I'd just like to know if its the case that Hock has gone to IL and said I'm grateful for everything you have done but I have a great desire to play in the NRL. What is stopping IL from saying sorry Gaz your contracted to this club and at this moment we can't afford to lose you.

You have to feel with Joel Tomkins leaving one year into a 5 year contract IL has set a precedent to letting people go if they want to leave.

Or perhaps IL has said, or words to the effect of :-
"We have invested a lot of time and money in you Gareth and you are a massive playing asset for this club.
I know you now want to play down under but I have to treat you as an asset of Wigan Rugby League. Therefore Gareth, I will only release your registration if we get a transfer fee of (say£200k). If we get it you can go with our best wishes, if we don't get that amount we won't release you"

It is then that circumstances will dictate the outcome.
It does seem that he will leave, the Eels have just had their central funding increased by $2m. There appears no reason why Gaz won't go, after all Parramatta can afford him. Whether they can get him under their salary cap is up to them.

Because none of them are anywhere near Hock's experience or quality and we are already having to rely too much on young players as it is given who else has already left. I would have thought this was obvious.



What is the point of keeping Hock's money in the safe for a year? This is a rugby club not a bank! The idea is toi win trophies not generate cash.

As to what Sam is on just how much is he on then? Are you implying we have to sell Hock to afford Sam's wages? That can't be the case given how much we spent on Green and Tylor.

I'd rather have 12 months of rebuilding rather than 4 years of no silverware and buying random players to keep us going.



This isn't rebuilding. It's demolition.

It's going to take a lot longer than 12 months to replace the quality that has just left. The young players are not going to be able to deliver the quality and skills of the likes of George, Tommy, Finch, Lima and Hock (assuming he goes).

In any case IL said when he arrived he expected year on year improvement. He won't get it if he sells the teams best players. There was no need to see the side dismantled as it has been but it's as if it all came as a big surprise. What is the point of adding to it by selling Hock?




If he sells Hock, IL wants knocking all round Robin Park. You don't sell your best players. He will deserve all the criticism he gets. I can't imagine Wane is thrilled by the idea either.

As was shown earlier this week when Bradford knocked back Leeds offer for a contracted player, nothing.

If he goes it will be because IL decided to sell. No other reason.

He will make the usual excuse of not wanting to stand in a players way blah, blah but if he does you can treat it with a huge pinch of salt. It will just be an excuse for what he, IL, wanted to do.

That may well be the case and to be honest I accepted the Joel T transfer a lot more as its a different scenario with how Wigan have stuck by Gaz. But if IL does make a statement to say Gaz wanted to leave and we have received a significant transfer fee for him it would not soften the blow. I know how important it is for the club to be financially sound but I don't invest my time and money every year to sit in the stands and be happy that we are the most well run club financially. It really does make we worry about the next few years. What if Rhodri Lloyd, Ryan Hampshire, George Williams fulfills their expectations they will no doubt be continuously linked with moves away and going off the last two years it won't take long for them to leave. Forgive me if I am wrong but I haven't seem the Leeds and Warrington players rushing to leave?

IL is not going to come out and say anything, never has and wont start now.

That can be the only reasonable explanation. Hock is a disruptive influence on the group. I can't think of any other good reason for him to go.

That may well be the case. Hock comes in the category of "great player but...." and has had his history of trouble. Also there is always the possibility that Wigan have had his best days and whilst still good he is a player approaching 30 and Wigan may want to focus on the next generation.

What Wigan are going through with this high turnover of players now, is what Warrington and Leeds will go through in 2013-14, so you may as well have a bit of a shake up now and then get a settled squad in place to take advantage of the time when two of your rivals are in a rebuilding phase.

Your probably right Sally. But if we are thinking along those lines I think Saints may have a head start on us!

because as well as being a rugby club, it's also a business, what about the other facilities the club has, orrell, central park (pem high) and the shop in the town center as well as the old shop that is now the lotto base, all this stuff as well as paying fees for players like smith, green and taylor all cost money

Saints still have seven players over the age of 30 in their squad for next season, they too will have big problems replacing them as there is nothing in their academy in those positions.

While I am concerned about the potential loss of quality to the NRL and Union due to the salary cap, I think many on here are being premature in predicting the death knell of Rugby League in this country, and also the decline of Wigan next year if we lose Hock.

While Gaz is a decent player, there are far more important players in the squad, integral to wigan's success in the future, who I would be more concerned if they were leaving. In no particular order Charnley / Richards / Hughes / Murphy / Powell / Mossop / McIllorum / Dudson / Farrell / Hansen / O'Loughlin are all more important to the club going forward than Gaz Hock IMO, and I would be far more concerned if we were losing one of those than Gaz!

People seem to get misty eyed when talking about Hock (Millward being the perfect example yesterday) and forget the flaws in his game. Gaz had a stinker yesterday for England but got MOM - He lost us two opportunities for tries with stupid offloads, and gave away a N0b head needless penalty to gift France their only try - Against Australia he could have cost us up to 18 points and potentially the game.

Which goes exactly to the point of why Hock is NOT the world class forward many claim. The fact is if Parramatta get Hock they are getting a vastly overrated player, who will have to change his game in the NRL or he will fail.

He simply doesn't have the intelligence or vision to be world class, to know when and when not to offload, and gives away too many silly penalties. His M.O is simply to throw the ball out wherever when he goes into the tackle and hope the team pick up the pieces - when they do he looks excellent, but many forget his constant brain farts which lose possession, territory and points! He is the forward version of Kevin Brown (only that people perceive Brown as the opposite) This is exactly why, forwards like O'Loughlin / Ellis / Burgess / Gallen / Blair etc are light years ahead of him in World Class stakes.

The epitome of Gaz Hock for me was Wire last year - He scores a try single-handedly to get us back in the game, but 2 minutes later throws a stupid ball to wire, which then gifts them the try he has just got for us back (most remember the former but conveniently forget the latter, hence the claims of world class).

I would go as far to say that Wigan will be a better team next year without Hock, and for this reason I am almost hopeful he goes - As other posters have pointed out, for us to get anywhere near competing next season, we've got to go back to the madge first season game plan, where completion and hard yards and graft are key. We have the forward power IMO to do this even with the losses we've had, but if we aren't able to get near a 90/95% completion rate next year, we'll get nowhere- as we have simply lost too much gamebreaking talent to pull us back if we are losing ball and completing only around 70-80% of our sets.

Gaz Hock goes against this gameplan as he is worth 2-3 often key errors a game, which is why in all honesty I think we will be stronger without! In a team with the talent we had last year, Hock was a great player to have, as the rest of the team could pick up his slack - Next year will be different. Sure we will miss his rampaging runs and offloads when they come off, but with the losses we have, and the team we will have next year, Hock is simply too high risk for what will need to be our game plan IMO.

Perhaps, if Hock wants to go to NRL, Leneghan and Wane are already thinking this, and this is why we are happy to negotiate with parra?!

some reasonable points, but a tad OTT.
the truth of hock is somewhere between the hyperbole and the brick bats. on his day, he is the most devastating forward in SL, but he does get greedy and often blow as many tries as he creates through poor choices.

there is also another factor. i believe that he is at the same point in his career as Morley was when he went over. our beloved judiciary have his number and will punish him in a manner that they reserve for no one else within our game. in a new country, with no reputation before him, he may able to have the final flourish to his career that his hard work in recent times deserve (he spent his off-period very well, and showed maturity that was sadly lacking in his behaviour to earn his time-off).

yes, hock has the X-factor, but he is no lockers or tommy.
we will miss him if we do not replace him, but he is definitely replaceable.

Would agree wholeheartedly with that, which is, for once on these boards, a rounded and reasonable appraisal of Hock's talents. Yes he can be the most devastating forward in SL on his day, but can also, on any other day, be the most brain-dead, idiotic liability in the league (accepted to lesser extents now, but sadly this is still part of his game)!

He's a coaches absolute nightmare, which I think you could see by McBanana's appraisal of his game when asked yesterday!

Frankly I don't think Hock being here or Hock not next season will make too much difference when all is weighed up as stated above.