Wigan COULD have played Ainscough from May 2nd, but CHOSE to play Pryce. As I said ,dice and slice it as many ways you like, but the coaching staff CHOSE to not too play Ainscough. And it's as simple as that.

Just as an aside, Chris Dean is a dual registered player with Widnes, but has never played for them.

Loaning/Dual Reg have made a massive contribution to our team this season with Tuson, Marsh, Davies and Charnley all coming back to Wigan as better players.

U20s is no good for these lads anymore.
The players should get some money out off it aswell as IL they are not on big money at wigan.

Nor should they be at that age.

But just out of interest, if you don't think the U20s are any good for them and don't like sending them to play in other clubs' first teams, what would you do to get them up to speed?

And please, let's have a sensible answer, not something daft like play them all in the first team and pay them massive wages which they don't yet merit.

Two questions here.

a) Is a healthy bank balance for Wigan RL not a good thing?

b) Which of our loaned out players, nearly all of whom have come back better players, with enhanced reputations, a big future at Wigan and much better bargaining power when they negotiate their next contracts, are not happy? And let's have some evidence to support your assertions, because on the evidence of their performances on the field and their body-language off it, most of them are very happy indeed.

I am not have a go at anybody at wigan about the rugby side off things.
IMO the players who went out to other clubs should have got some off the win bonus and not IL/wigan

I like the way you keep bracketing IL with Wigan, as if it's something underhand and dishonest. You make it sound as if this dual registration / loan thing is totally geared towards making him personally richer at the expense of worthier causes.

The lads will get paid as per the contracts they agreed with their employer, which is Wigan RL. And if the terms of these loan deals benefit Wigan RL, then that's to be applauded - we want our club to be in a healthy financial state.

The other thing is, the best way these lads can earn the big money, as you call it, will be to improve themselves as players. And that is exactly what has happened in most cases this season. The likes of Charnley and Farrell in particular are completely different players now, and much closer to the big money bracket than they were before they went out on loan.

Is this really necessary? Why has Ainscough been let go? Perhaps its because our current first team wingers are the 1st and 4th top try scorers in the league each respectively and we have Roberts in reserve who has been largely injured for this season and still has thirteen tries to his name.

Many may place Ainscough ahead of Pryce and his attacking flair was certainly a joy to see when he broke onto the scene but if we compare his stats last season to Pryce he scored 13 tries in 11 appearances compared to Karl's 10 in 7 but made ten errors more.

Karl Pryce isn't the future of Wigan RL & if Ainscough has similar problems then neither is he. Is there a counter argument for everything I have just said? Probably but it doesn't matter, only time will tell and personally I wish Ainscough all the best for the future.

Ainscough doesnt have a future at Wigan, and that is the correct decision. Various sets of coaches have deemed him not good enough. A simple try scoring stat isnt enough. Thats all he offered.

Richards, Roberts, Goulding & Pryce (and even Phelps) are all better options than him on the wing.

good luck to the lad. As has been said he's almost there as a potent attacking force, but I think we've proved this year that Wigan are building a house on the solid foundations of attack AND defence. Unfortunately Shaun doesn't tick all the boxes... A bit like Feka I suppose.

Nope. Once again I've been ignored because my post has completely exposed the flaws in someones argument.

Not so fast.



You don't really understand what dual reg is all about do you?

Wigan or any other club who send a player out on dual reg will do so expecting the player to play for his NL1 side for the entire period of the dual registered agreement. And the NL1 side will expect to have them available for most if not all of that time as well. It will be the exception that they get called back and it must be so or there is simply nothing in it for the NL1 side.

The fact he can come back to the SL side at short notice is not there so the SL coach can pick the player as if he were just another squad member if he feels like it and you won't see coaches doing that. When Ainscough went out on dual reg you can guarantee it was with a view to him playing for Widnes for the entire length of that agreement just as it is when a player goes out on a traditional loan. Being able to get him back at short notice should the need arise makes it more attractive to send these players out on dual reg agreements but if you really think any club will be getting them back as ad hoc as you suggest and the fact they don't repeatedly call players back is some some sort of comment on their ability you are being naive IMO.



Another one who doesn't know how loans work. We could not have had him back at any time from his loan at Castleford as a loan is always for a minimum of 28 days. If loans are extended they can be less than a further 28 days but within the agreement it will say how long the extension is for and it's only then the loaning club may be able to get the receiving club to accept a shorter term deal.

The idea you put forward which is basically that players who get sent out on loans or dual reg are considered so readily available by the coach they will always be under consideration for selection at Wigan and if not regularly called back means they must be poor is fanciful.

It completely ignores just about every consideration there is when either of the of agreements are entered into such as why the player goes out on loan, what benefits Wigan see in sending the player out both for the player and club and what the receiving club expects to get in return.

Consider you point argument answered and demolished

.

Dave