perhaps wigan think that mick cassidy will sort him out, i will be ecstatic if he joins us but i still don't think it will happen........

We bought Gleeson from Wire didn't we. It's a matter of weighing up costs and benefits to the club.

Also if the source of a problem can be connected to the place or people around which a player lives then moving them away from them is often a way the new club uses to try to solve the issues. Similarly if a rule that is not being followed by the player is not in place at the prospective new club (or the person they aren't getting on with isn't there either) then the cause for the disruptive behaviour can disappear.

If he is no longer wanted here it does not mean that the problem is so big that nobody will want him.

If he were available someone would take a punt on him as he is such a good player but just as there was with Gleeson with us there would always be people even in his new club waiting for the problems to resurface.

In Hock's case any problems connected to where he lives won't be going away because Salford and Widnes aren't exactly light years away and he may not even move house anyway if he went o either place (would you move to either area?).

Anyway haven't Widnes got money troubles all of a sudden with their owner looking to offload? So unless Salford get a cashed up new owner or there is interest from an as yet unknown club I can't see him going anyway.

Gleeson turned up to training drunk. How is Hock's stance against Wane like that?

Whatever form your defiance of the club's rules takes, defiance is still defiance.

It's only going to have one outcome.

not knowing the legal side of things but with his drug ban or any other criminal record would he get a visa? is this may be why he is not in the nrl?

His sporting ban for drug use doesn't constitute a criminal offence so he doesn't have a criminal record in relation to it. If the NRL or Australian Border controlling authority had prevented his proposed move then there would not be talk of a possible future move from Parramatta so it is unlikely that it would have any bearing.

The club itself has set a bad precedent under IL, in letting players leave when they wanted, basically making our contracts even more pointless. It happened with Barrett, Riddell, Lima, Maguire, and J.Tomkins. But when Hock wanted to leave they demanded a huge fee. Surely if the player wanted to go to Paramatta, they should have let him go. We didnt 'demand' a fee for Barrett or Lima, so maybe that is why Hock is annoyed. Who knows. Either way, we have lost half a team, and we will still make the top 4, which proves how shocking SL really is

All very true. Suppose we had a right to demand a fee though when Hock has been trained up completely by Wigan and was taken back after his drugs ban.

We received a (reported) fee of 250k for Joel.