Time for a Keep Blake Austin thread yet ?

[balmain boy]

Is this thread really still going? The CEO has said he's staying. That's it, end of story.

That article didn't even have a single quote from anyone. Not Austin, not his manager, not any club officials from the Tigers or Raiders. Therefore it's entirely speculation. If it was as much of a foregone conclusion someone would put their name against some comments.

There's no benefit for the WT to release him early so we'll keep him thanks. Like the Broncs did with Hoffman. He may have sulked a bit but he still had a cracking season for the Broncs.

There's no guarantees that two teenage playmakers will be able to play NRL all season next year, so Austin will sure get some chances in the halves. But both Brooks and Moses have a passing and kicking game that is far, far superior to Austin's. Austin is really an individual player in a team sport. He does some great runs, but doesn't really do anything to improve the team around him. If Austin can develop those aspects of this game he could become a very good player. But for someone who considers himself a specialist 5/8 you'd think he'd have much better skills in these areas by now. He'll be 24 by season starts next year.

 

[Guest]

Austin is as good as gone unfortunately.

 

[Blackpearl]

Austin is as good as gone unfortunately.

Real shame, can understand that he is wanting to set himself up for the future. Whole hearted player that I really hope sticky doesn't ruin.
Good luck blake and thanks for your gutsy efforts all season long.

 

[PYMBLEPETE]

Austin is as good as gone unfortunately.

If that is the case its madness of the highest order; for the first time I wonder if I want to bother myself anymore with Weststigers.

 

[happy_tiger]

Austin is as good as gone unfortunately.

If that is the case its madness of the highest order; for the first time I wonder if I want to bother myself anymore with Weststigers.

Mayer posted last night he is staying for 2015 period

Is our leader telling porkies again ??

 

[sheer64]

I keep getting told Blake and Chris will be moving to Canberra? I dont believe anything Mayer says anymore!

 

[Blackpearl]

I keep getting told Blake and Chris will be moving to Canberra? I dont believe anything Mayer says anymore!

A reliable source ??

 

[Masterton]

Here's an idea: Let's wait until we have a new coach and ask HIM if we should keep Austin.

 

[foreveratiger]

I keep getting told Blake and Chris will be moving to Canberra? I dont believe anything Mayer says anymore!

If you want Blake take Lawrence of us then we have a DEAL !!! Maybe could be one those one's . :laughing:
Would people be happy with this? if it was to Occur ?

 

[jirskyr]

There are some strange views being expressed in this thread. Austin has a contract for next year with Weststigers. Weststigers offered him a two year contract, taking a risk on some aspects of him playing for us, not the least of which was whether he would perform successfully at NRL level. The fact that he has performed well, and now allegedly wants to move to Canberra next year to play 5/8 seems to some to open the Tigers to some moral obligation to let him go. I reckon that is rubbish. We took a risk on him; he needs to see the second year through with us, and if he wants to go to Canberra after that then so be it. I cant imagine that this is actually what is going on - sounds as if the reporting of this has got confused - as usual.

100% with you pymble.
We took the risk on him and he happily signed a 2 year contract.
Earlier in the year he said he just wanted to get a spot in first grade - latest reports say he doesn't want to stay unless he plays 5/8.
Two words - bad luck!
What happens if we are as caring as some want and tell him he can break his contract and go somewhere else and Brooks or Moses (or both) get injured early in the year?
Will they still be happy we let him go as he carves up our reserve grade halves?

I think you've got the wrong angle here.

It isn't about whether it's fair to Austin or not, or whether we should enforce contracts. It is about the value you get from keeping a player who wants to be elsewhere. We have enough trouble getting performance out of the players who want to be here!

I would argue that in most cases, if a player requests a release in good faith to further their career, or family/personal reasons, clubs will grant the release. Keeping that person on might result in good performances for rest of contract, or it might mean poor performances and a destabilising influence.

Imagine if another business offered you a better job (and money) starting next year, you were keen to go, and your current employer didn't let you go. What if the other business extended the contract offer to start 2016 - would you still put in a quality 2015 for your current employer whilst you waited the time out?

 

[innsaneink]

Correct Jirskyr and it also eases pressure on the salary cap which is something all clubs look for

Most people only see these things from the clubs point ob view …it takes two to tango, and as for contracts these days..pfft

 

[nineteen_sixty_nine]

My only highlights this season were Taupau and Austin… and we're going to let Austin go?

No wonder it takes us 36 years in-between premierships!

 

[PYMBLEPETE]

There are some strange views being expressed in this thread. Austin has a contract for next year with Weststigers. Weststigers offered him a two year contract, taking a risk on some aspects of him playing for us, not the least of which was whether he would perform successfully at NRL level. The fact that he has performed well, and now allegedly wants to move to Canberra next year to play 5/8 seems to some to open the Tigers to some moral obligation to let him go. I reckon that is rubbish. We took a risk on him; he needs to see the second year through with us, and if he wants to go to Canberra after that then so be it. I cant imagine that this is actually what is going on - sounds as if the reporting of this has got confused - as usual.

100% with you pymble.
We took the risk on him and he happily signed a 2 year contract.
Earlier in the year he said he just wanted to get a spot in first grade - latest reports say he doesn't want to stay unless he plays 5/8.
Two words - bad luck!
What happens if we are as caring as some want and tell him he can break his contract and go somewhere else and Brooks or Moses (or both) get injured early in the year?
Will they still be happy we let him go as he carves up our reserve grade halves?

I think you've got the wrong angle here.

It isn't about whether it's fair to Austin or not, or whether we should enforce contracts. It is about the value you get from keeping a player who wants to be elsewhere. We have enough trouble getting performance out of the players who want to be here!

I would argue that in most cases, if a player requests a release in good faith to further their career, or family/personal reasons, clubs will grant the release. Keeping that person on might result in good performances for rest of contract, or it might mean poor performances and a destabilising influence.

Imagine if another business offered you a better job (and money) starting next year, you were keen to go, and your current employer didn't let you go. What if the other business extended the contract offer to start 2016 - would you still put in a quality 2015 for your current employer whilst you waited the time out?

There are plenty of precedents in the NRL for keeping on players that 'want to move on'. If Austin wants to sulk then he can ply his trade in Bundy Cup - wont do much for his market value. The other aspect to what you are wrong about is that companies dont just seek to keep people from moving on - they seek to restrain them from competing if they do. If we let Austin go we not only lose his services, but he plays against us probably a couple of times next year. That is double dumb.

 

[Irvine]

I notice no $ in Austin's name.

He had 3 years at Penrith and only played 16 NRL games. His under contract to The Wests Tigers.
Yes he had a good year and now he wants to take the money from Canberra and run.

No sorry You don't get a release.

 

[Irvine]

I notice no $ in Austin's name.

He had 3 years at Penrith and only played 16 NRL games. His under contract to The Wests Tigers.
Yes he had a good year but now he thinks he can take the money from Canberra and run.

No sorry You don't get a release.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

This was always going to happen, you could tell with team selections as soon as Moses came into the first grade picture. Potter was doing his best to give all an opportunity in the starting line up. One of Brooks, Moses, Austin and Tedesco had to go as all of them are starting players of first grade quality - none of them are utility bench players.

Whilst I am not fully sold on Moses just yet, I always felt Austin was the odd one out amongst the 4 and seemed on a different wave length. Let him go.

 

[jirskyr]

There are plenty of precedents in the NRL for keeping on players that 'want to move on'. If Austin wants to sulk then he can ply his trade in Bundy Cup - wont do much for his market value. The other aspect to what you are wrong about is that companies dont just seek to keep people from moving on - they seek to restrain them from competing if they do. If we let Austin go we not only lose his services, but he plays against us probably a couple of times next year. That is double dumb.

I know there are precedents, but thinking about it, how many really? Did not Tallis get to go to Brisbane, Mundine to Brisbane, Fitzgibbon to Roosters, Hill to Manly?

Do you really think Austin's star will fall if we stick him in reggies for a year? As if clubs will forget who his is in 12 months? We picked him up from reggies, after all.

You are right that companies seek to stop loss of staff, of course. But restraint of competition? How many companies seriously do that, are so cashed up and cut-throat that they essentially pay gardening leave to stop employees working for opposition. If my company forced me to remain for a contract, I'd coast through those last years and still take their money.

Because that is the part you forgot about and ink referred to - retaining Austin to play reggies is a waste of our salary cap. Not so many companies have artificial caps placed on their salaries. To do what you suggest, that is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Still not sure about Austin, was good in some games for us but still seem like a selfish player at times. I think that we should make him stay as all clubs need depth and he's already under contract to us. But if he, s already turning into a prima Donna and wanting to be a selector as well , then maybe we should let The Raiders have him along with his problems. Didn't he also have some problems at Penrith?

 

[Tim Sheens]

I notice no $ in Austin's name.

He had 3 years at Penrith and only played 16 NRL games. His under contract to The Wests Tigers.
Yes he had a good year and now he wants to take the money from Canberra and run.

No sorry You don't get a release.

$trange isn't it. Another player with a few more top grade games than Blake was castigated for originally making a similar decision to the potential one Austin is thought to be making.

I want him to stay and like what he brings to the team, but fail to understand the extreme love for the guy. Unless we are offered a carrot or two, he stays put, like it or not, for mine.

 

[Furious1]

I notice no $ in Austin's name.

He had 3 years at Penrith and only played 16 NRL games. His under contract to The Wests Tigers.
Yes he had a good year and now he wants to take the money from Canberra and run.

No sorry You don't get a release.

$trange isn't it. Another player with a few more top grade games than Blake was castigated for originally making a similar decision to the potential one Austin is thought to be making.

.

Two different situations. One wanted to go for money, the other for a guaranteed position.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_