Either way it would seem he wants more than the club are willing to pay for him. Should a player (especially one so early in his career who is yet to prove himself) really be able to say "I want this" and get it? It would appear it is going to be a case of both parties having to show a certain amount of compromise.

Personally I think the club are in a much better position to decide what a player is worth (and of course they actually know the figures being involved something nobody on here does) than posters on a message board some.

Its not. I happen to know thats the figure on the balance sheet.

True to a large extent.. But whatever the truth is with regards to whether our offer was an insult or the greatest offer ever made - probably somewhere in the middle - we should not have let SL go without tying Arnold down.

To end up relying on a SC who is apparently unhappy with our valuation of what he is worth is not good for the club and appears to be poor judgement.

Call me a cynic, but I think there is some books balancing / saving money going on here. Have you seen the latest accounts?

I'm definitely enjoying this "Let's put TWO rookies in the playmaking positions" tomfoolery - NOT!

Can you imagine a top tier Premiership club starting a season with two rookies in the midfield - by choice? Can you imagine a top cricket side CHOOSING to enter a season with two kids - one as strike bowler, the other - all rounder? No. The reason you don't see this is because it is PHUCKING MADNESS!!!

Ah now I see what is going on!!

From Sporting Life headline:

[size=150OFFIAH: WIGAN NEED MORE QUALITY[/size

The wages from Long, Gilmour and Cayless one would imagine would have been used on Soliola, Fozzard, Moore and improved contracts for the younger squad players ie - Wheeler, Lomax, Arnold etc.

<prayingfx> We may even have a suprise addition to come<prayingfx>

Again, its only assumption but i'd imagine that out of the youngsters, Eastmond would have been given the lions share of the available funds. Regardless of the figure, perspective needs to be used. Kyle has over 12 months on his contract to run, therefore to be offered a new contract at an early stage shows the clubs intent to retain his services.

He is going to be a class act if he continues his form,however, he has not yet shown he can perform week in week out and i don't think he yet holds the ace card he/Offiah are holding out on.

There's nothing new or unique about Eastmond being offered an early extension. Kids that are in a club's future plans are ALWAYS offered early extensions. It would be commercial and strategic suicide not to.

Can't we pay him by the inch?

No, I never said it was, i said it shows the intent to retain his services. You are correct that it common practice to offer an early extension. But you hit the nail on the head with the word KID. He is just that, he is an untried, exciting prospect so i would assume that the contract offer reflects that.

The vast majority of contracts have bonus objectives, if Eastmond and Offiah are so sure of his value then they would do well to factor some of these objectives into any deal they negotiate. IE, Winners rings,CC Wins, England call ups etc etc

I for one hope he does sign and an agreement is made, just on the terms that benefit both parties equally.

Sounds right. It was the fact that Salford are going nowhere that he wanted to leave. Plus he actually wanted to come to Warrington believe it or not. He got a hefty pay increase as well.

The value of a player doesnt go on the balance sheet :s