Re: Hock down under : Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:32 pm
SaintsFan wrote:
Why don't they have a choice if it isn't financial? Hock, for example, is still under contract. Therefore there was no need to let him go. Unless he has been a naughty boy or something, the only reason a club would let what they consider to be one of their best players go before their contract is up is finance, either to afford the purchase of another player or to free up the salary of the one they are selling.
He has either had a disciplinary breach or he simply wasnts to leave. Either way the reason behind it is out of the clubs control. If he wants to leave then the Kyle Eastmond situation will explain why if a players wants to go the contract or no contract there's no point keeping them.