done something to make the club want rid, or he just wants to leave, either way its an unbelievable lack of respect and appreciation for how much the club has stood by him. If its just the the big transfer fee then what's the point in us buying average players in Smith and Green and funding it by selling arguably the best forward in SL?

Re: Hock : Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:36 pm  

DaveO wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind a reason for this will be the club is being run as a business rather than being bank rolled at least to some degree by a wealthy owner such as at Warrington.

And there I think is the problem for the fans.

Lenegan wants to make a profit, I feel.

We, the fans, want a successful team.