Re: Lenegan not happy with Thornley

cpwigan · Post by **cpwigan** » Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:34 pm

Gimble as Dobby states IL was clearly contradictory in his interview. Here-say I know but from sources I trust I was told he wasn't being retained some time ago and the links being made re Thornley with other clubs date back some time.

I can understand Wigan not wanting to take a risk / pay more to Thornley. It is their choice / right but equally players are free to make their choice and it is right for them to look after their own futures.

At one stage I saw a potential Neil Fox centre in Thornley. As yet he has not realised such potential and may never. In terms of the player, union was a mistake but financially I daresay it was profitable. Time will tell.

I think IL made a mistake making the statements he did. He would have done far better to highlight a fantastic young centre in Gildart who is likely to get some game time and simply wish Thornley all the best.

Wandering Warrior · Post by **Wandering Warrior** » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:02 pm

I wonder if the Club are actively looking at bringing in a centre for next year, or persevering with the "make do and mend" approach.
We do seem to be woefully lacking in that position, one loose canon who can be brilliant one week and a donkey the next three, one utility player rumoured to be off to Oz perhaps next season if he plays his next game in time, one young lad who is promising but yet to make his debut for the Club and two second row fill ins, one of which I happen to think is the best centre at the club despite this.
Given as the Club professes it's aim to be the Number One Club in the World, speculating to accumulate seems to have been lost in the ambition equation!

thegimble · Post by **thegimble** » Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:08 pm

cpwigan wrote:Gimble as Dobby states IL was clearly contradictory in his interview. Here-say I know but from sources I trust I was told he wasn't being retained some time ago and the links being made re Thornley with other clubs date back some time.

I can understand Wigan not wanting to take a risk / pay more to Thornley. It is their choice / right but equally players are free to make their choice and it is right for them to look after their own futures.

At one stage I saw a potential Neil Fox centre in Thornley. As yet he has not realised such potential and may never. In terms of the player, union was a mistake but financially I daresay it was profitable. Time will tell.

I think IL made a mistake making the statements he did. He would have done far better to highlight a fantastic young centre in Gildart who is likely to get some game time and simply wish Thornley all the best.

That is fair enough but do you think that IL then started to try and re sign him with the rumours of Sarge on him way either this year or next. Then failed to at the last minute.

TBH i think the best for the club is for him to go he is too injury prone and apart from 2013 not really deserved to keep his spot in the side.

On his day a dependable centre and could have been a lot better but for his injuries.

cpwigan · Post by **cpwigan** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:31 am

I think what you say is probably correct re not wanting him then thinking hold on we might need him.

Thornley like many 'big' players was huge, not much difference to now as a teenager and I think often at junior level their physical superiority makes it too easy and they simply run through opposition. A classic example albeit a different position was Ian Lucas. Unfortunately, you play v adults and no longer can you simply run through tackle it is then when you need to kick on and develop your skill set. I am not sure Ian Thornley has kicked on because if he had then he could have been a Neil Fox!

Post by **Mike** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:38 am

I can't see ILs contradiction.

He said thornley had two offers. One frmo Wigan and one from HKR. HKR's was slightly higher and thornley went with the bottom line. IL must have thought there was enough "value add" in our offer to make up for the small cash difference.

I'm not sure why people think we must have wanted him out. If we had we could have pushed him out anytime, given him a free transfer wherever he wanted and wished him well - happens all the time. I think we wanted to keep him out of sentiment (he's a SW favourite IMO) but IL didn't want to break the bank for it.

TBH I not bothered he's gone. He never passed to his winger anyway.

Owd Codger · Post by **Owd Codger** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:32 am

Mike wrote:I can't see ILs contradiction.

He said thornley had two offers. One frmo Wigan and one from HKR. HKR's was slightly higher and thornley went with the bottom line. IL must have thought there was enough "value add" in our offer to make up for the small cash difference.

I'm not sure why people think we must have wanted him out. If we had we could have pushed him out anytime, given him a free transfer wherever he wanted and wished him well - happens all the time. I think we wanted to keep him out of sentiment (he's a SW favourite IMO) but IL didn't want to break the bank for it.

Mike, I cannot believe that some supporters can even think that IL should better any offer for what is a fringe squad player with a history of injuries at Wigan, but in the eyes of Hull KR a first choice selection and are prepared to take a risk that the player is now fully fit.

lucky 13 · Post by **lucky 13** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:49 pm

I didn't pick up IL being cotradictory? I seemed to think he said we offered hi a similar cotract that he was already on and that he had been offered slightly more by HKR. He had took the money IL was a bit miffed he'd been out over a year and payed. I can see this from both sides it's a short career and a bad injury record means Thornley wants to secure as much as possible. IL prob thinks he owes him the difference in the way he's been took care of and offered similar contract than previous, with said same injury record.

lucky 13 · Post by **lucky 13** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:54 pm

It seems just a choice some would swing one way others a different one. Maybe The small print re terms of contract with his injury record played an effect guess we won't know.

nathan_rugby · Post by **nathan_rugby** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:39 pm

cpwigan wrote:I think what you say is probably correct re not wanting him then thinking hold on we might need him.

Thornley like many 'big' players was huge, not much difference to now as a teenager and I think often at junior level their physical superiority makes it too easy and they simply run through opposition. A classic example albeit a different position was Ian Lucas. Unfortunately, you play v adults and no longer can you simply run through tackle it is then when you need to kick on and develop your skill set. I am not sure Ian Thornley has kicked on because if he had then he could have been a Neil Fox!

He was unplayable at junior level which is probably the reason him and Logan played for the age above at St Pats for a number of years. I am unsure of how much a step up of one year was however. I have played in an u18s match which Ben Currie played alongside and was playing against players 1-3 years older (he must have been 16)and he absolutely dominated and single handedly won the match.

Also think I remember hearing Iain's first year salary at sale was £50k... Not too bad if you ask me,

ian.birchall · Post by **ian.birchall** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:14 pm

[quote="Mike"

TBH I not bothered he's gone. He never passed to his winger anyway.[/quote]

He is definitely related to Sarginson then!!!!!!