Entirely agree. I tire of the reactionaries on here at times.

The club have taken the right approach. Eastmond is a raw diamond but at the time the contract wass offered, there was a chance he could be more Danny Arnold than James Graham.

Young propsects are hard to deal with and clubs need to think hard these days.

Eastmond looks the works, but needs to call the shots consistently at scrum half. If he is mature enough to look facts in the eye and common sense prevails, then the big contract he is looking for will be there.

IMHO he would do well to distance himself from Mr 42 going on 12 Offiah who still thinks he is pimin' it large.

If eastmond eventually leaves I would hope some indication of the offer comes to light.

No one knows his demands ( if the rumour its longs money then I`d give him that) and the offer made (here's 30K err no thanks)

Shows a lack of class from our chairman to whine about him just turning down a contract.

The lad is a serious talent and on the back of building a stadium "a bums on seat" player.

If he isnt a natural 7 ( and Im not convinced yet he is) , he can still play anywhere in the backs.

Its pointless extolling a "promote from within" strategy, as a reason for not recruiting players, if your not going to keep the best players.

Either he should have been spotted earlier and tied down or show him the money now.

Get real.
Offiah is doing what he is paid for, trying to get the best deal for his client.

Saints have a choice, pay him or not. Of course it's a risk on both parts. Eastmond could have a cr@p season next year and see his value diminish or he could have a good season and see his value increase. The temptation for Saints must be to get rid now and get a transfer fee, as once he's out of contract they will get next to nothing for him.

Either way I just hope he stays in Rugby League.

What page is this on?

I can't find it anywhere in that paper.

I never saw it either, was it in League weekly?

Eammon is simply playing the same game that Offiah is. It's not going to do the club's bargaining position any good if he comes out and says 'we're going to give Kyle a new contract at any price'.

There have been plenty of talented kids who've come through the academy - but other than Cunningham (who was a REAL money whore when he was younger) and Bracek I can't think of too many who've felt they are worth more than Saints' estimation.

Whilst I'm pretty much in agreement with McManus' decision, we should be mindful of the fact that Saints DID stump up for Cunningham (when he was not much older than Eastmond and playing us off against Wigan left, right and centre) and in retrospect it was clearly the right thing to do.

But there's a bigger issue here. How have we got to a position where we're letting our ONLY SH and playmaker go (Long) and replacing him with a kid who: a) has been given minimal game time at 7, b) is holding the club to ransom and c) may leave within eighteen months? It's a shambles and McManus clearly must shoulder some responsibility.

Has Scott Moore been given an extension? If not there's a very real risk he may walk in 12 months (I'd be annoyed if I'd been farmed out on loan to Huddersfield from Saints), which would - combined with Eastmond leaving - be an utter disaster.

Eastmond still has 12 more months of his contract left, so I'm right in thinking other league clubs can't officially sign him up until a date towards the end of next season, right? And that they'd also owe us a transfer fee if he moved, because of his age?

Only SH? Something in my head tells me that Wheeler could do a decent job at 7 for us. We also don't know if the board have a signing lined up if Eastmond did leave?

Scott Moore? I wouldn't feel disgruntled if I were him. It would have been nigh on impossible to break into the team in front of Cunningham and Robes. The loan period has done him wonders and although he may now habour affection towards huddersfield, I don't think he'll have any resentment towards Saints.

I've looked thru that paper 3 times and it's defo not in there.

Officially they can't announce it until September, but as in the case of Long and Gilmour it can be agreed to let a player sign at any time of the season.

Saints would be entitled to some money for Eastmond but it would only be a small fee, based on the number of years he has been at the club. (I think Wigan had to pay Bradford £25,000 for Mark Flanagan) who was of a similar age.

Eastmond has already proven himself to have huge natural talent, the most exciting player that Saints have produced for many years. Can he control the team from SH? He hasn't shown that yet, but that wouldn't necessarily stop him being a top class winger, centre or fb. Should he get paid more as a SH than as a centre? Would you pay Danny Brough more than Lyon? If he can prove himself as a SH next season, then he will be a top replacement for Long. If he doesn't he will still be the most exciting player in the RedV and worthy of a top contract as a goal kicking centre/winger. Eastmond can be the future of Saints, for the next 10 or 12 years, but even if he leaves after next season, he will have had an impact and played a part in the clubs success.

In both of those cases the player in question had the club's permission to talk to other clubs. If a player doesn't have that permission then any discussion with other clubs prior to September is tapping up.


I would suggest he would command a good deal more than that, given that he is likely to be a full international by the time of any potential move.