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

That is the theory behind it, but we all know that this is not the case - otherwise why are so many NL1 fans/clubs unhappy with the whole system? In the League Express Karl Harrison was calling for there to be a rethink on the entire system because it favours the Super League sides too much.

Wigan will have sent Shaun Ainscough (or whoever for that matter) on loan to gain some valuable experience at another level against much tougher opposition than he would face in the U20's thus accelerating their development. However, should injuries occur or should a player warrant a place in the First Team side through their performances on dual registration then they would/have been called back into the side, much to the dissatisfaction to the NL1 clubs. Liam Farrell is an excellent example of the above.

So to reitterate, Wigan never had to play Pryce over Ainscough they chose to play Pryce over Ainscough and it was not out of convenience. You believe it was out of convenience, which is pure speculation on your part.



I don't pretend to fully comprehend the system inside out, but I'm sure the dual registration player trains at his parent club during the week and then meets up with his team mates at the dual reg club for a couple of days and then if required will play for the Super League club, if not they will play for the dual reg club. Coaches do select them as another squad member - as shown by us calling back Johnny Walker, Chris Tuson and Liam Farrell. They are not banished from the squad for the duration of the loan spell. That is a traditional loan (for the majority of the time). And this is why the dual reg loan is so appealing and has been a success for clubs like Wigan, because we can bring them back as and when we please, much to the dissatisfaction of the NL1 clubs. Just post a message on any NL1 message board regarding dual registration and I bet you get a lot of disgruntled supporters.



Then what is the point of a dual registration loan if it is exactly the same as the traditional loan? They are very different & that's what makes them so appealing. Further on you accuse me of being naive, but on the contrary, I think you are being very naive if you don't think that clubs can/will/have called players back, as and when they please, when injuries occur or the players form at the dual registration club has warranted a starting position in the first team in place of an out of form first teamer. The examples are staring you in the face - Liam Farrell, Ben Davies, Johnny Walker, Stefan Marsh and Chris Tuson.



rlhttp://castleford.dyndns.org/article.php?id

Quote: "The Warriors have retained the right to recall Shaun, subject to giving 48 hours notice'"

rlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/wigan/8634943.stmrl

The initial first loan period (the one month deal) you were correct. We could not have taken him back. However, Karl Pryce (or any other player for that matter) didn't play in that period. So I don't see where Ainscough was being held back or not picked out of convenience.

Quote: "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. '"

So for four weeks of the entire season we have established Shaun Ainscough was not available for selection and during that period Wigan did not have injury concerns or players out of form that warranted any player outside the starting XIII to be drafted in. For the rest of the season though Shaun Ainscough was available for selection. That is the idea I am putting forward.

Dual registration loans benefit the Super League club. They can be called back at any time. How many times has Stefan Marsh been called back from Whitehaven/Widnes? Liam Farrell was recalled back from Widnes. Ben Davies has played for Wigan and then gone back to play for Widnes. For the vast majority of the season Wigan could have called back Shaun Ainscough had they wanted to just like they have done with other players. As for the reasons why he wasn't called back I can't say. Poor form is the obvious suggestion after he was dropped from the Widnes Vikings squad. Attitude problems or anything else like that is speculation. But let it be established that Shaun Ainscough was readily available for selection. The NL1 clubs want the system reviewed, because it is so favoured to the Super League side. Wigan just took advantage of it like any other club.

Quote: "Consider you point argument answered and demolished'"

At least now I know you don't pick and chose which posters to reply to

But how it's supposed to work is exactly how it did work in Ainscough's case. Widnes were quite happy with the way it worked out and Wigan did not abuse the system in the way Harrision is complaining about. There are no grounds to suggest they didn't (abuse the system) because he simply wasn't good enough.



But just because it didn't happen in Ainscough's case doesn't prove anything about the clubs view of the player. The fact we did have Pryce "un-loanable" stuck in the U20's and other players who were not on loan capable of playing on the wing meant there was no pressure to bring him back or need to abuse the system. Wigan cold honour their part of the bargain. Farrell has got the games because of long term injuries to Hansen, Mossop and to a lesser extent Bailey. We have been stretched in the back row for some time so any complaining over Farrell coming back is a bit rich given the injuries. The situations are different. Davies only came back permanently when we started to run out of props as well.



It's not convenience. As I said above there was no pressure to call the player back and that does not mean he was left there because he was deemed a poor player and poorer than Pryce.



No they are not banished and can train with the parent club (or the dual reg club) but they can only play for one or the other in any week and notice must be given by the parent club who the player will play for that week well before the last minute but these mechanisms don't preclude anything I have said above.



Farrell and Davies I discussed above. Tuson is in the same boat as Farrell and was required due to injuries. You are suggesting they got called back just because we could.

Charnley who you missed off the list went on a traditional loan as he had to due to going to an SL side (so was not available for a month) but ended up in the squad because we ran out of centres and his loan was up anyway. I don't see anything to suggest the comings and going of players on loan or dual reg was down to anything other than what you would normally expect under the circumstances. We have had a lot of injuries but unfortunately for Ainscough not in the backs.

As to dual reg itself there are several points to it and above a loan which are as we know young players get to play at a higher level than U20's, the Nl1 club gets the use of the player and yes the SL club can call them back if needs be at much shorter notice but just because they can does not mean they must nor does not doing so imply anything.



I didn't say he was. The argument is that because he was on loan and wasn't regularly called back that was because he wasn't good enough - isn't it? I am saying that is pure speculation.



The idea a player on season long loan (or any length of loan for that matter) is available for selection in the same way any other player is, is just not plausible. He was available if the proverbial hit the fan and was called back when it did but to suggest he was as available as any player not out on loan and would, each week, be considered for selection as if he was not out on loan is not credible.



Well then I don't think you have an argument.



No its not. Players on loan are simply not going to be considered for selection unless the need arises. They are available should that need arise but your whole argument is based around loan players being treated by the club as if they are just another squad member and they simply won't be and Ainscough is the prime example of that actually happening.



But surely the point is if you look at the individual cases they didn't abuse the system. All the players got called back (even Ainscough) when the need arose not otherwise. We have not had the selection problems in the backs and it really would be abusing the system if Ainscough [ihad[/i been called back when we had the 24 year old Pryce running round in the U20's.

Dave

Dave,
Why have four coached binned him?

Or are you better qualified to comment on Ainscoughs performances and attributes.

Of course there is. We brought back Liam Farrell and Ben Davies didn't we? Why not Shaun Ainscough?



It doesn't disprove it either. See what I did there? It suggests many things about the clubs views about the player - especially now they have released him.



Under the previous regime I would agree with you, but I just can't see Mike MaGuire/Shaun Wane mistreating Shaun Ainscough like you are speculating. Had they seen Shaun Ainscough as a better alternative to Karl Pryce then they would have played him IMO. Why wouldn't they? Albeit there was no pressure to bring him back due to the depth of the squad, however that doesn't mean that they wouldn't bring him back IMO. Didn't Shaun Ainscough play in front of Karl Pryce against Harlequins? IIRC Karl Pryce hadn't made an appearance for Wigan before that game. So there was a situation where we didn't have the pressure to bring back Shaun Ainscough (because of the un-loanable Pryce), but we still did.



And as I said above there was no pressure to call him back, but we did for the Harlequins game ahead of Pryce.



The whole discussion we're having is based on speculation though - isn't it? The whole situation with Ainscough this year suggests that he wasn't good enough, by the fact that Karl Pryce/Darrell Goulding/Josh Charnley have all been played above him. The idea you put forward that it was due to lack of pressure that he didn't play or injuries is speculation on your part. Karl Pryce had the opportunity to play seven games that Ainscough could have played (so that wipes out the injury argument) and Shaun Ainscough was played ahead of Karl Pryce in the Harlequins game when we could have played Karl Pryce (which wipes out the lack of pressure argument).



In the 8 weeks from the 2nd of May to the 20th June Shaun Ainscough could have played instead of Karl Pryce - just like he did when he played against Harlequins at home. He was not selected in front of Karl Pryce. Now I don't believe that was due to lack of pressure or the loan agreement, because we had already done it for the Harlequins game. The only other suggestion you can put forward is that Karl Pryce was deemed to be the better option than Shaun Ainscough and NOT due to the dual registration agreement, but due to the players merits/form.

Mike Maguire is big on defence. I think we can all agree to that. Although Shaun Ainscough's lapses in defence have been gravely exaggerated by some on here, they are there & are a problem. Does Karl Pryce have the same faults in defence to the extent that Ainscough has? Pure speculation, but plausible IMO.



But we did it once when we played Shaun Ainscough over Karl Pryce against Harlequins. I understand what you are suggesting, but the need arose again when Amos Roberts got injured & Cameron Phelps got injured/out of form and Karl Pryce got a chance ahead of Ainscough. You can argue the moral stance of it, but we could have called Ainscough back again (under the terms of the agreement). I don't think our hand was forced to play Karl Pryce & there would have been nothing anyone could have done had we left him in the U20's and called back Shaun Ainscough - why? Because we'd already done it once before.

We did it twice with Ben Davies when we had Feka Paleaasina running around in the U20's. Why doesn't the same thing apply there then?