The Knight situation is strange. Not often you get a chance to really look at an overseas player before committing to a long term deal and you?d have to say he?s exceeded expectations. I?d be happy if we can make it work and get him on board, he seems to enjoy it here which sometimes is half the battle. 

Taking the emotion out of it and social media silliness I just don?t think signing a 30 plus year old quota front rower with a record of injury problems to a 2 or 3 year deal is going to make or break the clubs revival either way. I?m the same with the Bell and Batchelor signings (batch being non quota obviously) there?s an element of risk/reward to each, I have a lot more trust in the process and direction now, we won?t get every single decision correct but there seems to be a real will to improve. 

Great post, I've mentioned a few times that I think Knight is been over hyped by some fans, he has been a good signing and done well in most of the games he has played, but the way some fans are talking about him you would think he is as good as Ese Ese.

They won't get every decision right, but the recruitment from Myler and Carty overall has been excellent. 


We can talk about the impact of Cartwright but myler signing the likes of Briscoe, Borough, Hardraker and particularly Asaita along with getting Carty on board has been instrumental on our success.

Also not only signing Pryce, but getting him early was Mylers work.


No CEO is the world gets every signing right.


If we keep Knight great, but if we don't I trust them to get the right player.

I like Knight, he is a solid prop, and he has gone well. But, he isn't worth getting into a bidding war for, or releasing other quota players (if we can't get Bell dispensation). With his relationship with a woman in the media in Australia, he is going to be here, for whatever club he plays for, on his own, and those players tend not to complete contracts, and get homesick pretty quickly. Not saying Knight would be like that, but typically it happens. He has a succesful business away from Rugby too, so it isnt like he needs to play - he openly admitted he nearly retired

My view on Knight is that, yes he has probably been overhyped by some people who seem to be hailing him as a superstar, but he's still a very good player who has fitted in really well. He's our second best prop, and he would get into every other teams 17 imo. So whilst he's not irreplaceable, why would you want to replace him if you don't need to? He's proven he is good enough, he seems to have fitted in well and is enjoying himself, he seemingly has the professionalism and the character traits that Cartwright looks for. The only sticking point is the quota. If that gets resolved next week, it's a no brainer to keep him imo. 

If Warrington come in and offer him silly money then that's a different debate, but I don't see how they can afford to. He's not marquee standard, so how much more can they really manage to throw at him?