Recruitment And Retention Discussion

Yeah, can't find it in the media either @Lefty but Billy said it was a year...be shocked if it's more.

Billy

Post in thread 'Toohey's News'

3/7

Knights have signed 26 year old prop Peter Hola for 2026. He is currently playing Qld cup but has played 15 NRL games for Cowboys and Canberra up till last year.

Jack Hetherington had interest from Manly and Warriors, but they both backed out when they found how much money he is on for the rest of this year.

POS has an eye on Trey Mooney because of rumours he is unhappy with his lack of game time in Canberra, but can't talk to him because he is still contracted next year. He is also looking at a number of other props.

Jack Hilliar was given permission to look elsewhere and was...
  • Like
  • Info
 
Just looked at Toohey's news for 3/7 again and he just says Hola joins the top 30 in 2026 and doesn't give a contract length, but does say he is being signed from a Qld cup side and hasn't played NRL since round 12 last year, so you wouldn't think it would be more than 1 year minimum contract.
 
Because he's 21, with size and potential, likely on base money that they have to spend in a position that they have to fill.

The club has to develop players like this and field a competitive reggies (hopefully in the future) to be successful.
 
Seano said:
Because he's 21, with size and potential, likely on base money that they have to spend in a position that they have to fill.

The club has to develop players like this and field a competitive reggies (hopefully in the future) to be successful.
Click to expand...
But why 4 years and not 3? Im not against the signing. Im trying to understand the length of the contract, its very unusual.

Hes 21, so if he doesnt turn into a FGr he'll be at the club until he is 25, plodding. Seems an unnecessary gamble to make on some random middle of the road QLD Cup prospect, no? What's the upside, he becomes a fringe FG middle by the 2nd year of his contract and we have two cheap years with the player where we save 100k p.a.? There's half a dozen players in the system you could apply the same assumptions to.

4 years for Sullivan is an unusual signing. The only rationale is that POS is very confident that Sullivan will become a regular FG forward. But hes yet to show signs of that imo which makes the signing even weirder.
 
Les Misérables said:
Hes 21, so if he doesnt turn into a FGr he'll be at the club until he is 25, plodding.
Click to expand...
No, he'll be at the club playing reserve grade on base money, filling a spot on the roster we have to fill anyway.

The rest of your comment doesn't make much sense. Props don't typically develop until mid to late 20s. We still need to field a top 30 and a reserve grade. We can't just buy all the players we need, we have to develop some too.

I believe base money is $150k for all top 30, so POS has locked up a kid with potential, at presumably the minimum, in a position of need at the club in reserve grade & first grade.

I genuinely fail to see the issue. Worst-case scenario, the club pays the absolute minimum for a reserve-grade prop.
 
Seano said:
No, he'll be at the club playing reserve grade on base money, filling a spot on the roster we have to fill anyway.

The rest of your comment doesn't make much sense. Props don't typically develop until mid to late 20s. We still need to field a top 30 and a reserve grade. We can't just buy all the players we need, we have to develop some too.

I believe base money is $150k for all top 30, so POS has locked up a kid with potential, at presumably the minimum, in a position of need at the club in reserve grade & first grade.

I genuinely fail to see the issue. Worst-case scenario, the club pays the absolute minimum for a reserve-grade prop.
Click to expand...
In theory, sure, but again my point is why Sullivan? There's 50 Sullivan's floating around out there. Of that age, output, value, availability etc. If we're looking for cheap project players on 4 year contracts why not lock Hillier up for pennies over 4 years?

Again, not saying its a bad signing, Im saying its an unusual signing. Because frankly, the player looks bog average. We've got 4 middle forwards at the club who're the same age or younger, better, and on the same money.

I understand the signing but 4 years only makes sense if POS sees something we dont. Otherwise the trade off of 'he fills a gap in the top 30' isnt a benefit. Spots 17-30 are meant to be highly rotational. That's the whole point, to sample, discard or keep.

Sullivan is being sampled and kept.
 
This whole line of argument is ridiculous.

Firstly, it started as a silly POS gotcha by a dude who literally a few posts before it suggested that the Knights should start paying POS signings to play elsewhere. Why? 🤷‍♂️.

Disliking the bloke for whatever reason and then trashing his signings on spurious grounds is not a rational position.

Secondly, I'm not sure that you or I are better judges than POS, who has a track record of building competitive teams.

Thirdly, you're seriously telling me the club is top-heavy in young props...lmao.

If you want to hitch your wagon to the hating on POS clown car, that's your choice, but it makes no sense to me.

But regardless of what any of us think about individual recruitment and retention moves, POS is not going anywhere anytime soon.

All roster builds are hard, take time, and will have hits and misses.
 
Do we have to keep a top 30 spot open for Fletcher Hunt in 2026?
He is on a development deal where if he play 10 or more games he gets promoted to top 30.
Or does the promotion happen in 2027?
 
krustykraz said:
Do we have to keep a top 30 spot open for Fletcher Hunt in 2026?
He is on a development deal where if he play 10 or more games he gets promoted to top 30.
Or does the promotion happen in 2027?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I’m surprised anyone would just assume the current top 30 will remain as is. When Hunts still on a development deal it’s obvious there’s some planned movement.

I do think we’ll lose one of Hunt, Schiller or McCarthy though if Gags re-signs and to be honest that’s not a bad thing. One of those top 30 spots would be better served going to a forward.
 
Les Misérables said:
It never was. The 4 year contract you were defending didn't even exist.
Click to expand...
Ah, it did. It's not my fault you didn't check the end date in jumping in to defend what was a silly criticism of POS in the first place

Les Misérables said:
I perceived the four-year signing as unusual, contrary to how you inaccurately portrayed it
Click to expand...
I didn't "portray" anything, I never mentioned the contract length, I only pointed out that a 21-year-old developing prop on likely base money when we have to field a top 30, a reserve grade, spend the salary cap cash and develop players for the future was hardly a POS gotcha it was being claimed to be.

I'm happy to leave it there, but don't blame me because you hitched yourself to a clown car.
 
Seano said:
Ah, it did. It's not my fault you didn't check the end date in jumping in to defend what was a silly criticism of POS in the first place


I didn't "portray" anything, I never mentioned the contract length, I only pointed out that a 21-year-old developing prop on likely base money when we have to field a top 30, a reserve grade, spend the salary cap cash and develop players for the future was hardly a POS gotcha it was being claimed to be.

I'm happy to leave it there, but don't blame me because you hitched yourself to a clown car.
Click to expand...
You thought it was 4 years lad. And defended the contract length. You can't back out of that one 😂
 
I didn't say it was 4 years, and it is all but 4 years from the time he joined the club, and the criticism of POS over the contract length was still clownish, so little wonder you chipped in without checking your facts, lad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top