Remove this Banner Ad

Status in Question Tyson Stengle

  • Thread starter Thread starter sumavich
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Oldgold said:
Geelong star Tyson Stengle feared to be target of extortion plot
Senior footy figures have concerns that Geelong small forward Tyson Stengle could have been targeted in an extortion attempt by criminals based in another state, amid serious fears the premiership star may be struggling with addiction.

Senior footy figures have concerns that Geelong small forward Tyson Stengle could have been targeted in an extortion attempt by criminals based in another state.
An industry source has told the Herald Sun that there are serious fears Stengle may be struggling with addiction and “heavies” have seized upon this to extort the premiership star.
It was reported earlier this week Stengle had been placed on the “medical model” by the AFL according to Channel 7 reporter Tom Morris.
“The AFL is essentially not allowing Tyson Stengle to play football and that is because of the medical model that they have,” he said.
The Herald Sun approached the AFL and Geelong Cats on Friday about Stengle but did not hear back.

It comes the day after it was reported that Stengle had stopped talking to some people at Geelong and was showing no signs of a possible return to football.
It was also revealed that he has “cut off ties” with those close to him.

A bristling Chris Scott told a press conference earlier this week that he is unaware and won’t divulge the personal situation of Tyson Stengle and indicated the situation was in the hands of the AFL.
When asked to clarify he said “it’s not my role to be across those things”.
“I’d hate to sound defensive of it. What I’ve learnt over the years is to acknowledge the different roles that people have in these sorts of situations.

“So I don’t have a problem with the media speculating, but they are speculating with less information that I have, and I have less information than other people at the club have, who probably have less information than the AFL have.”
Stengle signed a life-changing, five-year contract extension with the Cats in 2024, which was reportedly worth up to $3.5 million.
It is believed he is still being paid his full wage while away from the club.
He has had a number of off-field behavioural issues throughout his career with the Cats giving him a third chance where he then produced the fairytale season to play in the 2022 premiership, while being selected to the all-Australian team.
He has previously played at A
delaide and Richmond.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe that Geelong have to pay him one cent. .Should be suing for to reclaim all wages since he has last fronted at training.
 
“So I don’t have a problem with the media speculating, but they are speculating with less information that I have, and I have less information than other people at the club have, who probably have less information than the AFL have.”
Click to expand...

Why didn’t he just say under the AFL Players Agreement he has no access to the information?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Rich01 said:
This sits with Geelong.
They knew he had issues when he was taken to hospital two years ago after he had his drink ‘spiked’.

Rather than hold their player to account they gave him leeway to continue by not addressing it at the time.
Click to expand...
What certainty do you have that the club hasn't been helping him?

Just because Geelong didn't throw him under the bus publicly, doesn't mean he wasn't getting help.
 
iameviljez said:
If we do that, then the contract is null and void, he never plays for us again. Therein lies the problem
Click to expand...
Not such a bad outcome in the end. Both parties have been rewarded and Geelong did well in that the bulk of his career there was not on great money. if he is free to another home he comes at a high risk.
 
iameviljez said:
If we do that, then the contract is null and void, he never plays for us again. Therein lies the problem
Click to expand...
Sounds like a win and hopefully no other club would be stupid enough to give him a cent . clubs don't need players like that around their young players
 
Rob R said:
Sounds like a win and hopefully no other club would be stupid enough to give him a cent . clubs don't need players like that around their young players
Click to expand...
The guy clearly has mental health problems, that doesn't necessarily make him toxic, and it doesn't mean that he is necessarily bringing others with him.
 
Rob R said:
Probably time that a club took a stand and sued a player for breach of contract to get wages back and damages. Or clubs have no choice but to not give contracts to players with issues, better to play it safe than burn millions on players who just can't be bothered. Nowhere else in the community would employees be able to just not turn up and get full pay (after using any sick leave entitlements)
Click to expand...
Yeah, we should really bury the guy, go full Linda Reynolds. That will make us all feel a lot better.
 
Rob R said:
just applying standards that exist everywhere else in society, why should someone be paid full wages and just not turn up.
Click to expand...
Because a) the club doesn't want to close the door on him; and b) presumably it's what is contractually obliged for an AFL player who's entering these medical protocols.
 
Rich01 said:
Remind me again how many games he was banished from the senior side after his drink was ‘spiked’?
Click to expand...

Why does an afl club - who you don’t follow - need to be using your personal model of ‘action-taking’ to be doing what they consider to be taking action in that scenario?

For all you know someone could have driven him 50km blindfolded out a back road, thrown his phone in a creek, set his wallet on fire and said ‘find your own way home dickhead and next time this happens it will be 500km. See you at training.’ Real old school. No one knows.

He’s had his actual career ended twice before so, um, yeah - blaming this situation on
‘Not getting banished from the senior squad for a few weeks’ probably isn’t a very strong analysis: if having his contract torn up twice wasn’t enough to deter some wayward behaviour, a couple of weeks in the twos isn’t exactly going to stun him into action is it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

PhatBoy said:
Why does an afl club - who you don’t follow - need to be using your personal model of ‘action-taking’ to be doing what they consider to be taking action in that scenario?

For all you know someone could have driven him 50km blindfolded out a back road, thrown his phone in a creek, set his wallet on fire and said ‘find your own way home dickhead and next time this happens it will be 500km. See you at training.’ Real old school. No one knows.

He’s had his actual career ended twice before so, um, yeah - blaming this situation on
‘Not getting banished from the senior squad for a few weeks’ probably isn’t a very strong analysis: if having his contract torn up twice wasn’t enough to deter some wayward behaviour, a couple of weeks in the twos isn’t exactly going to stun him into action is it.
Click to expand...
Nice rant…..

When you don’t know exactly what happened it’s reasonable to assume what has happened from the facts.

Fact - Stengle was a drug user when he played for Adelaide.

Fact - Geelong knew this when they picked him up.

Fact - Stengle had a stellar 2022 and 2024 on the field and was important to their premiership aspirations in both years.

Fact - Stengle was taken to hospital from a nightclub in 2024 and played the next week, in fact was training two days after the event. He was not punished by being banished to the VFL.

Speculation - Stengle was on drugs at the time, which looking both backward and forward from this time is highly likely.

Fact - Stengle isn’t playing now because of ongoing issues, speculated to be drug related.

When you look at all the above you would have to ask what Geelong did to support him.

Is it more likely that the scenario you envision where ‘someone could have driven him 50km blindfolded out a back road, thrown his phone in a creek, set his wallet on fire and said ‘find your own way home dickhead and next time this happens it will be 500km. See you at training.’

Or is it more likely Coach Scott had his eyes on the flag that year and didn’t want to punish the team by disciplining Stengle?

Take your Geelong hat off for a moment and think about what is the more likely scenario based on what you know.
 
Rich01 said:
Nice rant…..

When you don’t know exactly what happened it’s reasonable to assume what has happened from the facts.

Fact - Stengle was a drug user when he played for Adelaide.

Fact - Geelong knew this when they picked him up.

Fact - Stengle had a stellar 2022 and 2024 on the field and was important to their premiership aspirations in both years.

Fact - Stengle was taken to hospital from a nightclub in 2024 and played the next week, in fact was training two days after the event. He was not punished by being banished to the VFL.

Speculation - Stengle was on drugs at the time, which looking both backward and forward from this time is highly likely.

Fact - Stengle isn’t playing now because of ongoing issues, speculated to be drug related.

When you look at all the above you would have to ask what Geelong did to support him.

Is it more likely that the scenario you envision where ‘someone could have driven him 50km blindfolded out a back road, thrown his phone in a creek, set his wallet on fire and said ‘find your own way home dickhead and next time this happens it will be 500km. See you at training.’

Or is it more likely Coach Scott had his eyes on the flag that year and didn’t want to punish the team by disciplining Stengle?

Take your Geelong hat off for a moment and think about what is the more likely scenario based on what you know.
Click to expand...

I have taken it off.

Punishment when he had his contract torn up didn’t stop him from doing these things, did it. We have kept players on our list through 3, 4 and 4 full seasons of injury rehabilitation without so much as playing a single game of football (Egan, Menzel, Cowan). It’s not like we haven’t shown a history of simply caring for players regardless of what we can or can’t get out of them rather than simply casting them aside or whatever. We have shown many times that we will keep players in and around the group rather than toss them, whether they are guns, or not: injuries are of course different to ill discipline but the net outcome is the same - a players’ absence be it accidental or self-inflicted hurts the team. We stuck by good players like Egan and Menzel. A no name like Cowan. A past-it Cam Guthrie. There was never a suggestion of us cutting Tanner Bruhn despite many people suggesting we should, even our own fans in some cases.

The only major example I can think of that goes against this is Matthew Stokes who we stood down via a club suspension because he was literally found guilty of drug trafficking.

Basically my point is we look after players in general and don’t just decide not to, because they can’t offer us something/can offer us something.

I don’t seriously think, obviously, that anyone did what I suggested earlier with Stengle:

But as I said you don’t know what the club did or said with him: none of us do. We aren’t in the habit generally of meting out punishments to our own players, we aren’t in the habit of just casting aside guys who are struggling be it with personal issues, injury, mental health, discipline or whatever. Why would that change in that instance?
 
PhatBoy said:
I have taken it off.

Punishment when he had his contract torn up didn’t stop him from doing these things, did it. We have kept players on our list through 3, 4 and 4 full seasons of injury rehabilitation without so much as playing a single game of football (Egan, Menzel, Cowan). It’s not like we haven’t shown a history of simply caring for players regardless of what we can or can’t get out of them rather than simply casting them aside or whatever. We have shown many times that we will keep players in and around the group rather than toss them, whether they are guns, or not: injuries are of course different to ill discipline but the net outcome is the same - a players’ absence be it accidental or self-inflicted hurts the team. We stuck by good players like Egan and Menzel. A no name like Cowan. A past-it Cam Guthrie. There was never a suggestion of us cutting Tanner Bruhn despite many people suggesting we should, even our own fans in some cases.

The only major example I can think of that goes against this is Matthew Stokes who we stood down via a club suspension because he was literally found guilty of drug trafficking.

Basically my point is we look after players in general and don’t just decide not to, because they can’t offer us something/can offer us something.

I don’t seriously think, obviously, that anyone did what I suggested earlier with Stengle:

But as I said you don’t know what the club did or said with him: none of us do. We aren’t in the habit generally of meting out punishments to our own players, we aren’t in the habit of just casting aside guys who are struggling be it with personal issues, injury, mental health, discipline or whatever. Why would that change in that instance?
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree in general with anything you’ve just said.

But the facts of the matter are Geelong knew he had a previous drug history before they drafted him.

When we look at what has transpired you’d have to be pretty naive to think he didn’t have those same issues in 2024, the cats knew and they kept playing him. Blind Freddie on Bigfooty knew there was an issue back then, so no doubt they did.

And now he’s seemingly got these same issues.

So while we don’t know what support Geelong have given him, that’s really what we should be asking.

Because whatever support they put forward, it hasn’t worked.

Now the coach is unhappy because he seemingly doesn’t know what’s going on with Stengle, when his anger should be directed more so to those that didn’t have a harder stance a couple of years ago when they knew he was back on it. Perhaps he was one of those decision makers, you’d have to think he’d have a fairly strong say in player welfare.

I will say that ultimately it comes down to the person to make that change so Stengle is responsible for his own actions, but questions should be asked what support his employer gave him.

I know you have been similarly critical of Carlton and their treatment of Hollands in that thread, and this case shouldn’t be any different.
 
Rich01 said:
I don’t disagree in general with anything you’ve just said.

But the facts of the matter are Geelong knew he had a previous drug history before they drafted him.

When we look at what has transpired you’d have to be pretty naive to think he didn’t have those same issues in 2024, the cats knew and they kept playing him. Blind Freddie on Bigfooty knew there was an issue back then, so no doubt they did.

And now he’s seemingly got these same issues.

So while we don’t know what support Geelong have given him, that’s really what we should be asking.

Because whatever support they put forward, it hasn’t worked.

Now the coach is unhappy because he seemingly doesn’t know what’s going on with Stengle, when his anger should be directed more so to those that didn’t have a harder stance a couple of years ago when they knew he was back on it. Perhaps he was one of those decision makers, you’d have to think he’d have a fairly strong say in player welfare.

I will say that ultimately it comes down to the person to make that change so Stengle is responsible for his own actions, but questions should be asked what support his employer gave him.

I know you have been similarly critical of Carlton and their treatment of Hollands in that thread, and this case shouldn’t be any different.
Click to expand...

Sorry what? I’ve posted twice about Hollands and I defended Carlton 😂😂


Someone said they knew about it before letting him on the field. I said ‘what team who is playing for 4 points KNOWS about this and lets their player go on the field - against their biggest rival no less.’

The biggest criticism I gave of Carlton was a brief acknowledgement that if/when they realised something was wrong they needed to act quicker during the game: I think you’ve confused me with another poster.

The bottom line is this - the most extreme action with Stengle didn’t work (ending his career: twice). So we obviously tried something different, and I don’t think you can really blame us given our general history with being able to manage our players. It hasn’t worked. So what? It’s still on him not others if he hasn’t taken that extra chance to try and fix things up. I do hope he has the right support as he clearly needs it and that it gets to some sort of satisfactory resolution rather than a tragic one.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

PhatBoy said:
Didn’t two other clubs delist him altogether
Click to expand...
You’re telling the story Phat.
But if you want the facts….

Richmond wanted to keep stengle but he was ooc and he wanted to go to Adelaide so we traded him.

Adelaide wanted to hold him to his contract and punish him by playing him in the reserves but he refused and as a result asked for his contract to be terminated. Adelaide agreed.

Stengle was in control in both situations, although Adelaide did try to punish him.

Reckon Tyson was given too much rope at Geelong. I’m tipping most rational Cats supporters would think the same thing.
 
Stengle had an issue at a nightclub last year
Rushed to hospital in a dire way.
It was covered up very quickly
If it had been addressed correctly he may not be in his current predicament
hopefully he comes good
 
Rich01 said:
This sits with Geelong.
They knew he had issues when he was taken to hospital two years ago after he had his drink ‘spiked’.

Rather than hold their player to account they gave him leeway to continue by not addressing it at the time.

And here we are.
Click to expand...
it actually sits with Richmond since that is where he developed his drug addiction. Geelong are the good guys who've been trying to get him on the straight and narrow after Adelaide failed and Richmond started him down the wrong path. Hopefully there will be an inquest into Richmond's clear systemic drug issues (Stengle, Stack, Dusty, Balta, Broad, Connors, Pickett, Yarran, Casserly, Justin Charles, Jake King, Lefau, Wayne Johnston, Cousins just to name a small sample)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom