not read the whole thread but i hope someone has mentioned that its a serious slight by hock against the club seeing the loyalty they showed by sticking by him with the drugs business.

seem to remember at the time people were arguing on here saying 'we should keep him cos if we don't he'll just go to oz and we'll lose out' - well, if this rumour is true, we've kept him and he's going to oz and (as another poster has laready said due to the salaray cap) we will lose out

Excellent post Cadoo!
As has been said, Hock is our only truly aggressive forward.
We will still have a very big pack but we will need an enforcer type player.
Are there any around though?

You are also missing a couple of the other platitudes handed out when we lose a player (particularly mid-contract) when they leave for greener pastures. The first is "I'd like to see how he goes in the NRL". Really? Why does anyone want to see our side broken up so we can watch a few highlights of the player running around in the NRL? The other is money related. Some player like Joel gets offered higher wages to play RU so "we should not stand in his way and you'd do the same if you got offered more money for doing a less difficult job" etc ignoring the fact the player signed a so called contract. Well if this move for Hock comes to pass then perhaps now everyone can see what the fact contracts aren't worth diddly squat means and where that gets you.

It's quite easy to hand out these sorts of platitudes when its just the odd player every now and again but when your side is transformed from one with several International class players to one consisting of mainly average SL level players then perhaps it may dawn on some people even if it looked like we could cover the loss of the likes of Joel easy enough you just can't keep doing it over and over.

And you are exactly right about the production line being no compensation. Where did Joel come from and where is he now? Ditto Hock if he goes and Sam if he follows? Produce another as good as any of them and off they will go as well. The idea often put forward by opposition fans that losses to RU or the NRL of players of the quality of Graham or Hock is of little consequence is rapidly being shown to be the joke it always has been. The trickle may not have turned into a flood of players leaving the game but it doesn't have to before even a steady stream of exits lowers the quality of the game here to a clearly visible degree.

For some reason at Wigan we seem to have got to a situation where not only have seemingly not got a cat in hell's chance of persuading players who are out of contract like Finch to stay on we can't even keep players who signed long term deals.

Lets hope this Hock rumour is not true and for once a player who signs a five year deal who in this case actually owes the club his very future in the game shows a bit of loyalty despite the fact another club has come knocking.

If on the other hand Wigan instigated this move to get Hock out for whatever reason then IL has in my opinion a lot of explaining to do to the fans as this move would continue the teams very recent and rapid decline in quality.

People are looking for a conspiracy theory, but perhaps he saw an opportunity to go and live in Australia, in a completely different culture, for plenty of dollarydoos, and play in the 'best' rugby league competition in the world.

Then that will seriously cheese a lot of Wigan fans off considering the way the club has stood by him over recent years.

You get the prize for the first bunch of platitudes related to this to be posted.

He has (had?) four years of a five year contract to run which should mean he doesn't (didn't?) actually have any such opportunity. The only reason he can go is because Wigan agree to it and if the club trots out something similar to what I already posted about "not wanting to stand in a players way, blah, blah" then they are as good as admitting we are [inever[/i going to keep any good players on the books.

Whatever Hock's reasons are the CLUB is party to this move and so has to explain why it is letting an England International leave one year into a five year deal especially after it has invested so much time and effort into his rehabilitation. Not standing in his way just won't cut it.

Parramatta Eeels forum claiming hes signed a 4 year deal with them. Its going mad on there !!!

Sporting contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on anymore. People on here seem resigned to the fact that Tomkins will only be a Wigan player for another 12 months, despite the fact he has a long contract with you. He has a clause preventing him speaking to other clubs, which isn't as long as the contract. What does that tell you about the worth of the contract?

Yes, Wigan fans probably can feel aggrieved that (if the rumours are true) Hock isn't repaying the faith shown in him by the club. But ultimately, that is down to Hock's own conscience; if the club don't have a legal contract that stipulates that the rehabilitation excludes Hock from signing professional terms with any other sporting club for a certain term, he can move on, and let his future club pay Wigan any compo.

Honestly would be devastated if Hock left, nothing would hurt more than that. He is our best forward by a long way, creativity in abundance, the only one who bothers to offload, yes he is a bit of a nutcase and loves a rumble, but I adore watching him in our second row, knowing he can change a game in an instant and there are very very few forwards on this planet who can do that. He would be fantastic in the NRL, but I’d be very sad and peed off to see him go, because we’re going nowhere but down the table very very quickly

If Hock moves it is 'The king is dead, long live the king' scenario. The same will be said with Tomkins, SOL, HH, or anybody else who moves on to pastures new for more money. One day all these players will be retired and forgotten, the same with Faz, Rads and the others from the team from 10 years or so ago.

It tells me exactly what is says on the tin. That he has a five year contract which within the first three years precludes him speaking to any other club and that this is enforceable.



The fact Wigan can enforce Tomkins contract means contracts [iare [/ienforceable and I am sure all clubs do not employ legal numpties who draw up contracts with more holes in them than a sieve. The idea any player can sign a deal with another club and just walk out without his current clubs agreement is nonsense. If Wigan refused to release him there is no way on earth another club would risk signing the player and if you think that isn't a problem you have clearly forgotten what happened to Bradford when they felt free to sign Harris.

Leeds sued them for signing a player who's registration they held and they won. That shows you there is legal authority behind contracts and means Wigan must agree to any move.

Therefore as a Wigan fan as I said I want to see the clubs justification for this as much as I do Hock's. Regardless of what I may think of the way he has treated the club and fans, the club is IMO in the dock as well.

If Hock leaves then we will have NO attacking options in the pack. Lockers, Hansen, Mcilorum are all workhorses with little game changing ability.

Add into the mix we've lost two strike backs in Tommy and Carmont then it's painstakingly obvious to me all other teams need to do next season is mark Sam out of the game.

God knows what happens when Sam leaves.

I have supported IL to the hilt but he's watched over the biggest destruction of a quality team that I've ever seen in any sport.

There is a slight flaw in your argument here. We aren't getting any new kings. A few pretenders to the throne maybe.