Not that you are wrong about our depth and recruitment outcome failures, but what if the player simply wants to leave?
The one problem I find with these arguments is an assumption that the club recruitment has failed or made some mistake that was avoidable. First and obvious: Tigers recruited Kautoga, so they saw potential and he was in their plans. According to the article, Hartigan brought Kautoga to the Tigers and has now done the same for Bulldogs, and the guy "idolises" Kikau as a fellow Fijian.
Tigers have since bought Bateman for 4 years and IP for 3 years so the starting pathway for backrow is clearly blocked. Kautoga signed for Tigers from Sharks, so he clearly follows money and opportunity rather than sticking with the club that is giving him a go.
Kautoga barely played in 2021-2022 and the club "stuck by him" when he initially had visa issues (his own words from his debut game interviews). But the player still chooses to leave, despite loyalty shown by Tigers for very little return.
Also of course we are a team who ran last 2022 and currently running last 2023; it remains to be seen whether Dogs are definitely on a superior trajectory compared to Tigers, but it looks that way.
So the player was nursed through injury and migration issues, supported and given his debut opportunity, but signed with someone else despite that investment. And he left the Sharks also despite coming through their system. I am not exactly clear what the recruitment guys are supposed to do when the club is on the nose and the player is obviously only looking out for his short-term interests. Obviously the club's trajectory sucks, but is that on the recruitment or is that as much on the overall club performance and not being a place young players want to stay?
