I never once said anyone was lying, including IL.
And I don't want to PM people, it's my decision not to say anything naming names considering who's involved.

And if, as has been suggested by some, the club should have been helping him to sort personal problems with "people you should not annoy", surely that's a matter for the authorities, not his employer.

Well if these people on here claim to know what has happened can you please logon to the Wakefield board and find the related thread and post and let us know if this is the case?

Clearly you have no idea what's going on.

Who's asking you to name names other than GH, SW or IL?

The comment that more players will leave because of it is the big one imo.

The latter half of Hock's career has hardly been a bed of roses, Dave.

He's had all kinds of on-field and off-field disciplinary issues.

Maybe he doesn't have a problem with coaches in general, but if he's messed the last two of them around, that rather suggests that his head is currently in the wrong place to be a professional sportsman.

I know that you are skeptical about IL on principle, and seem very far from happy with SW, but surely even you have doubts that Hock - with his frankly terrible record of the last few years - is some kind of innocent party in a Machiavellian scheme.

IL is a chairman who doesn't denounce individuals very often, but that was a startling press release. It read to me like a man at the end of his tether - and why not, after all the help the club has given to Hock.

Even if it's true that Hock is in trouble with the wrong people, it's the kind of bad luck that only seems to happen to people like him. Do we really need that at Wigan, with all the other distractions we have?

I don't want to lose a player like Hock, but weighing his troubles against his abilities, I'm not sure it's the disaster that some seem to feel.

Clearly, as you are the only person supposedly "In the know"... You do realise that if you had said nothing, this thread would have ended pages ago, so don't start bleating about people taking what you consider a contrary view..

I've been asked to explain my comments, to do that I'd have to name more names.

So people are wrong to believe IL's version of events, but he's not lying?

This gets better by the minute.

Again, not the most friendly of tones. And no I'm not the only one who's posted about another side to the story.

How about calling them person A or person B? Change their name to protect their identities.

I don't give a flying who is involved I simply want to know the reason for the fall out and why Wigan are to blame not Hock.

But surley just by saying you know something but cant say means people will call you on it? Plus if these people are so dangerous why would you even cop to knowing anything as a horses head could be on your pillow!

Its more likley someone playing the big i am trying to sound important but when it come to put up or shut up they hide behind a mystical vale of dangerous people who must not be spoken of!

Is this for real? Do you really not understand the statement made my IL? The issue is why Hock wants to leave, what events happened after the event are true, hence why IL spoke of them.

Now cut out the attitude. If you want to have a discussion then discuss, saying things like 'this gets better by the minute' highlights the derogatory attitude certain posters have towards others.

Are you surprised? You and others like you are trashing the club in an open forum, but refusing to give an explanation.

I don't really care if you know the reason, lets face it you've not exactly been the friendliest of posters, PMing you etc is not something which is going to happen.

Odd that on an anonymous forum, you can't name names... bizarre.

Yes i'm typing very aggressively, broke two keyboards... Bit rich coming from a keyboard warrior who has called me childish twice...

Trashing the club? again total BS. I have done no such thing.

Keyboard warrior for calling someone childish? Think you've just proven my point.

We can't have a discussion because every time we try too people come out with "if only you knew the truth" and then refuse to give the truth whilst getting upset that people want said truth.

So by questioning what you know means im not friendly towards you?

Tone, attitude, wording, comments. Additionally, you seem to not get the msg that I wouldn't be voicing anymore indepth knowledge on the subject.

Oh right, so you would call someone childish during a discussion? And refuse to answer any question other than to say "I can't/won't say, but i know the truth"?

Well you may well do so, and lets say, for the sake of argument, that you do indeed know the truth. Sadly, the way you are handling this info does not make you look very credible. You should have said your piece, and said no more. Instead you just want the whole world and his wife to believe you without a shred of a suggestion as to what that truth may be.

I hope this is not to aggressive for you...

And you don't seem to get that by playing the big man with comments like 'if only you knew the truth' and 'others will leave because of it' isn't going to have people asking for a reason or story.

I could quite easily post that I know something and refuse to divulge what it is, but how many people are going to believe me without more detail? None is the answer.

As for gettimg upset by my apparent tone, again what do you expect when after every comment you claim that person doesn't know the truth but aren't prepared to state what the truth is. Maybe you should have just said nothing?

To be honest I don't care who on here believes me. Why would I? Under other circumstances I would have dished out the whole story. I'm pretty sure other posters will know what's going on, it's common knowledge amongst the players.

In true conspiracy therory rhetoric, the fantasist tries to take the moral high ground when questioned as we cant handle the truth!