Quote: Sal Paradise "It could also be seen as Luke Burgess was not going to get selected for Leeds as he had decided he was going to Australia at the end of that season when his contract expired. So rather than turn up for training every day with no prospect of ever playing he took an alternative option. Again almost verging on constructive dismissal.'"
But whilst he wasn't a guaranteed starter at Leeds he was hardly playing with the kids, he was in practically every matchday 17 up until his transfer. Leeds could have made him stay and play, he could have stayed and kept on collecting his salary - that didn't happen because they came to an agreement.
Had Hock behaved in a reasonable fashion why wouldn't Wigan have acted reasonably in return? In fact they did in the first place did they not by allowing him to talk to Parramatta.
Why should Wigan let him leave just because he's changed his mind about going to Australia? Why should he be able to just ignore his contractual obligations?
You talk like clubs just ignore contracts when they want rid of a player, but that's not the case is it? They negotiate. The equivalent behaviour from Wigan would have been to refuse to let Hock train and then docking his wages for not training.
From what I've read this is a mess entirely of his own making, a flagrant attempt at manipulating/blackmailing his employers that didn't work and I have no sympathy for him. Having been given a barely deserved second chance by a club that he so badly let down he's shown no loyalty or respect to the club, his team mates or his fans (unless Wigan's comments are libellous, which I doubt) and I struggle to understand how people are defending him.
He's determined to flush his talent down the toilet and that's one endeavour I personally wish him luck with.
