Shaun Ainscough

[cpwigan]

I guess it is p to individual choice Fuji.

However, do you believe that we had what 25 or 35K left to play with on the cap as our Chairman stated at the fans forum and then signed Gleeson unless what a member of the Gleeson family has stated is true because if that statement was not true then the suggestion would be the statement we have 25 or 35K in the cap would have been incorrect?

I forget the name of the poster in this thread but it sounds like his source was identical to mine re Ainscough and you cannot get a better source.

[fred_flintstone]

Sounds like you've been chatting to the same person I have .

[GeoffN]

I guess it is p to individual choice Fuji.

However, do you believe that we had what 25 or 35K left to play with on the cap as our Chairman stated at the fans forum and then signed Gleeson unless what a member of the Gleeson family has stated is true because if that statement was not true then the suggestion would be the statement we have 25 or 35K in the cap would have been incorrect?

Don't forget we freed up Mathers' well-deserved wage...that would give us another 10k to spend.

[cpwigan]

Apologies fred I had forgotten your name. Yes.

[DaveO]

Had it confirmed today that Shaun Ainscough will not play again for the first team because his present contract states that when he has played X number of games he is automatically upgraded to a new contract.

Whether they have kept a game or two in reserve or reached his limit I do not know.

Denied by IL on RLFans

It wasn't just denied he agreed with my proposition that the club (which to all intents and purposes is IL himself) would not be stupid enough to enter into a contract with a player that meant if we would either break the cap if we played him or be prevented from playing him when he was needed.

I don't know who this source is but it is completely contradicting our chairman.

Now if this information turns out to be correct it means one of:

1. IL's user on rlfans isn't IL.

2. It is IL but he went out of his way to give the fans the wrong information.

3. It is IL and what he said on rlfans is correct.

If it was 2 he'd have no credibility left as the truth will out sooner or later. It wasn't just a simple or cleverly worded denial. It was categoric.

I suspect given most people think 1 is not plausible it is therefore 3 and this "source" is the one who is incorrect and the reason we don't see Ainscough is simply as we all suspect down to Noble.

Dave

[Reevezie 2.0.0.8]

Shaun Ainscough ............


































































Will Play Tomorrow! You heard it here first..........

[the-Bowtun-Warrior]

Shaun Ainscough ............


































































Will Play Tomorrow! You heard it here first..........

:eh:

[Reevezie 2.0.0.8]

From the horses mouth..... !

Can you change your 19 man choice once published?

I wasn't sure but i just spoke to him, i asked him about the salary cap thing wasn't sure if he would tell me to which he didn't but then i asked him what was the reason for him not being in the 19, he replied "im playing now"

[cpwigan]

You can change the 19

[GeoffN]

You can change the 19

You can, but supposedly only in special cases like injuries or a new signing. In fact, Ainsy wasn't in the original 19 for the Wakey league game (in which he scored 4 tries...) - he was a late inclusion because Carmont had to pull out.