At one point in that statement Offiah's saying that in 12-18 months Eastmond will sign a long term deal with Saints, that's what he wants.
Further in the article Offiah talk about the "right" age to go to union.
So Eastmond wants to sign a long term deal with Saints, Offiah still wants to talk about Union.

Also he always brings up Jason Robinson saying comparisons are made, oh yeah, by whom?
JR was released by Leeds who didn't think he'd make it as a 7. Wigan signed him because they thought he would. Leeds got it right!
As a 7 Jason Robinson was hopeless. Wigan put him on the wing to see how he'd go with his pace and elusive running. Wigan then got it right!

Eastmond is not hopeless at 7, quite the opposite as he's just been given his International cap in that positon. However, long term if 7 turns out not to be his best position will Saints want rid? No chance!

I do hope Eastmond signs a long term deal, if he does want to stay perhaps a change of agent should be considered.

I thought Jason Robinson played for Hunslet first as that was his local club and turned down the chance to sign for Leeds before leaving Hunslet for Wigan.

Could be wrong though as yourself as a Wigan fan is bound to be right.

I was really happy to hear Kyle had signed a 2 year deal with Saints, IMO Eastmond and Tomkins will be the best half-back partnership England have had in a long while.

Offiah is a total plank. I just hope Eastmond has a bit of bottle and tells him where to shove it if he tries to tout him to Union come 2012. (If he wants to stay in RL that is)

Did he or did fans talk themselves into it? I don't recall seeing a great deal from Offiah about Sale bar one or two comments early on.

Oh and wasn't Robinson a bit older than 25 when he switched?

Only a bit, he was 26 when played first games for Sale.

Which i find surprising as i always thought he defected in his late 20's

I think that is assumed because he was a star so young, possibly anyway

Another three for Offiah

rlhttps://www.league.quins.co.uk/academy/10600.php?includeref

When I look at that photo, I want to smack the smarmy smirking man at the front with a baseball bat.

If Shaun Edwards was next to him nodding, atomic bomb time - regardless of the promising leaguies behind him. I offer my condolences to their families, but it was a necessary evil.

And your usually one of the more rational Saints supporters.

It seems like the deal only really suits the player and not the club. I suppose there is a possibility that he won't live up to hype, but there is no evidence of that. He is always dangerous, and that always worries defences.

Two years means he can walk away to the highest bidder and Saints get zip. It looks like Offiah is looking at squeezing as much out of rugby league until he gets to the bankable age of 25 and then squeezing the rugby union, where they will probably just shove him out on the wing, as a union scrum half is a much different animal to a league one. It keeps him at your place, but I'm not sure how good it is for your club in the long run, because if he does prove himself, and that seems the likeliest outcome, the contract in two years time will be a much bigger one. Or you will lose him.

If he proves himself, Saints will be happy to give him a bigger contract.

I might be in the minority here, but to have tied Eastmond to a 4/5 year deal, we would have needed to stump up SERIOUS cash, so I'm happy to see how he goes over the next 2 years rather than panic paying him a fortune after a handful of games at 7.

The way I see it is that Eastmond is contracted for another two years.

Next year we'll see if he can do what we need of a 7, the length of his contract will avoid anyone else sniffing round him and getinng him unsettled during this period. If he's the half back we all hope he is, then at the end of next season they'll sit down and sort out a realistic long term contract to replace his current one.

If he's not all he's cracked up to be, then we're not tied to a long and expensive contract.

Works both ways, but I wouldn't be overly concerned about the length being so he can jump ship as soon as possible.

Offside's right - the whole point of this deal will be to get Eastmond to sign a new one at the end of next year if things are looking good. You do not want to be waiting to the end of a contract to work out a new one with your best players. If you do, you'll forever be in bidding wars (real or talked up by the likes of Offiah).

IMO 2 years is about right as well - Eastmond looks promising but it's hard to see what his best position long-term may be. TBH from what (little) I've seen he's a good runner but seems to be lacking in some of the basic halfback skills (something sadly true about most young British players unfortunately). Doesn't mean he can't make it - Rob Burrow really doesn't have a good passing game for example - but I for one wouldn't be betting a 5-year deal on him as a scrum half right now.