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).

think about it like this. i'm sure every other club was celebrating when these quality players left Wigan. the players you replaced the half-backs with are in my opinion barely any better than those you could have promoted from your youth academy! Saints try to promote from within whenever possible but we look to keep our TOP QUALITY players for as long as we can, when they are not replaceable players (eastmond + graham)
not doubting Wigan's youth academy, it's equally as strong as ours, so I don't know why you don't use it more rather than signing average players like Smith and Green! (smith looked out of his depth when you signed him, not a patch on the lad Powell who played against Hull imo)

That's the most bizarre post I have read in a long time.
Last season Wigan NEVER fielded less than eight players in the team who had come through their academy and in some games there were as many as twelve.

Of the top sixteen appearance makers, eleven came through the Wigan academy system.


That was the hilarious part though.

We lost both half backs and have Powell in reserve. Last year he suffered a badly broken leg and only played a few games towards the end of the season. He could be going on loan to Salford so he can gain SL experience.
Wigan do promote from within.
Carmont has gone and will be replaced by Thornley or Hughes.
If Hock goes he will be replaced by either Farrell or Tuson.

The Wigan first 13 next year could look like
Tomkins,
Charnley, Goulding, Thornley/Hughes, Richards.
Green, Smith.
Prescott, McIlorum, Mossop,
Farrell/Tuson, Hansen,
O'Loughlin.
Of those I make ten out of the 13 who have come through Wigan's youth system.

The next two half backs are the U18s International 6 & 7, Hampshire and Williams. Too young yet for SL at 17/18 but it won't be too long before you see those two Wigan academy products in the first 13.

Quite good that really.

pardon?
i never questioned your youth academy. I questioned why you need to sign the likes of Smith and Green. I don't see why you need to sell star players, if you could keep hold of them and be much stronger.

It was the equally as strong as Saints part that made me smile.

When did Saints academy last win anything?

We won't pack our team with 30 plus year olds and it looks as though we have decided to promote from within rather than from overseas, as Ted has pointed out in his post above. Haven't Saints just signed three players from outside their academy including a 32 year old overseas player.