I cant say I am surprised as I cant see either player making it at Wigan. They are way behind our other youngsters in the pecking order.

Didn't shaun wane say on sky the other week they will be keeping all there best youth players and the 3 signings from the storm will not effect the kids coming through ?

Since then i have read you've lost a few young players.

Thoughts?

He said BEST youth players. There's your answer.

I thought vievers was good young kid, wasn't the kid who went sale a good player ?

(NOT HAVING A DIG)

Thoughts are we ll say this once more 3 or 4 quota players out 3 in, Nothing to do with kids , We let kids go every year, Every team does just like every team has a quota like saints who's filled there's

Thornley was yes but hes been courted by Union for along time and has been given a contract far better than we could offer him. IL is furious how that whole deal unfolded and did try to keep him. As for the likes of Vievers it all depends on how MM sees if theyre going to push for the first team, if not its time to let go and let the next batch stake a claim.

Not having a dig, i think the 3 storm players are awesome signings and will blend in with the likes of tomkins brothers, mossop, prescott and the other young lads playing in your squad.

All this youth talk has gone OTT, teams can't play every week with 17 young lads, the has to be a good mix.

Why is it, when someone posts on another teams forum, that idiots think it's a war?

Vievers is 21 in a couple of months and has yet to make a first team appearance. If he was good enough he would have by now. Him going to Wakey tells me that he isn't. Howarth was always going to struggle being a back rower as there's the likes of Joel Tomkins, Harrison Hansen, Liam Farrell, Chris Tuson and Johnny Walker ahead of him in the pecking order, as well as Hoffman coming next year

They were never good enough IMO best for all involved

you can't compare Thornley leaving to Vievers and Howarth. One was signed by union on a massive salary the other two have been let go because they aren't good enough. Lookin at our squad over the last two seasons I don't believe anyone can fairly criticise Wigan's policy when it comes to youngsters.

Of course you were

You were finding something to have a pop about. First suggesting Shaun Wane had contradicted himself, and then you brought up Thornley and the fact you thought Veivers was a good kid to have a pop at our youth system. At least admit it buddy

Its quite interesting how Ian Thrornley has not been released to sale yet . there are some issues trying to be ironed out ,IL is deffo no push over

Come on spill the beans if you know something.

From what i have heard IL wants a fee to release him early , sale wont pay what he wants , IL is keeping him until its either paid or till end of season. He will miss 2 Sale training camps . Only what i have heard though it could be wrong

Good on him if that's the case. Thornley is still under contract to Wigan so IL has no obligation to do anything for Sale

Thornley is contracted to Wigan until October.

Maybe IL is making him see out his contract.

Lol I can't help but laugh at this.

Thornley has made his choice and it's time to cut ties. What purpose does keeping him around serve apart from damaging his potential progression in his new career?

It all seems a little childish by IL IMO as at the end of the day there is a young lads career in the mix. What happens if Thornely gets a serious injury playing for us? Is IL willing to pay for his surgery/medical expenses or does he dump him on Sale then? What happens if it's a career ending injury? Is it really worth the hassle of all that for another 5-6 academy games?

Even it is the reserves league, the lads in the team have been playing to win the league and you need your best players to do that. Winning the reserves league speaks volumes for your youth structure too so good on IL for keeping hold of Thornley. Also, should we have a few more injuries he might need to be called up.

Contracts are contracts & with certain overseas players departing early already, we don't want it to become a trend and an option for players before they sign contracts for Wigan.

Well to be honest i would not let him go until his contract was out. If he was going to another League side he would not go until the end of his contract to me there is no difference.
Its about time someone took a stance and made players realize that when you sign a contract for a certain amount of time you had to see it out. The only way you could get out early was a genuine family back home reason and even then i would make it so they did not play for any other club unless they paid off the remainder of the contract. Or buy yourself out of the contract or get your new club to do so.

Lee Smith didn't leave Leeds until after the RL season nor did Jason Robinson with us.

No shock really.

Agree with this 100%.

It's not really about being vindictive or having revenge on a player. A contract is a profesisonal deal and it was conceived and struck for the benefit of BOTH parties. These days, with the salary cap etc, the club fork out good wages because they've calculated that they need this player as part of their playing personnel for a specific period of time, not just at his convenience. The player and his agent must respect this, and be professional about it (especially as, in Thornley's case, there isn't much time on the contract left).

The normal argument is that you ought to let the player go because what use is a player who doesn't want to be there? That's a true to an extent (especially with homesick Aussies who might have years left to serve), but at the end of the day you also have to send a message - particularly to the likes of Sale RU, who, whenever they have a crisis (and trust me, they're in one now), kneejerk react by going out and making 'glamour signings' - that there's an extra price-tag if the RL club are to ignore the deal they constructed to protect their own interests.

RU sniffing around our young players is a major problem at present. RU clubs don't respect 'non-tampering windows', etc, and neither are they hindered by having a stringent cap of their own. At present, thanks mainly to the intransigence of the RFL, they hold all the cards. The very least we can do is ensure they realise they must pay every single penny necessary for our carefully and expensively nurtured talent, or they won't get it.

There is one other thing as well. IL may be conscious of how this saga is going down with the Wigan fans. The last thing he wants is the kind of negativity that resulted from Chris Ashton's famous pose in his new RU shirt, even though he was supposedly a Wigan player for several more months. If Thornley has been advised that he is a Wigan player, and nothing else, until the very last second of his contract, then it's fine by me.

Agreed, and credit to the lad for still playing his best for the reserves - he was one of our best players on Saturday. He could easily just have "marked time" till his contract was up.

Always enjoy reading your posts Cruncher and the above is why. Great post.