Confirmed what we all know he's going to KR

[urlhttp://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/33795757[/url

IL doesn't seem to pleased about it either;



Quite stinging from Ian there and he's not held back.

For another me it's another reason why the SC is a bad idea. Why should players have to sacrifice money for playing at the top sides?

Naturally the top sides have the best players and thus the biggest earners which means players at Thornley level tend to get squeezed out under the cap.

IL indeed seems to by quite stinging. Saying it's about the money for him- well yes, I'm sure getting paid is an important factor in everyone's job- but IL also says in that interview he was offered "similar" terms-if the money was so similar then he can hardly be accused of going for the money.... so perhaps a big reason for his choice was he has a better chance of actually getting on the field and playing at KR.....

I'm quite glad to hear Lenagan come out and bag somebody rather then the same old lines being trotted out. People talk a lot in sport now about their being no loyalty but I think Lenagan has bucked that trend to be fair to him. The club is patient and try's its best not to hold players back by letting them go out on loan deals whilst still making sure they know they're part of the club. They also try to do the best for the players on loan by letting them play against them. Add in the amount of long term contracts they give out and I think the club treats the players very well. We certainly don't have a Salford style revolving door that players and coaches are constantly going through (well not by our own choice anyway).

On the other side of the coin we've had player after player decide they're moving on so I can understand Lenagan losing a bit of patience.

I can understand Lenegan being frustrated but it's come across as quite bitter. It sounds more Koukash than Lenegan. While the club have no doubt looked after him very well and shown faith in him, there's no point kidding ourselves that the club does it out of the goodness of its heart. The club makes business decisions based on what is in their best interests. No doubt Thornley has done the same.

Didn't Thornley skip out the door once before when good money was on offer?

I can't say I blame him, but I don't think we'll miss him either.

I was very pleased when we re-signed him, but he's done very little to impress since then.

My understanding is that Wane doesn't particularly rate Thornley due to his lack of aggression in training and in competitive matches. Thornley doesn't particularly like Wane probably because they are polar opposites in terms of their characteristics.
I also believe that Thornley wanted to go to HKR immediately but Wane or probably IL vetoed the move because Salford offered to pay more of Thornleys salary.
Personally I'm a bit indifferent on Thornley as a player but can't understand why IL seems fit to slag Thornley off but historically said sod all when Green and Taylor et al left after we paid transfer fees for their services.

Perhaps IL is getting a bit " tetchy " due to this London fiasco !

The big difference is that unfortunately Thornley has missed almost two full seasons through injury. I don't blame the lad at all, he has a young family to support and has decided to take the best offer on the table, good luck to him, loyalty doesn't pay the mortgage.

I think that's the way I'm leaning on this. Ideally they would have given him till the end of the season to prove at least his fitness.

Sadly with his injury record that's a gamble I wouldn't take if I was him. If he got two years guaranteed on the table he did the right thing taking it.

The BBC report isn't clear. On the Club's website it says that Thornley was offered a deal "similar to the one he was on."

[[u:24bwdiom:24bwdiomquote="Itchy Arsenal"My understanding is that Wane doesn't particularly rate Thornley due to his lack of aggression in training and in competitive matches. [/[uThornley doesn't particularly like Wane probably because they are polar opposites in terms of their characteristics.:24bwdiom[/u


Reply

The points you make that I have highlighted could be used to fit the Hampshire situation.
In the first part you say that Wane does not particulary rate Thornley due to his lack of aggression
Substitute that with Wane will not tolerate Hampshire questioning his decision that he is a fullback and fullback only.

In the second part you say that Wane and Thornley are polar opposites due to their characteristics.
Substitute that with Wane will not tolerate any decision that he makes, he rules by fear but the impasse comes when a player be it old or young stands up for his rights.
I honestly believe that Rocky will not be at Wigan next season and the deal may already have been done.

As an aside I also think with the news that Hughes is off to the Wire, Patrick will be here next season based on the fact that if it was on Wanes recommendation that Patrick came to Wigan in the first place he will not want to lose face by releasing after only one season.
That is borne out that Patrick place has never been in question when fit.

I imagine that our offer had strings attached because of his injury record. I cannot blame Thornley for wanting to secure his future. I would certainly move jobs for a better contract. If we had been so interested in keeping him we could have had him resigned, with strings, long ago. The issue with Thornley has always been that, despite his talent, he doesn't punch his weight. The problem this, year is that, neither do our pack.