Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:41 am  

Captain Hook wrote:

I think it needs to be said that it is perfectly possible for D Clark to be on a wage equal to Austin's without being a marquee player. The Marquee is a way of expanding the salary cap nothing more.

I’ve said it before that Clark is on Marquee money and could have been used on the cap if required. Just that we may never had needed.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:47 am  

Captain Hook wrote:

I think it needs to be said that it is perfectly possible for D Clark to be on a wage equal to Austin's without being a marquee player. The Marquee is a way of expanding the salary cap nothing more.

According to those 'in the know' (not me), only Austin and Widdop are the real 'BIG earners'. If true, that's got to be a bit difficult to handle for Clark even if he's on a decent wedge. He really is the definition of marquee - a game breaker, crowd pleaser and consistently world class. Knowing that Powell can work wonders with junior players and those with less raw talent, I'd be happy to have Clark and Widdop in our marquee berths next year and build around them. I did enjoy Austin at his best though.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:55 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

I’ve said it before that Clark is on Marquee money and could have been used on the cap if required. Just that we may never had needed.

Its possible he's on an equal money to the lowest earning of Austin or Widdop - I'd say it's more likely that he's not, especially with Inglis about, who won't be on peanuts himself.

The basics of this is, if our marquee players (2 highest earners) are going to be the 2 who bring the most to our side & whose absence is most felt when not there, then I'd reckon Clark definitely has to be one and Austin doesn't - it's that simple.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:57 am  

By the way, at which point did we start calling him Austo?? ....

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:08 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Its possible he's on an equal money to the lowest earning of Austin or Widdop - I'd say it's more likely that he's not, especially with Inglis about, who won't be on peanuts himself.

The basics of this is, if our marquee players (2 highest earners) are going to be the 2 who bring the most to our side & whose absence is most felt when not there, then I'd reckon Clark definitely has to be one and Austin doesn't - it's that simple.

Can’t give you an argument since the back end of 2019 until today about Clark v Austin.
Going back to Clark, I was talking about his current earnings being of a marquee’able amount if ever required, not as a comparison with anyone else.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:11 pm  

Captain Hook wrote:

I think it needs to be said that it is perfectly possible for D Clark to be on a wage equal to Austin's without being a marquee player. The Marquee is a way of expanding the salary cap nothing more.

He won’t be. Not with Widdop here as we being another marquee.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:19 pm  

Ok, I think Clark was our Marquee before Austin and Widdop arrived. Ok, that lastyear before Austin arrives as a marquee say Clark was on 250K. Whilst he was marquee we upfront pay him the next two years marquee money and take his salary to 500k. Meaning when he is not an official marquee he has had his marquee money for the rest of his contract. Now he is on 125k with Austin and Wippop on 250k.

Ive made the figures up but its a way of getting more "Marquees" by paying a lot more marquee money for 1 year to cover the remainder of the contract. Basically front loading the contract.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:56 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote: By the way, at which point did we start calling him Austo?? .... It's what Price called him in a recent interview; "It's more about Austo," Price said. "He is an important part of our team, but I thought the best way of going forwards was with Stef and Gareth and it worked out okay" https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/12286237/super-league-warrington-wolves-head-coach-steve-price-relishes-tough-selection-decisions

Dita's Slot Meter wrote: By the way, at which point did we start calling him Austo?? .... It's what Price called him in a recent interview; "It's more about Austo," Price said. "He is an important part of our team, but I thought the best way of going forwards was with Stef and Gareth and it worked out okay" https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/12286237/super-league-warrington-wolves-head-coach-steve-price-relishes-tough-selection-decisions

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:16 pm  

On contribution alone, Clark should be our highest-paid player.

If a wage rise keeps him here the club should do everything they can to make that happen.

If that means getting rid of Austin, I don't think anyone will be shedding a tear.

Re: Blake Austin : Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:17 pm  

ComeOnYouWolves wrote:

Ok, I think Clark was our Marquee before Austin and Widdop arrived. Ok, that lastyear before Austin arrives as a marquee say Clark was on 250K. Whilst he was marquee we upfront pay him the next two years marquee money and take his salary to 500k. Meaning when he is not an official marquee he has had his marquee money for the rest of his contract. Now he is on 125k with Austin and Wippop on 250k.

Ive made the figures up but its a way of getting more "Marquees" by paying a lot more marquee money for 1 year to cover the remainder of the contract. Basically front loading the contract.

I touched on alternate marquee loophole before but FMC assured me that you cannot ‘top load’.
Going back to Clark, it seems some posters haven’t got the point about Clark. The clubs don’t have to reveal their marquee, however it’s disrespectful to our intelligence for the club not to be casually open about who has those spots. My point was that although Clark is not a marquee player by salary position, his quantity of salary could allow him to use up an available spot if it was vacant and save some cap in doing so.