Hock to Parramatta?

[Sutty]

How many of you would do the same if you were a constant target of match and disciplinary officials and never getting a man of the match award like he should have done on more than one occasion last season. Last Saturday in the international, he was by far the best player on the field but saw the award go to the league's blue eyed boy Sinfield.

Not to mention the fact that if someone come to me and said "come and play in Sydney, it's a lovely city, the weather's great and the game is huge. We'll pay you a hell of a lot more than you're getting paid at the moment".

He's 29, he's only got 4 more years or so left to play the game. RL isn't like football where a player doesn't have to worry about financial security after they retire. Personally, I can't blame him. Ok, some of us Wigan fans will be disappointed to see him go, as he was such a destructive 2nd rower, for us. Some will chastise him for leaving us. At the end of the day, he's got to look after number 1. We might not like it, but that's the way it is. No disrespect to Hock, but he's not the most intelectually gifted person. He may struggle to earn a decent living after he retires from the game. Which, at about 33, is going to be a long time before he can draw his pension.

I think, in the same situation, most people would do the same.

[DaveO]

How many of you would do the same if you were a constant target of match and disciplinary officials and never getting a man of the match award like he should have done on more than one occasion last season. Last Saturday in the international, he was by far the best player on the field but saw the award go to the league's blue eyed boy Sinfield.

Not to mention the fact that if someone come to me and said "come and play in Sydney, it's a lovely city, the weather's great and the game is huge. We'll pay you a hell of a lot more than you're getting paid at the moment".

He's 29, he's only got 4 more years or so left to play the game. RL isn't like football where a player doesn't have to worry about financial security after they retire. Personally, I can't blame him. Ok, some of us Wigan fans will be disappointed to see him go, as he was such a destructive 2nd rower, for us. Some will chastise him for leaving us. At the end of the day, he's got to look after number 1. We might not like it, but that's the way it is. No disrespect to Hock, but he's not the most intelectually gifted person. He may struggle to earn a decent living after he retires from the game. Which, at about 33, is going to be a long time before he can draw his pension.

I think, in the same situation, most people would do the same.

This is trotted out time and time again every time a player wants away early.

We have fans lining up to give players who renege on a freely entered into agreement an excuse.

Why is this? Because if we don't that is am implied criticism of the club for being weak and not holding them to their contract?

IMO both club and player are at fault. The player should simply honour their commitments. If they don't want to be tied to a five year deal in case they can go off and get better wages elsewhere - don't sign a five year deal. If on the other hand a player wants the security of a long contract then they have to accept the price for that is they honour the deal.

The club is at fault for making it too easy to walk away. It seems as soon as a six figure sum is mentioned as a potential transfer fee the club is always open to selling players. That is not what I expect from the supposedly greatest club in the game. The idea is to assemble a top class squad and keep it together not sell bits of it off whenever the cash is offered. With the club as compliant as this it's no wonder players pitch up asking for a release once their agent has hoicked them round.

In the NRL clubs can't sign players unless they are represented by NRL accredited agents. I assume a reason for that is if agents act in a destabilising way they lose their accreditation so they aren't going to induce players to try and break contracts. Whether we have accredited agents in our game or not I don't know but if we do it doesn't make any difference as our club seems only to ready to sell players regardless.

And before anyone says the club is powerless to stop it, not it isn't. Bradford's financial woes started because they got taken to the cleaners in the courts because they signed our assistant coach Mr Harris when they had no right to and ironically its Bradford who only this week knocked back Leeds offer for a contracted player of theirs. If contracts are unenforceable that should not have happened.

One of the financially weakest clubs in the game has managed to hold onto one of its best players - because he has a contract.

Maybe IL will surprise us all and "do a Bradford" over Hock.

[Wes]

Is it ok Dave if IL wanted rid of Hock and received a fee for him?

[DaveO]

Are you blatantly trying to belittle what was a genuine question/post?

No but I did think you were trying to feed me a line!

If you didn't know, just say "i dont know" and we could have moved on.

From what? It seemed to me you knew the answer already and were trying to be a bit of a smart arse. If you were asking me a genuine question as if I was some kind of font of all knowledge apologies but that is not me.

Im not bothered about the validity of your points etc that is not what i am asking, as more and more information will come out over the coming ours to put an end to any speculative comments

So what were you asking exactly regarding Penrith and why were you asking?


The smart arse comment equally applies to your good self of course assuming you are getting personal.

If you aren't the font of knowledge then kindly just say i don't know then we could have carried onto a sensible conversation.

Whilst you ask i was asking had Penrith tabled an offer for Hock prior to his ban being completed ?

IF, you had said yes or even it was rumourred, then i would have said this loosely points to a handshake agreement between Hock/IL similar to that Sam Tomkins has with the Club, about serving a minimum period and stacks up why a 5 year deal was given

Based on this assumption i would have envisaged that any investment in Hocks Re-Hab would at least be compensated by way of a transfer fee.

You didn't know and didn't say so, and once again you tried to assassinate peoples posts.

I DID NOT try to assassinate your posts or anyone else's whatever that means.

However its quite clear you wanted to lead the discussion off a step at time so could reveal the idea you have now, finally, brought out into the open that there was a handshake agreement between Hock and the club and this would entitle Wigan to a fee for his re-hab. This is bonkers.

You say had Penrrith tabled an offer this "loosely points to a handshake agreement between Hock/IL similar to that Sam Tomkins has with the Club, about serving a minimum period and stacks up why a 5 year deal was given"

How does the leap from an offer made for Hock to this translating into such an agreement no one has heard anything about? (by the way Sam's deal is contractual not a handshake agreement).

You then say "Based on this assumption i would have envisaged that any investment in Hocks Re-Hab would at least be compensated by way of a transfer fee."

So are you assuming all this or do you know this kind of agreement was made?

In any case do not understand what you are saying here. At the end of the two years Hock was either re-contracted to Wigan so Wigan can now ask for a fee or he'd have been a free agent.

I think the idea if Wigan had not signed him up they could get compensation for any re-hab off a club that did sign him is pure fantasy. I can just see IL going to Penrith's chairman and asking for some cash based on a handshake agreement between IL and Hock.

If Hock agreed a minimum time to play for Wigan as pay back for the support given I see no reason why that would not be out in the open. That though is a completely separate issue to Wigan being entitled to any compensation for the re-hab had Hock not re-signed.

[markill]

By the sounds of things (based on the posts and tweets of people who I feel should be respected based on past record and their generally sensible comments), a contracted player has been the subject of a transfer bid which the club has accepted and allowed the player discuss terms. The terms are for a team with a greater spending capacity who play in a higher profile competition. We can still watch this player play rugby league in what is actually a better competition to watch anyway and he will still be available for the national team to play in world cups and four nation tournaments against Australia and New Zealand. All going well, he will be an even better player as a result of playing in the better competition, which helps our national team. And if it doesn't go so well, you never know, we might get him back for no transfer cost down the line.

At the end of the day, why do we go and watch Wigan? To watch Gareth Hock? Even to watch Sam Tomkins? Or to watch 13 players in cherry and white playing rugby league?

Sure we can worry about losing quality players from our team, but we've done this before and we'll do it again and we have a production system that has looked after our club to keep us by and large in a competitive position within the sport for the majority of our history.

SL can't compete with NRL unless everyone who thinks football is so great is somehow converted to thinking rugby league is better and we get football's gate, TV and merchandising revenues. Unfortunately this won't happan, and even the much criticsed (deservedly so in many instances) RFL have no control over this.

[gillysmyhero]

What i cant understand is how Wigan as the best supported Club in SL cant make a profit or at least break even when you take into account the in comings.

How much money does each SL club receive per season from the Sky deal? £1.4 or £1.6 million a season.

Along with the money from gate receipts and merchandise sales, hospitality, the lotto, sponsorship and season tickets.

We have a salary cap of upto £1.4ish a season.Which if the income from the TV is around the figures above should take care of the players wages.And with the other incomes listed above i would have thought covered at least the rest of the outgoings.

Im not at all business minded so the above is probably way of the mark, but it makes you wonder how other clubs survive with a smaller fan base.

[gillysmyhero]

What i cant understand is how Wigan as the best supported Club in SL cant make a profit or at least break even when you take into account the in comings.

How much money does each SL club receive per season from the Sky deal? £1.4 or £1.6 million a season.

Along with the money from gate receipts and merchandise sales, hospitality, the lotto, sponsorship and season tickets.

We have a salary cap of upto £1.4ish a season.Which if the income from the TV is around the figures above should take care of the players wages.And with the other incomes listed above i would have thought covered at least the rest of the outgoings.

Im not at all business minded so the above is probably way of the mark, but it makes you wonder how other clubs survive with a smaller fan base.

I wonder also as this whole situation is throwing out mixed messages to fans

My thoughts are all over the place as im wondering were we go next with such a large group of players being lost.

I asked earlier if the failure to win trophies and loss of associated revenue have played a massive part along with players who also have contracts with clauses that rewards them for international call ups this may have forced ILs hand to chop the wage bill ?

I would have thought that international call ups and other rewards would have been calculated into the salary cap.i remember IL saying that if we won the challenge cup the club would make £200,00 profit that year and if it didnt they would make a loss.If Wigan cant make a profit then there isnt much down for our great game as a whole because every other club must be relying on a rich individual to subsidise them. Im like you TEW who knows.

[cpwigan]

read carefully! hock has not left yet, nothing has been agreed. Il has driven this not hock or wane. Il runs wigan as a business. nothing more nothing less. il wants 200k for hock but at this stage nothing has been agreed!! hock has done nothing wrong btw!

[jobo]

Is it ok Dave if IL wanted rid of Hock and received a fee for him?

Pertinent point. Deciding to end a contract works both ways. Rooney leaving Everton for example. The board couldn't let it be seen that they were in dire need of cash and wanted to sell Rooney, so they laid the blame at his door. It may just be that IL has an agenda he isn't about to reveal but Hock personally hasn't pushed for a move, in fact him and Lockers have been refusing offers from Aus since they were in their early twenties.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

DaveO, the sooner you realise contracts in high level sport mean nothing the better. It is just a guaranteed wage for a certain amount of time until another option comes along whether it suits the current club or not. You are entitled to your opinion and you do make valid points but this is not just a Wigan thing it happens in all sports to all clubs, sometimes you benefit and sometimes you don't. To keep regurgitating the same posts every time a player leaves before their contract is up is never going to change anything and to be honest becomes tedious. Like I said in a previous thread regarding Joel, in an ideal world what you argue would happen but unfortunately it will NEVER happen and think it is time to accept it and move on, however I get the feeling you won't and respect to you for fighting your cause!