CLASSIC

I think Saints are being wise. I've no idea what they offered him, obviously, and it could be low or it could have been very reasonable given that he is potential rather than proven. Either way, it would be foolish to pay the kind of sum Offiah will be asking to someone who has yet to prove himself in the job. He had a great chance to show that he could begin to boss the team while Longy was out with his jaw but he didn't show any signs of doing that for however many weeks it was that he was covering. Will he be able to do so next year? Who knows. Eastmond is clearly a talent but whether that translates to a talented 7 I think is yet to be seen. If he performs the role we need next season then I'd say we should be offering him an impressive inducement to stay with us. If not, either we offer him something reasonable to play in another position or we let him go IMO. Saints cannot be held to ransom over one player because overall we will suffer as a result.

So you don't know what they've offered him and you don't know what Offiah is asking, so how can you make a judgement if it's reasonable or not?

Basically everyone is guessing.
IMO what Saints (and every other club have to do is to avoid paying what they can't afford, and / or setting a precedent for the next young player coming through who will want / expect a similar deal.

I think it is reasonable that we are waiting to see what Eastmond can deliver. He has not yet delivered on the organisation front, at all, and also he does have a tendency to disappear in games (we have one of those already), blubber a bit when hit and sometimes heads for the line in search of glory when he should be passing out to his team mates. He was spot on with his game on Saturday but on Saturday he played at centre. He could be a brilliant centre in the making but would he take that spot? Or, like Pryce with his 6, does he think he must be a 7 at all costs even if he turns out to be a poor one? These are the things the club needs to know before shelling out sums of money that presently hurt us.

Eastmond is Saints best young player by a very long way.
They should do their best to keep him. As for him having a good season at 7 before he is offered another contract doesn't make any sense at all.
No one seems to know his best position but he doesn't appear to be a playmaker 7.

The last two games I've seen him he's played centre and whilst he doesn't look a natural centre he looks far better there than at 7. In fact when he was on the wing and went for the corner he looked a more natural wingman than either Gardner or Meli have done for years. OK he didn't score but it took Sinfield's career best tackle to stop him. I was in the North Stand opposite and from where I was Eastmond went like a bullet.

A few people have said he reminds them of Jason Robinson. They may be nearer than they think. Robinson came to Wigan as a 7 and couldn't hack it. Wigan tried him on the wing and we all know the rest. Could Eastmond be the same? I think he very well could be.

It's time we all started to complain about the clubs and the RFL allowing our best talent to depart to Union. Lee Smith signed months ago and Shaun Edwards has a real telented player there. Hetherington has never appeared bothered that he's losing a great talent. From the comments by McManus he seems to have the same view.
If we are to keep our best talent we are going to have to work hard to keep them. The RFL and some club chairmen don't appear to be working at keeping them at all.

Which is why I mentioned the bit about him playing at centre and whether he would be happy with that and whether he, like Pryce, sees himself in just one position. Such factors as those will also play a part in negotiations. If he thinks he's the best 7 ever and will take nothing else but we don't think he is the best 7 ever but instead, say, think he's the best centre we've seen in this country for donkeys, it's highly unlikely he would stay. But should Saints keep him anyway and play him at 7 just because he has a lot of talent?

Well that's the sixty thousand dollar question, figuratively and literally. At the end of the day we're in the dark on this. Eastmond is a kid and a bloody gifted one, too. He may or may not be the playmaker we desperately need, but we DESPERATELY need a playmaker. Which leaves us standing centre stage in a seller's market. In poker parlance Eastmond and Offiah have the high hand whilst McManus is aiming to bluff.

It's a bad situation. But it's wrong to slate Eastmond. He's only looking after his own interests. Indeed, I doubt there are many players on our books who haven't argued with the chairman over money in the past.

One thing is for certain - we can't afford to start relying on an unreliable player - especially when he's our only genuine playmaker. McManus and (to some extent) Potter have dug themselves into a hole on this. Long's successor should have been announced twelve months ago - signing or promotion. In an ideal world the signing would have been made on or around the same day. If the plan was to give Eastmond the job he should have started over 50% of this season's games, so when Long hangs up his boots he picks them up whilst they are still warm. If that WAS the plan it went tits up from the very beginning. Granted, Kyle had one or two injuries at the start of the year so he couldn't get game time, but I'm not convinced Potter would have played him anyway.

Which gets us to the thorny question: If Eastmond was playmaker elect, why has the club shown such little confidence in him this year? We've all heard McManus talking about bringing through an "exciting generation". Great. Nobody with a brain would disagree. But neither McManus nor Potter have shown much interest in "bigging" Kyle up this season. When he's fit he doesn't play, or play in the right position. When he plays well he's often been damned with very faint praise. Reading between the lines I think the club is in no way convinced by him - both as a player and a person. And it's been like this for up towards twelve months.

So why have we not acted? McManus appears like some startled rabbit trapped in the headlights of an onrushing truck that will do a hell of a lot of damage to us if it hits. I just don't get it. McManus is a smart guy. Nothing like some of the dillons who've steered the ship in the past. He must know this problem is only going to get WORSE until he makes the call to pay up or send Kyle on his way and look toward someone else.

Im minded of Sean Longs comments in his book.
Always turn down the 1st contract offer.

Kyle knows he is in a strong position and lets be honest Saints 1st offer is probably a test the water offer.

They will have an amount they can afford and Kyle and his agent will have an amount that they desire.

I expect Saints to come back later next year with a better offer. Probably not as much as Kyle would dream of, but a decent one.

There is also my opinion that all this rumour mongering, a lot of which is coming from Wigan fans, is merely an attempt to unsettle the player and turn Saints fans against him. So that he can then go to pastures new. Wigan being the dream ticket for these people.

As for Mugwump saying Saints have been daft, well they havent because Matty Smith is still at the club, he is a fine and proven half back, not as exciting as Kyle but competent, and as good as most in SL.
He will be on a month to month contract at Salford so if Kyle decides to leave then Saints can bring Matty back.

Can I borrow your tin foil hat?

I think there's so much discussion from Wigan fans because of Kyle's obvious talent and he's great to watch, I don't think it's got anything to do with unsettling him (we don't all meet up and plan Machiavellian strategies to harm your long term future).

I'd expect exactly the same debate would be going on with Saints fans if Sam Tomkins wasn't on a long term deal -it's just perfectly natural, we're all rugby league fans after all and can spot a special player.

I hope he works things out at Saints and settles into a roll, I want to see the lad stay in League he's the type of player we have to invest in as a sport if we want to progress against the Ockers.

You're right. Smith is "as good as most in SL" - though what THAT says about SL is anyone's guess. And we can rely on him-ish (what release clauses are built into his loan agreement?). But Smith hardly has McManus' confidence. If he did he wouldn't be out on loan.

So, again, you're right. We're not staking an entire season on a kid we are not entirely confident in. [iWe are staking it on TWO kids we're not entirely confident in.
[/i

Which is not the kind of behaviour I'd expect from a club that has set such high standards for a decade in on-the-field performance and professionalism. Not one bit.

Or one the other side of the fence .....we have our fingers in a couple of pies. Smith, ala the Moore situation has been sent out to gain valuable 'on site' experience.

Too many variables to guess at regarding the Smith/Eastmond situation, however, we still hold the registration of two young, talented scrum halves with a few more coming through the system.

Eastmond is going to sign a new contract anyway, unless his dad is lying to a close friend which I very much doubt.

If Sale are going to sign him, they aren't going to play him at scrum half for sure - if he's not up to an organising role at 7 in leage he certainly can't do it at union where that position is far more about controlling play rather than exciting running.

He'll have to play on the wing - no other realistic option.

Playing 9 in Union is a doddle, I should know, I did it for years. You roll up, flick the ball to the fly half who does most of the organising, or pop it up to a prop or second row to cannon in close to draw defenders. Some times throw in a surprise scoot for success.