I agree that it was the way the contracts where organised that put us back.

Eastmond should have been nailed down first not last. If he only would sign a lesser contract, then we should have made provision for him leaving.

Instead we let Long go to Hull, Smith go to Salford and then left Eastmond to hang us high and dry. Pushing Gaskell and Lomax in ahead of their time and panic buying Lance.

It's a long chain, but if they had tied Eastmond first, when he played hard ball, we should have realized and kept Smith on, with the knowledge that Eastmond was likely on the way out.

Smith with 2 years in him would have balance Gaskell or Lomax out far better than having to push them both through. If Eastmond had changed his mind, having Smith as a back up to Pryce leaving would be no bad thing either.

I was just going to say exactly the same thing in that he has not improved all that much to be honest, perhaps a bit more experience in his play over the years. The problem is that the quality and standard of Superleague has dropped a few notches over the last 5 years, which effectively has made Smith look a decent player.

Just imagine if Eastmond had stayed in League he would have had 6 more years of experience and could have been one of the most influencial half backs in superleague, alas money and bad advice changed all that.

Im sorry? Why has Eastmond had bad advice? To me it seems he got perfect advice. A massive pay rise and running out for England in front of 80k people instead of 15k people.

Regards

King James

The way it was handled. The only signing 1yr deal then leaving. The fallout with club, players and fans.

He was young and badly advised.

I know for fact a certain ex rugby league player got inside his head, that year I met up with McManus in Caernarfon and he was absolutely fuming at what went on behind the scenes with the ex rugby league player starting a bidding war which basically messed the kid up.