Confirmed what we all know he's going to KR

rlhttp://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/33795757rl

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."

[quoteMy 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.b]]
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.'"

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.

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.'"

The double standards by Lenegan are laughable, I just hope next time he takes a player off us (Green and Taylor) that he says "the club is delighted to sign player x, he's come for the money "

Lenegan is sat there with his millions slating a player for trying to earn a better wage in what is a very short career, think he needs some perspective.