You can't run a team where you don't know form one minute to the next if your contracted players are going to want away having had their heads turned by agents or whoever.

It's dead simple and always has been. If you don't want to commit to a club and don't want to have the security of a five year deal, don't sign the contract. Sign a shorter one. If you do, see the the contract out.

All this "if I were in the same position..." does my head in. Good luck? What for? Screwing the club that probably saved his career?

The only way he'd be off the hook is if this deal were instigated by the club for some reason and wasn't his doing.

If the deal is off as recent posts are saying it would be interesting to find out why. Has Hock refused to go? Good lad if so.

Some of the Parra fans are getting a bit stroppy,asking whats the hold up. Some already have Hock down in their projected 17 for the coming season.
Below is a bit of a quote from one of the Parra fans supposedly in the know.

" Just on Hock, Wigan are being very challenging at the moment and I think there might be more truth to that Tonga rumour than meets the eye".

I'd love to know what "Wigan being very challenging" means. If IL has told them to go away he'd shoot up in many fans estimations instantly.

Challenging?

They make me laugh these Aussie clubs, they just expect us to give them our players.

Sounds like we have a touch of hope then.

As opposed to Hock shooting up?

Playing hardball comes to mind,squeezing every last drop out of Parra if it is Hock who is pushing for a move.

Depends who does what doesn't it? If IL forces Hock to honour the deal IL gets the brownie points. If Hock knocks back a deal brokered by Wigan and Parra when he never really wanted to leave he gets the Brownie points.

If he does actually leave then at least one of them won't come out of it well IMO. IL won't if he sells whoever instigated it and Hock won't if he asked to leave.

tigertot was making some lame attempt at a drugs reference.

Ban him then!

Perhaps "Wigan being Challenging" means the club want a fee for a player who is currently under contract. Maybe they don't see it that should they persuade Hock to break his contract then Wigan are entitled to compensation.
If Wigan let Hock go without obtaining a fee then should an NRL club sign Sam then they'd want him on the same basis as would any Union outfit!
I'd expect IL worked this our years ago so if Parra won't pay a fee then Gaz Hock's chances of playing down under are minus zero!

Wigan have paid close to 100k each by all accounts for Blake Green and Scott Taylor so if that's the case then we must surely be holding out for a very substantial fee.

Taylor may only be 21 but he was getting towards the last 12 months of his contract and isn't a full England international yet.

Green is 26 but from overseas and it's rare to pay a transfer fee for a foreign player. He's a good player but not an international and had a couple of years left on his deal.

Compare them to Hock who is a 28/29 year old England international with 4 years left on his Wigan deal and is probably the best forward in superleague right now and we're in our rights to be asking £200,000 minimum. Maybe they're trying to offer players in exchange but ultimately if they are it's because they need them off the cap to sign Folau and Hock so their value to any transfer deal becomes zero.

Hull KR didn't want Green or Taylor out of the club though so given that Wigan want to off-load Hock there is a different dynamic to the negotiation.

Why do they want rid?

Heard this morning that Hock has played his last game for Wigan whether he goes to the NRL or not!

Read into that what you will...!!!!

Any idea what he is supposed to have done?