What's lawful isn't always morally right and what's morally right isn't always lawful. It's possible that Hock has been hard done by in some way but hasn't got a leg to stand on legally. We don't know his version of events (yet) or the terms of his contract, so it's all supposition.

In any event, I'm guessing a one way ticket to Widnes isn't going to prove a satisfactory outcome for anybody. It's just peevish.

Why are Wigan holding on to Hock if he doesn't want to play for them? They should take Warrington's money (if they are the ones in for him) and concentrate on the players who want to play for the cherry and whites.

Hock can be a destructive player but as long as he continues to exhibit traits associated with an area containing only a limited gene pool he's a risky acquisition for anyone.


(Loving Damo's upper arm reference by the way.)

There is a gargantuan and fairly obvious difference between recent cases at Leeds and this Hock situation, namely mutuality.

Luke Burgess, for example, was not a guaranteed starter and was offered (presumably with the club's consent) the opportunity to go and join his brother in the NRL - a big chance for a young man. He asked if this could be accomodated and was allowed to move.

Gareth Hock asked if he could go to Australia to start afresh, he was told he could provided the club were compensated for their investment in him - all seems reasonable. He then rejected the contract that was offered to him and changed his mind about going to Australia - which is his prerogative. He then demanded a move to another Super League club and Wigan said no, you're under contract with us - which is their prerogative. He then breached his contract in various ways hoping to be fired which he wasn't - which again is Wigan's prerogative. They then said you can go on loan to Widnes, an offer he accepted - which is his prerogative.

IMO he's lucky to be playing at all.

How you can compare the two scenarios is beyond me. One is a meeting of gentlemen where a cordial understanding has been reached, the other is a petulant child throwing his toys from the pram when he doesn't get what he wants. He's under contract and has not met the agreed terms of his contract, hoping to be fired. That it has backfired on him shows me one of the great differences between our sport and football. Long may it continue.

Things have changed since that five year deal was given to Gareth Hock. For one he's no longer playing at Wigan and now playing at Widnes. Why aren't Wigan with all their might forcing Gareth Hock to play for Wigan? It's because you can't treat a player like sh[ii[/it and expect a pleasant outcome. By the looks of things it hasn't been pleasant for everyone all round and Wigan have since shown their true colors by issuing a sh[ii[/ithouse of a press release announcing Gareth Hocks loan deal to Widnes.

Damo, I sometimes nearly think you believe what you are saying...

The funny thing is Gareth Hock is fulfilling his five year Wigan contract otherwise he wouldn't be at Widnes so that's that argument thrown out of the window. If he wasn't fulfilling his five year contract then I'm sure he'd be at a club with better short term prospects than Widnes.

Sometimes people just completely miss the obvious!

Gareth, I am not for one minute suggesting Leeds are a benevolent entity - quite the opposite.

There are many ways of getting rid of players coaches you don't want. McClennan was put in a position where he was working alongside his successor - an impossible position and could easily be seen as constructive dismissal.

My point is this - clubs should not cry foul when things don't go their way, all that is happening is they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

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.

I was going to let this low blow go but I might as well address it.

Entitlement works both ways.

In the case of Gareth Hock, Wigan have displayed the most awful degree of self entitlement and have shown very little appetite to earn the right for Mr Hock to play with them in 2013. Forced labor is illegal and was akin to slavery the last time I read about it.

If Gareth Hock doesn't want to play for Widnes then he doesn't have to but it looks like he's going to give it a go which is credit to him. No credit to Wigan though who aren't giving Gareth Hock much choice in the matter and even putting rules in place where he can't even play against his contracted club.

All this vaguely reminds me of a certain user who thought he was entitled some privacy with regards to his gambling addiction. He also thought he was entitled to keep my £20 which he still owes me despite promises to give me MY MONEY back. Actions speak louder than words in this world!

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.

Damo, you are pathetic. On the subject of the £20, all I have ever heard is you bring it up, then said poster offer to pay you in various ways, then you turn him down. Mentioning him having a gambling addiction is a low blow, whether its true or not.

You're entitled to your opinions on matters on this board, but airing your dirty laundry in public is not on.

I have lost any respect I ever had for you, which was very little in the first place

Harris is an intersting example, did Leeds not allow him to quit part way through his extended contract to go and play Union?
He had 1-2 years left as I remember yet he was allowed to go do something else - for a fee. Some players released from contracts recently you could say we didn't want, but the club captain?

He didn't want to play for us anymore and he was let go part way through a contract. No different to Hock not wanting to play for Wigan.

That said user has also mentioned on these boards that he hasn't spoke to me months at a time. I haven't turned this said user down - he can give back my money on MY TERMS.

If Wigan are entitled to have their terms with Gareth Hock then surely I'm entitled to have my terms with this said user?

You all saw how this said user reacted he couldn't have things on his terms. Now just imagine what poor Gareth Hock is going through.

I can live with the fact that you've lost any respect you had for me. Well hopefully others can live with the fact that I've lost any respect what I've had for Wigan which was little in the first place!

I think we'll end Damo's little trolling session here. Unfortunately he just can't help but get personal.