It would be great to keep him. But we really won't be able to compete with the money in OZ if he fancies cashing in on his skills. I think we will be paying Clark very well now.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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"

[urlhttps://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/12286237/super-league-warrington-wolves-head-coach-steve-price-relishes-tough-selection-decisions[/url

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.

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.

Perhaps marquee status taints any squad whether applied to an imported or a domestic player. We have quite a few other players in the squad who run their blood to water when the chips are down & put a good slog in week in week out while getting less money.