Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:20 pm  

Bovrick wrote:

If all the other clubs find Thornley that important to England, and Wigan being the only club who does nothing for the England making all the others out there for England...

why didn't anyone else try to sign him?

Obviously if the other clubs wanted to avert this disaster, they could have paid for him?

Because obviously he didn't leave for money or education, he left because Wigan have signed a prop, a second rower and a halfback, which will prevent him playing in the threequarters.

Just get over it, Wigan produce more than enough players to get by, some aren't good enough to make it into our team. Tough.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:08 am  

Bovrick wrote:

why didn't anyone else try to sign him?

Good question. If Thornley was all that, then there's plenty of SL clubs in need of british talent in their backs he could've gone to for a reasonable wage. However, if Sale have made on over-the-odds offer, Wigan were right to stand firm.

It wasn't long ago Saints fans were worried about Eastmond being poached by Sale - the concenses was almost unanimous that we shouldn't be held to ransom by an unproven youngster.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:34 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

It wasn't long ago Saints fans were worried about Eastmond being poached by Sale - the concenses was almost unanimous that we shouldn't be held to ransom by an unproven youngster.

And Kyle is still in Super League not playing Rugby Union.

The whole crux of this arguement is that Wigan hide behind the salary cap as the reason for Thornley's departure from the sport, yet they find enough to pay getting on for 10 NRL players.

There is something wrong there.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:41 am  

Saddened! wrote:

And Kyle is still in Super League not playing Rugby Union.

The whole crux of this arguement is that Wigan hide behind the salary cap as the reason for Thornley's departure from the sport, yet they find enough to pay getting on for 10 NRL players.

There is something wrong there.

You reached a compromise 2 year contract deal with Kyle, when there was no offer on the table from an RU club.

Lets see you pull it off again when there's a big value (given his experience level) contract on the table.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:30 pm  

This is completely obscene, have any of you actually seen the Wigan squad (highlighted are the ones who have played first team this year?

1. Cameron Phelps - Aussie
2. Amos Roberts - Aussie
3. Martin Gleeson - English
4. George Carmont - Aussie
5. Pat Richards - Aussie/Irish
6. Sam Tomkins - English - Wigan
7. Thomas Leuluai - Kiwi
8. Stuart Fielden - English
9. Mark Riddell - Aussie
10. Andy Coley - English
11. Harrison Hansen - Aussie - Wigan trained
12. Joel Tomkins - English - Wigan
13. Sean O'Loughlin - English - Wigan
14. Paul Prescott - English - Wigan
15. Michael McIlorum - English - Wigan
16. Phil Bailey - Aussie
17. Iafeta Paleaaesina - Kiwi

19. Paul Deacon - English
20. Karl Pryce - English
21. Eamon O'Carroll - English - Wigan
22. Shaun Ainscough English - Wigan
23. Lee Mossop - English - Wigan
24. Darrell Goulding - English - Wigan
25. Liam Farrell - English - Wigan
26. Ben Davies - English - Wigan
27. Stefan Marsh - English - Wigan
28. Joe Mellor - English - Wigan
29. Chris Tuson - English - Wigan
30. Josh Veivers - English - Wigan
31. Josh Charnley - English - Wigan
32. Jonny Walker - English - Wigan
33. Iain Thornley - English - Wigan
34. Neil Holland - English - Wigan

So for those of you who can't count that's; 24 English players, 21 English players that have featured in the Wigan first team this year, 19 Wigan lads in the squad, 14 of which have played in the first team this year. That's ignoring Hansen even though he came through the Wigan academy.

And as for next year we of the 8 none England eligible players 4 of which are likely to leave to be replaced with three; dropping out overseas players by one; all 3 of which are significantly better than the 4 that are leaving.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:08 pm  

Enicomb wrote:

And as for next year we of the 8 none England eligible players 4 of which are likely to leave to be replaced with three; dropping out overseas players by one; all 3 of which are significantly better than the 4 that are leaving.

There are 9 non-England eligible players in your list, so you'll have 8 next year if you drop by one. That is FAR too many for a club like Wigan.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:04 pm  

This thread is unbelievable. Name me one more side that has debuted more players in Super League this season than Wigan.

Name me one side that has more players out on Dual-Reg or Loan than Wigan.

Thornley our fifth choice, yes fifth choice. (Gleeson, Carmont, Marsh, Charnley ahead of him) has gone to Rugby Union.

Spin it anyway you want, Wigan are replacing some aussies with some better aussies, and a young centre has left the game because Sale offered him more than we could afford to under the salary cap. Absolute non story if its any other team, but it's wigan, and they where once full time when nobody else was and it WASNT FAIR!

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:12 pm  

Batesy wrote:

and a young centre has left the game because Sale offered him more than we could afford to under the salary cap.

What you backwards Goons fail to understand is that Wigan DID have enough money to keep him, they just chose to use it to pay NRL players, thus further undermining the England team's chances.

But if you can sleep at night knowing that, so be it. All the other teams have done something about it bar the horrible, immoral Goons.

Quins have more British players in their 17 than Wigan do. That's just stupid.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:21 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

What you backwards Goons fail to understand is that Wigan DID have enough money to keep him, they just chose to use it to pay NRL players, thus further undermining the England team's chances.

So you think Wigan should have paid £60k-£70k for an 18 year old who had never played in the first team because he didn't want a full-time contract so he could finish his A-Levels?

You really need some new material - either that or at least string a decent argument together that can't be blown out of the water in an instant.

Re: Wigan "owner" irritated : Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:31 pm  

Batesy wrote:

This thread is unbelievable. Name me one more side that has debuted more players in Super League this season than Wigan.

The point is that NINE non England eligible players have played for Wigan this year and you are likely to have EIGHT next season.

Two of the four players leaving to allow the new three aren't playing regular first team (Feka and Phelps) where as the incoming players certainly will - so next season, there will actually be a reduction in places in the Wigan first team for England eligible players in real terms.

From what I understand, Riddell/Phelps/Feka/Bailey will be off. That leaves Roberts/Carmont/Richards/Tommy/Hansen/Hoffman/Finch/Lima - 8 non England eligible players.

It is precisely because your youth set-up is so good that those sorts of numbers are so unpalatable.