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.

It's a pretty good deal for both Eastmond and the club in my opinion.

Has he signed for Sale yet?

Absolutely, it's rlnailed onrl, according to one of the more credulous posters on the board.