No, I'm sure he'd have been quite happy to commit to a four year deal on big wages. Let's be honest contracts are very rarely worth the paper they are written on if a player wants to go these days, so if a Union club wanted him, they'd probably get him. IMO, that was all bluster anyway and no one really wanted to take a chance on him for the money he'd want.

However, would the club risk paying him a big wage on a four year deal and him not working out at 7, then being stuck with a young centre/full back on a top wage? Probably not.

Just an interesting comparison.

Kevin Penny signed a three (or four) year deal on very good money, and look what happened to him.

I was led to believe that it was two year extension (3 year in total). I can't believe that Saints would want to be in this very same position with Eastmond next year.

Can anyone confirm if it is tree years in total?

Good news in one respect but agree it will be the same fun and games this time next year. Hope a club in league can secure the kid on a longterm deal, would be gutted to see him head to union.

It's not really an interesting comparison. Penny's faults were there to see from day one. Other than an injury or two too many at this stage of his career, Eastmond hasn't shown any real weaknesses. The big test of Eastmond is whether he can carry a team around the park. The big test of Penny was whether he could catch, tackle, run and pass. He failed at 3 out of 4.

and thats the whole issue here, no confirmation if it is an extension or not. 3yr good, 2 yr not so

According to Sky Sports news it is a two year deal until 2011, which is in effect a one year extension.

rlhttps://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_5740232,00.htmlrl

It would appear that Offiah and Eastmond are holding all the aces.

I think we all knew they would be

I'd have liked us to get him on a longer contract but Kyle and Offiah were always going to push for a shorter one. There's going to be a scramble for his services every time his contract is up, which means a big payrise for him whether he stays or goes, so it makes sense for him.

But this is still great news. Can't wait to see him make the scrum half spot his own next year.

If he did leave when he was 22-23 for another club, would Saints be entitled to a transfer fee due to his young age?

Don't know if it's still the same, but it used to be that if the player was under 24 and his club offered him a contract equal to or better than his current one, then a transfer fee would be required for him to move.

Good news that you've extended his contract by a year. I do think he's the sort of player though that you get very very few of per decade, and i'd personally have been trying to get a longer deal even if that meant taking a gamble on his wages.

but we wont be able to match onion's cash

That's a given, but as long as we offered a deal equal to or better than the one he's just signed, we'd be entitled to a fee (that's if the rule applies across sports).

That's an excellent point.

A short-term deal offers us an escape route if his early promise goes unfulfilled. Penny is a great example of where this has happened in the past.

How do you know that?