WiganWarriorsFans.com

Whelley Warrior wrote:

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.....

Who suggested that? I think you will find what was said was that if the club wants to keep a player it has to better other offers on the table and can't rely on other factors that may lead the player to accept a lower offer.

Nothing to do with him being a fringe player (he wasn't anyway until he got injured, he was a first choice centre) but whether the club wants to retain him or not and having to make the best offer if that is what the club wants.

As to Mike's idea we wanted to keep him out of sentiment how does that work? You make an offer to a player who you don't really want to keep?

What if he accepts? You got someone you didn't really want on the cheap? Rather cynical don't you think?

Certainly no way to plan a team.

lucky 13 wrote: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.

Oy maybe HKR made a good sales pitch and Thornley didn't see a compelling reason to stay?

If as IL implies there was nothing in it money-wise perhaps IL should look if other factors were involved?

Dobby wrote:I don't really see how on the one hand he (IL) can make out Wigan offered the same money but then say he is greedy and left for the money. It's a contradiction

Surely Dobby is correct re contradiction ?

nathan_rugby wrote:

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,

And at an educated guess that Josh Charnley's first year salary at Wigan was nearer £15k.

cpwigan wrote:

Dobby wrote:I don't really see how on the one hand he (IL) can make out Wigan offered the same money but then say he is greedy and left for the money. It's a contradiction

Surely Dobby is correct re contradiction ?

IL stated that Wigan offered him a similar deal to the one he was already on at Wigan.
Hull KR offered him more money which he took. No contradiction that I can see.

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.

Karl Pryce being the ultimate example.

Shaun1967 wrote:

cpwigan wrote:

Dobby wrote:I don't really see how on the one hand he (IL) can make out Wigan offered the same money but then say he is greedy and left for the money. It's a contradiction

Surely Dobby is correct re contradiction ?

IL stated that Wigan offered him a similar deal to the one he was already on at Wigan.
Hull KR offered him more money which he took. No contradiction that I can see.

So if you are saying he was only offered a similar deal to what he was already on and not similar to what Hull KR offered then I don't really see what Lenegan is whinging about. He could be on 50k at Wigan and could have been offered 100k by Hull KR for all we know. Whether Wigan should match that is another matter (they obviously shouldn't) but don't expect the said player to stay either. Maybe Thornley has seen what happened to other players that stayed for years and played for peanuts and thought better of it. Players like Hansen and Goulding played a decade and still had to leave to get the big money that never came. Maybe Thornley thinks why bother.

Jesus, who gives a monkeys what people think Lenighan implied or did not with his comments

77 replies and 6 pages of comments for an utterly crap, injury prone player with NO loyalty and all I read is Lenighan implied this and Lenighan implied that. Where are people asking - why has Thornley walked from Wigan twice?

All I know is we are shot of an over-rated player and maybe, just maybe, we might be able to play someone in the centre position who has one ounce of talent more than the tub of lard now on his way for "success" at Hull KR than the likes Goulding and Tuscon achieved on Humberside - rant over!!!!!!

butt monkey wrote:Jesus, who gives a monkeys what people think Lenighan implied or did not with his comments

77 replies and 6 pages of comments for an utterly crap, injury prone player with NO loyalty and all I read is Lenighan implied this and Lenighan implied that. Where are people asking - why has Thornley walked from Wigan twice?

All I know is we are shot of an over-rated player and maybe, just maybe, we might be able to play someone in the centre position who has one ounce of talent more than the tub of lard now on his way for "success" at Hull KR than the likes Goulding and Tuscon achieved on Humberside - rant over!!!!!!

Spot on Butt Monkey, as with some and one in particular, its more to do with having the usual swipe at IL on anything rather than in this case, the actual issue of releasing or signing any particular player.

What gets me is that some moan about not having a good Centre, but when we get rid of one who has not played a lot because of injuries and is no better than what is playing at Centre, all hell lets loose.

Where the signing or releasing of players is concerned, it is at the end of the day the decision of the club, no matter what we say or think.

butt monkey wrote:Jesus, who gives a monkeys what people think Lenighan implied or did not with his comments

77 replies and 6 pages of comments for an utterly crap, injury prone player with NO loyalty and all I read is Lenighan implied this and Lenighan implied that. Where are people asking - why has Thornley walked from Wigan twice?

All I know is we are shot of an over-rated player and maybe, just maybe, we might be able to play someone in the centre position who has one ounce of talent more than the tub of lard now on his way for "success" at Hull KR than the likes Goulding and Tuscon achieved on Humberside - rant over!!!!!!

No need for those kind of insults fella. He was first choice centre before he got injured and was scoring try's in big games now he's leaving he's the scum of the earth? None of us know the full story and your beginning to sound like a bitter football fan, have a bit of class and wish the lad all the best in his new chapter.