I am not a Wigan fan, but I wouldn't be too upset if you sold him. If your club are willing to let him go then he is clearly being a disruptive influence behind the scenes. You will get a decent chunk of cap space back and could be able to strengthen in other areas

wiganer???...........................................i'm a widnes fan from sthelens

A sensible statement.

I think we need to get real about Gareth Hock. I hope he doesn't leave Wigan because he's an immense talent, but if he does, it can be for one reason only - because Wigan don't want him anymore. And the explanation for that will have nothing to do with his ability on the field.

If someone else then wants to sign him, well that's up to them, but they know the guy's a risk and must be absolutely sure that they can afford to gamble so much money.

It seems to me that the increased demands of modern sport are now proving to much for players of a - shall we say 'chav' inclination. All too often in the last few years, we've seen careers end badly or prematurely for certain individuals, because they were simply incapable of applying the necessarily discipline and attitude to their career. If that's the case here, it's a big shame - but I don't blame Wigan for taking action. The Gleeson business was ridiculously disruptive. Do we really want that again?

Don't take it personally. Tigertot's on a mission. You're just collateral damage.

It is nothing like the Gleeson business though, Hock is refusing to tow the line on a couple of new team rules, he isn't purposely disrupting his team mates. Wane is ruling the team by fear and for me in the modern day, that is not the way to go.

I am one of Wane's biggest fans but I am beginning to question if he is the right man for the job. When Sam goes at the end of the season how many genuine match winners will we have left???

You sure it's nothing like the Gleeson one?

And as for Hock refusing to follow a couple of New team rules, do any of the rest of the squad have a problems with these new rules?
Is Hock some kind of spokesman/union rep for the rest of the squad ala the Gary Neville of Wigan rugby League?
I find that highly unlikely and if the rest of the squad can knuckle down and follow the new rules then why can't he?

Poor show from Hock if he is wanting out after Wigan stood by him

I think you will find many fans will be disappointed if he "Does one". I was all for giving him a second chance, but we all know leopards have problems with those spots..

It's actually a lot like it.

Gleeson wouldn't do what Michael Maguire was telling him, much as Hock is doing now. And disruption is disruption, whether it's purposeful or not.

In addition, Wane is not as fearsome a boss as Michael Maguire was, but some people just can't seem to respond to any kind of discipline.

I don't understand your final comment. We're going to lose Sam to Australia, so we must keep Hock? How does that compute? Does it mean we must keep Hock at any cost? I'm afraid I disagree.

It's an age-old argument - we've had it so many times and with vastly better players than Gareth Hock - Ellery Hanley, Andy Gregory, Shaun Edwards. In almost all those cases (with the exception of the Shaun Edwards one), the coach, ultimately, was right. No player is bigger than the club.

I'm all for trying to find a peaceful solution, but there are times when you finally have to say enough is enough, and let's be hones - Gareth's has had many, many chances to get his house in order. More than he perhaps deserves.

You still think I was making things up when I posted last Saturday that he would sign for Widnes?

Does it really matter who said it first?

No, not at all. I am referring to the suggestions that I was simply making up rumours for the sake of it. Which clearly, I wasn't.

You will notice i used the word "if". As i said at the time, i don't believe much i read here, if that upsets your delicate sensibilities..................... Tough titty!!

I wasn't referring to that post. And trust me, you couldn't upset me.

Glad to hear it...

Widnes seasons loan heard it here first.

Loan as opposed to sign....?

how can a castleford fan take the out of anyone.................they are the laughing stock of the league........

Yeah as Wigan dont want to really sell + Widnes couldnt afford the fee.

In the case of Hock a season long loan would make no sense at all. 1) Why loan him for no money when we could sell him and get some money for him as he is on a long contract. 2) If we are looking to get rid for whatever reason why set up a deal where he is back with us in a year's time anyway. 3) Why would Widnes, a club looking to make a sustainable push up the table and secure a place from 2015 by doing so use up a fair chunk of their wage bill on a player that they would not have in 12 months time thus setting their squad back to square one at the time that decision is made.

I can believe that we may want to offload him given the possible motives for us wanting to do so but can only see it being done (if indeed the club do want to offload him) by selling rather than loaning out.

My mission is to expose stupidity. Quite ironic in this case. Back on topic, are you going to keep your promise, eat some humble Pie?

If rumours are to be believed and he is a trouble causer, what club will want to stump up a substantial fee for someone they may be looking to offload or even sack in 12 months time? Wigan will struggle to get any sort of decent fee for him if he's trouble.

You're assuming that someone will buy him.

The Aus deal clearly didn't work out. Who does that leave who has so much space available under their cap?

danny tickle is signing for 2014 so really the cash we pay to hock wont be wasted as it will pay danny's wages when he comes.

Could some kind of Gentleman's Agreement have been made where he goes to Widnes for a year on loan, comes back to Wigan and then signs for Parramatta/other NRL team for 2014 for a fee?