If he does play well and constantly at scrum half then it gives him much more room for negotiation to get himself the contract level he seems to be after (if you believe all the rumours flying around about him being off to union). If he doesn't step up then the club haven't locked themselves into a big contract with him so in a lot of ways it does make sense. However, it is a risky move but hopefully in the next 12 months it works out.

Eastmond is a talent with prospect and needs to prove himself next year in controlling a team around the field.
He does show signs of class but for me he hasn't done it yet

Prime example the semi final v's Huddesfield were he looked lost

so you marginalise your great hope?

In 12 months time there will potentially be more room under the cap should the club see fit to offer him big bucks!

No one team can revolve around a player, as good as he is likely to be he hasn't done it yet! Big contracts are usually given when the recipiant has proved their worth....thats the same in any walk of life.

I dont understand what people want here, the kids is a talent, sure he is, but we need to employ another 25 players under the cap, there is only so much the club can offer, at the end of the day if he doesn't give a damn about Saints and is after the money, there are other clubs out there who have less spread money and put all their eggs in one basket.

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.