News Harry Grant is set to ask the Storm for a release

[B-Train]

He must be showing it on the training paddock as he hasnt shown it anywhere else.

He hasn't had the opportunity yet. He's had the greatest hooker of all time and a Kiwi rep at the same position ahead of him

 

[B-Train]

That’s true he’s quoted as saying he’s on minimum wage right now so it should be possible if we were keen.

Exactly. He's not looking for a huge contract. He just wants to play and is sick of playing Q Cup and dominating while lesser players get NRL gigs.

There's a massive opportunity to grab a great young player on the cheap who's desperate for an opportunity at a position we've been desperate to solve for years. You'd hope the club would be enquiring and trying to shuffle some things around to try and pounce.

 

[DinkumDog]

Surely we have 200-300k left over after missing out on guys like Api, Ese Ese, Leilua and Ramien who were targeted after we signed Stimson and Britt..

Plus, could we get creative with Foran's 350k and say we'll play Grant as a half?

Most clubs have already paid a portion of players salaries for this season so that amount would be as much as Grant could get anywhere else this year, then his deal could increase over the next year or two..

They've limited heavily backended deals in the Des/Eastwood fashion but you can still backend them to a degree..

They're either in the conversation or they have another plan.
Or they're not in the conversation for financial/cap reasons.
But I wouldn't believe they're not in the conversation because they're asleep at the wheel.
They've been pretty forthright at member forums saying they won't offer back-end or ratchet clause contracts again.
I guess after what they inherited and what's taken 2 years to clean up, they're still gun-shy about that and that's responsible management for mine.

 

[NPC83]

They're either in the conversation or they have another plan.
Or they're not in the conversation for financial/cap reasons.
But I wouldn't believe they're not in the conversation because they're asleep at the wheel.
They've been pretty forthright at member forums saying they won't offer back-end or ratchet clause contracts again.
I guess after what they inherited and what's taken 2 years to clean up, they're still gun-shy about that and that's responsible management for mine.

I agree that they are moving forward from the mess that was inherited contract wise but personally there is a bit of a fine line. If you can grab a player this year for whatever you have left in the cap and then 21’ 22’ offer him a lot more say $200 this year $400k 21 and $400k 22 I think that’s actually smart management. Obviously you can’t do that all the time cause you end up with players out of form on massive dollars like Eastwood was but you also got to play the recruitment game with all available options and maybe they are. Just my 2c

 

[DinkumDog]

I agree that they are moving forward from the mess that was inherited contract wise but personally there is a bit of a fine line. If you can grab a player this year for whatever you have left in the cap and then 21’ 22’ offer him a lot more say $200 this year $400k 21 and $400k 22 I think that’s actually smart management. Obviously you can’t do that all the time cause you end up with players out of form on massive dollars like Eastwood was but you also got to play the recruitment game with all available options and maybe they are. Just my 2c

Yes, of course mate - very valid.
Two ways to look at it - you either do it on a limited basis just as you suggested when certain talent becomes available or you have a policy of not at all.
The question is - do you make exceptions or do you make everyone play by the same rules?
For instance - one of the new governance policies is that any change in player salary above $100k/year must go to the board for approval - so for example, Hilly couldn't make that call on his own, or even Hilly and Lynne (based on your 200k/400k model - the board has to approve that by majority).
What happened to us previously was obviously an extreme case of mis-management, and hopefully if any exceptions to the policy were to be made, it's the exception and not the rule. I'm sure all supporters never want to see us in the same situation again - I know I don't.

 

[B-Train]

They're either in the conversation or they have another plan.
Or they're not in the conversation for financial/cap reasons.
But I wouldn't believe they're not in the conversation because they're asleep at the wheel.
They've been pretty forthright at member forums saying they won't offer back-end or ratchet clause contracts again.
I guess after what they inherited and what's taken 2 years to clean up, they're still gun-shy about that and that's responsible management for mine.

There's a difference between horrible heavily backended deals that Des buried the club with like those of Eastwood, Tony Williams etc and slightly and gradually backending deals by 100k a year to take advantage of the mammoth cap space we have in 2021..

Like NPC suggested by backending it gradually, which many clubs still do for most contracts, is just smart cap management and to not do the same because of Des taking it to the extreme in years past would be disadvantageous and limiting our options.. Souths signed Latrell to a similar backended structure. 650k this year (and however much more off the books) and 800k next year..

As you suggested, you couldn't use this method for everyone otherwise you'd be cap fucked down the road. But you can still do it for certain players and contracts on a limited basis.

If JMK is the plan moving forward then it's an unconvincing plan. As i said earlier Grant is a legitimate talent who should be pursued if possible. In the next year or two there are very limited worthwhile options at hooker that will be off contract. So getting a disgruntled Grant on the cheap might be our best opportunity for a while.

 

[DinkumDog]

There's a difference between horrible heavily backended deals that Des buried the club with like those of Eastwood, Tony Williams etc and slightly and gradually backending deals by 100k a year to take advantage of the mammoth cap space we have in 2021..

Like NPC suggested by backending it gradually, which many clubs still do for most contracts, is just smart cap management and to not do the same because of Des taking it to the extreme in years past would be disadvantageous and limiting our options.. Souths signed Latrell to a similar backended structure. 650k this year (and however much more off the books) and 800k next year..

If JMK is the plan moving forward then it's an unconvincing plan. As i said earlier Grant is a legitimate talent who should be pursued if possible. In the next year or two there are very limited worthwhile options at hooker that will be off contract. So getting a disgruntled Grant on the cheap might be our best opportunity for a while.

Yep - and per my reply to NPC I was simply referring to policy and governance - something that has been implemented to stop extremities again.
Could be that they say the 'policy' is in place to help manage expectations with players/managers but there would have to be exceptions to the rule when talent becomes available - like any business you've gotta have some flexibility to spend when it makes sense, even if it wasn't the plan when budgeting.

 

[c-b-b]

I don't understand Harry Grant not taking up an opportunity elsewhere (before re-signing with the storm).

He has Brandon Smith who will probably be their long term hooker at the club, Grant could have got a start elsewhere.

I understand the attraction of the club and coach at the storm and learning off Smith but surely you don't want to be the back ups back up forever.

 

[B-Train]

Yep - and per my reply to NPC I was simply referring to policy and governance - something that has been implemented to stop extremities again.
Could be that they say the 'policy' is in place to help manage expectations with players/managers but there would have to be exceptions to the rule when talent becomes available - like any business you've gotta have some flexibility to spend when it makes sense, even if it wasn't the plan when budgeting.

You absolutely have to keep all options open and as much flexibility as possible as with the way the player market works these days, things change so quickly.

As you well know also, what Hill and the club say publicly, share with the media or even at a members forum should all be taken with a grain of salt as they have to keep some cards close to their chest and don't want to reveal their secrets. Sometimes info is leaked just to throw someone off the scent.

Either way, i hope the club does it's due dilligence on Grant and isn't putting all it's eggs into the JMK basket in terms of future planning.

 

[speedy2460]

He hasn't had the opportunity yet. He's had the greatest hooker of all time and a Kiwi rep at the same position ahead of him

If he "hasnt had the opportunity yet", just where is it that he has shown this immense ability?

 

[B-Train]

I don't understand Harry Grant not taking up an opportunity elsewhere (before re-signing with the storm).

He has Brandon Smith who will probably be their long term hooker at the club, Grant could have got a start elsewhere.

I understand the attraction of the club and coach at the storm and learning off Smith but surely you don't want to be the back ups back up forever.

I think we were a genuine chance early last year and we didn't seal the deal for various reasons. I think he hoped that Cam Smith would retire after last season and he'd share the role with Brandon Smith so he decided to stay or was convinced to by Bellamy.

But now that Cam is playing on again, Grant has had enough as he's 22 now and is more than ready for FG.

 

[B-Train]

If he "hasnt had the opportunity yet", just where is it that he has shown this immense ability?

Queensland Cup. Which is probably a better standard than our Reserve Grade. Plus he's been one of the best juniors coming through the grades for years and is held in high regard by one of the best clubs in the comp and by many others.

It is possible that there are good, NRL ready players who haven't been given the chance yet. Look at the impact youngsters like Haas, Flanagan, Xerri, Verillis, Papenhuyzen etc have made out of nowhere within the last year or so...

Would you just be assuming those guys were nobodies and talentless because they hadn't cracked FG to that point?

 

[CrittaMagic69]

Queensland Cup. Which is probably a better standard than our Reserve Grade. Plus he's been one of the best juniors coming through the grades for years and is held in high regard by one of the best clubs in the comp and by many others.

It is possible that there are good, NRL ready players who haven't been given the chance yet. Look at the impact youngsters like Haas, Flanagan, Xerri, Verillis, Papenhuyzen etc have made out of nowhere within the last year or so...

Would you just be assuming those guys were nobodies and talentless because they hadn't cracked FG to that point?

Don't even ask him that question, who the fuck even knows what goes through his head lol

 

[sgodllubsti]

said long ago bellamy to leave storm, players want out because smith won't retire, and harry won't stay because of smith wanting to stay on

 

[NPC83]

Yes, of course mate - very valid.
Two ways to look at it - you either do it on a limited basis just as you suggested when certain talent becomes available or you have a policy of not at all.
The question is - do you make exceptions or do you make everyone play by the same rules?
For instance - one of the new governance policies is that any change in player salary above $100k/year must go to the board for approval - so for example, Hilly couldn't make that call on his own, or even Hilly and Lynne (based on your 200k/400k model - the board has to approve that by majority).
What happened to us previously was obviously an extreme case of mis-management, and hopefully if any exceptions to the policy were to be made, it's the exception and not the rule. I'm sure all supporters never want to see us in the same situation again - I know I don't.

That’s interesting the governance policy you just mentioned. Learn something knew everyday... (assuming you are prepared to listen ) I don’t have a problem with that. Comes down to weather you all collectively really value the player.

 

[Baby Blues]

Can we swap Okunbor or Holland for Grant?

 

[bradyk]

Maybe don't low ball Grant this time and we can get him . I'm almost sure Grant would rather join the Tigers for the same money tho. If we really wanted Grant we needed to sign him for 2021 before he signed his extension with the Storm last year. I said this before and I'll say it again if we're serious we'll offer Grant a deal like Ponga got at the Knights just on a smaller scale. Something like 400-500k (Ponga is rumoured to be on 600k). We did something similar with Lichaa in the past and it back fired but it's the only way we'll be able to get Grant. Grant is the most promising hooker coming through. I hope the Lichaa situation doesn't scare us. If we don't sign Grant (or someone else) before the start of the season we'll see mid season if we had the money or not as I'm pretty sure the club are going to be looking to pick up a mid season signing similar to DWZ. Also if it's a loan (what's in the article) I wouldn't bother. I'd rather give JMK an opportunity.

 

[JackDog]

Can we swap Okunbor or Holland for Grant?

What you mean “or”? Don’t dismiss the chance to get rid of both...

 

[Pity Fool]

Would've been an awesome signing for us! Tigers must've put a really good offer forward if he's all of a sudden changed his mind.

Don’t be so hasty to believe everything you read, remember Api Korosau was signed and sealed to join us, yet at the 12th hour opted to join Penrith without anyone suspecting a thing! Perhaps we might sneak under the Tigers radar and sign Grant? I’m hoping this is the case because it will give our roster much more structure for 2021 and beyond! We desperately need a hooker with Grants potential on our books!

 

[steeliz]

Maybe don't low ball Grant this time and we can get him . I'm almost sure Grant would rather join the Tigers for the same money tho. If we really wanted Grant we needed to sign him for 2021 before he signed his extension with the Storm last year. I said this before and I'll say it again if we're serious we'll offer Grant a deal like Ponga got at the Knights just on a smaller scale. Something like 400-500k (Ponga is rumoured to be on 600k). We did something similar with Lichaa in the past and it back fired but it's the only way we'll be able to get Grant. Grant is the most promising hooker coming through. I hope the Lichaa situation doesn't scare us. If we don't sign Grant (or someone else) before the start of the season we'll see mid season if we had the money or not as I'm pretty sure the club are going to be looking to pick up a mid season signing similar to DWZ. Also if it's a loan (what's in the article) I wouldn't bother. I'd rather give JMK an opportunity.

How do you know we "low balled him'?

Do you know this for a fact?

Maybe we just offered what we had left in the salary cap.