Why not?

No team in Superleague are going to be replacing their best players with similar quality. So long as their young enough the similar quality ones will be off too! This will happen to us all. The game will decline etc etc

Why don't they have a choice if it isn't financial? Hock, for example, is still under contract. Therefore there was no need to let him go. Unless he has been a naughty boy or something, the only reason a club would let what they consider to be one of their best players go before their contract is up is finance, either to afford the purchase of another player or to free up the salary of the one they are selling.

Yup and and really can't imagine that of one of the games true professionals

He has either had a disciplinary breach or he simply wasnts to leave. Either way the reason behind it is out of the clubs control. If he wants to leave then the Kyle Eastmond situation will explain why if a players wants to go the contract or no contract there's no point keeping them.

It's called "banter" matey....

Not really.
Eastmond played Saints like a kipper.
He knew he was going and then "negotiated" a one year extension, with minimal appearances.

So Saints got not a penny for him when he did move.
Wigan seem a bit more savvy.

If Hock goes then Wigan will get a fee, like they did for Joel Tomkins. The interesting one will be Sam after next years World Cup. I think he'll move on (sadly) but IL got him to sign a 5 year contract last year, so whoever wants him will have to pay a LOT of money to get him.

It's not ideal but it's better than Saints did with Eastmond and Graham.

But is that true? The reports at the time he signed his deal was that he had a clause in it that allowed him to leave after 2 years. The Saracens fans on their boards celebrated the fact that they could get him for nothing once he'd developed into a world class player and that if he didn't, they'd saved themselves the risk. A lot of people believe his transfer to Saracens was agreed when Joel left.

No, the clause was that he couldn't talk to any other club for two years. He would then still have three years left on his Wigan contract.

But what's the point in getting a load of money for selling your best players when there's simply nobody around worth using that money in signing to replace them? What are Wigan going to do with the 500 grand they may end up getting for Tomkins exactly? You'll spend 100 grand on another couple of average players from lesser SL clubs at inflated prices and then what? I'd rather hang on to a top class player a few extra years to give us as much chance as possible of winning trophies with them and then get nothing, than offload them half way through their contract and then all sit around a nice big pile of money with nothing to spend it on except for the likes of Smith, Green etc.

This is excatly right! I just dont see Wigan's strategy here. Id rather keep them for the length of their contract, as i was with Jammer.
IL seems to be cashing in on Wigan's talent and replacing it with players who arn't as good he can't need the money so why do it? Its bizarre

Saints bottled the Eastmond situation because of his injury record up til then.

By all accounts he wanted Longys wages so for the club to tie up that wage with a long conyract for a player who looked brittle was a gamble especially considering we had been burned with Scullys record.

Instead we gave him a two year deal and he shined in year one by then it was too late.

Its great selling players if you can replace them.

To sell so many so quick will only weaken a team.

Surely if a player is determined to leave then it is better to get a fee for him than not?
Wigan got a fee for Joel T and with the money bought Smith, Green and Taylor with a bit of change to spare. Joel was replaced at 3 by Goulding.
End of next year Richards is OOC as is Hansen. Both may leave or possibly one may stay. Which ever Wigan will not get a fee.
If Richards goes then either Gelling or Burgess will replace him. Should Hansen leave then the club have plenty second rowers ready for his shirt.
When Sam T goes the club will get a sizeable fee but whether they get someone as good is extremely doubtful.
Can understand why Eastmond slipped away but I do think Graham going without a fee was a big mistake. He was the best prop in SL and is the best prop in the NRL and he went for nothing.
That can't be good business surely?
This is a new style of business with today's contracts. They now appear to be no longer meant to hold a player for the full term but ring fence the club against a short term departure by being able to demand a fee.
Perhaps the next Saints player to get a long term deal will be Makinson. A quality lad who may well get tapped up by the number of British players down under to joing them out there for a better League and a far better lifestyle. If he leaves without a fee then Saints will have slipped up.

It depends on your perspective. As you say, Graham was the best prop in the game in his last year at Saints. Personally, I would much prefer watching the best players in the world playing for my team, than sell them and sign Joe Average from Hull KR and have a few quid in the bank.

Say you sell a player for £200k, once you have paid various fees and charges, plus the (inflated) transfer fee agent fees for Joe Average you might be left with £50k in the bank, but have a much weaker team.

The aim of the game is to win competitions, and you have a much better chance of that happening with world class players in your team (granted, it didn't work out that way for us in the last year of Graham's deal).