Back to the issue of Hock, I see these 'liability' players in simple terms...



does the benefit what they bring to you on the field, exceed the cost of the damage they do by conceding penalties/getting sent off and leave you short on the field/missing games and getting banned, plus the potentially disruptive influence in the dressing room and reputational damage to the brand of the club?



If they are a really great player, then perhaps it does, which is why Barca have just paid out so much to Luis Suarez



But on Hock, is he STILL the great forward that is worth it?



A few years back you would have to say he was head and shoulders above any British back rower in the game, he was an outstanding talent.



But now...? I don't think he is the force of old.

hock is clearly a bit insane, but deep down there is a world class rugby player there.... i might be going against the grain a bit, but i would give him a 1 year contract, with the option of a 2nd if he behaves.... it might take a coach like smith to get him under control.... if someone can, they are getting one hell of a plyer

£100k apparently which makes it even more mystifying. He is 30 now after all and given he's not got all that many years left in the tank even if the gamble did pay off and we got a straight edge Hock then we're not going to get all that much for our money anyway.

Hock reminds me of Alan Rathbone, half brain dead nutcase but one hell of a player, I loved Rathbone's motivation. I was ball boy one time and so close to the action I heard him loudly saying..."come on lads, let's fxxxxxx kill em" top draw motivation! We did beat them too, I just forget who it was now??

I don't think it has crossed TS's mind to sign Hock. TS has implanted his own ethos and standards at the club and I cannot see Hock fitting in with them. After all, one of the first things he did was to get rid of one of the best centres of his generation in Gleeson because he was a bit of a liability in his private life which was undoubtedly an unsettling influence.