Rather see the money spent on a transfer fee or a marquee NRL player. I think we have seen that average NRL backs can look very good in SL. Eastmond *could* turn out to be good after an adjustment period but IMO not nearly as much chance of that as if we get a decent proven player from the NRL or even a transfer of a SL player like Gale etc.

INOUT

That's a very good point. He's a big risk for me, then offsetting of money does make it a lesser risk to be fair.

Realistically is he likely to be better than Hiku was?

No question.
We played 3 SL teams worse than us and 4 from a division lower. The whole shatty team looked good through that period.
Hiku was great for us...don't get me wrong here....but he wasn't tested under top conditions.

I disagree RD, Hiku was head and shoulders above the rest of his team mates and dragged them up a level.

I don't disagree with that... but you must add Savelio and Pomeroy to that mix too. Hiku would have made little difference without them.

My points was only that Eastmond is/was better player than Hiku. Hiku wasn't playing big games for us...we were playing the likes of Halifax London etc

If Eastmond had stayed in RL and been an England regular it would be easy to judge him against Hiku.

Hiku is a current NZ international, a lot younger and shows clear class (he did play against some teams at a higher level e.g. Wigan). We don’t know whether Eastmond will make a decent RL player again. History suggests not, but there are some exceptions to the rule.

League Express revealed last week a deal for Kyle Eastmond was nearing completion it is understood it is now finalised.

It goes on to say who makes way for Eastmond is yet to be determined though League Expressunderstands the Wolves are preparing to make a significant announcement which could pave the way for Eastmond’s arrival.

All this is in a piece regarding Patton’s future in today’s paper.

Well I’m seriously underwhelmed as Patton seems to have found his place in this Warrington team and we are gambling large amounts of our cap (even with he discounts) on a player who hasn’t played league for years. Not the direction I wanted to see the club heading in, so I hope Eastmond doesn’t turn out to be a dud like most of the returning former RL stars have been. Happy to be made to eat my words though, so here’s hoping.

It would seem strange for Patton to be moving unless it is his decision. Price seems to be wanting him as back up hooker/utility player & if an injury happened to Clark ,without suitable back up ,it could derail our season. Also with our present halves & their injury problems i am sure Patten will never be out of the team for long anyway.

So who do we think is leaving? K Brown? I thought it was odd that he gives up Internationals due to the number of head injuries, yet is willing to risk carrying on . Got to say he has been worth his weight this season.

I guess it depends where we see Eastmond playing.

If he's coming in as a centre, does that put Atkins name in the frame?

If its as a half then one of Roberts or Brown would be on their way. Can't believe we'd release Patton just to bring in Eastmond, the figures don't stack up.

A case could be made for Brown, Roberts or Atkins for a reason to be leaving to be honest.

It may be that Patton wants to start every game or wants a salary we are not prepared to offer.

I must admit when Brown scored his try on Saturday and got [ianother[/i clattering I did think that he looked like a player with one eye on his future health.

Would be a shame if he gave it up early as I thought he was excellent again v Wigan, but totally understandable.

Alternatively maybe Tyrone's improvement was a swansong or maybe Patton has voiced his dissatisfaction at being demoted to back-up hooker.

Any disruption to the halves would be a blow as the Brown-Roberts combination is starting to bear fruit but we have to think long term, and if anyone is unhappy or not in it for the long haul then we have to act sooner rather than later.

Agree with this,we have had an habit of leaving things to late in the past.