Yeaman getting an extension makes zero sense, he's past it and we have better cover that's for all to see.
So, if you then have a situation that entails said redundant player getting yet another extension on the back of at least two seasons worth of averageness can you not even put together that the relationship the coach and player have is influencing the decision to give him that extension?
As I said it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep Yeaman, none unless we are yet again settling for average and don't want to utilise the young kids coming through which Yeaman will only stime if he is given said contract extension.
I don't care if he's a 'nice guy' or a great clubman, he's well past it and surplus to requirements, this season fortified what everyone has been saying aside from those sticking their head in the sand.
You really don't get it and are just wanting to shout me down because I raised the question but you have no logical arguement to back your stance up.

I think Yeamo has banged your missus.

Are you insane?

I stated reasons on my previous post as to why he may be kept on for another year, which was (again) to provide backup to the backs - did you read that bit? Myself and a couple of others said that he's likely a positive influence around the place too, specifically to a really young set of backs.

Is Yeaman being a backup player in 2016 such a problem? Why are you so angered by it?

Unlike you, I don't think we have sufficient cover in the backs. I do agree with you, and so does EVERYBODY, that his days as a first choice centre are finished.

Again, you're doing that weird thing you do and putting two and two together and getting 5. Is that all you have to go on to conclude that Radders & Yeaman are best mates? It's no wonder people treat your posts with zero respect. You're the most close-minded poster on these boards, and thats saying something.

You have more patience than me, I gave up after one reply!!

OK - First off, there is zero actual evidence of any close friendship between Radford and Yeaman. There's been a rumour around for a while but I think it rose mostly out of an attempt to explain the continued selection of a player who is patently no longer good enough.

That said, I have yet to see a convincing reason for retaining Yeaman next season. Even as a backup he makes little sense - we'd have to have an extraordinary injury crisis before he'd be getting on my team sheet either in the backs or forwards. If he's a good influence to have around the club - and I don't think there's any doubt that he's been the consummate professional - then offer him an off-field role.

Feka given a one year extension.

I'm not sure. We'll have what, 8 players covering 5 positions in the backs? I can see why the club would want to have that extra cover in there. There were definitely times this season where we had a few backs out injured (admittedly that included Sa who's record is atrocious) or dropped.

Great news about Feka, and a one year deal seems about right.

Regarding Yeaman, he is unlikely to want to leave for another club, and given his increasing age and reducing talent he is likely to be signing for a significant amount less than he was already on. Coupled with this we get a large part of his salary that is not counted on the cap. Yes he isnt great anymore, but he is cheap, experienced and a local lad who loves the club. To release him given all this information would be shortsighted, given that bringing players in from other clubs is more expensive than retaining your current crop.

Yeaman getting a contract makes sense as he would be a cheap experienced back up centre and there aren't many of them out there for what he costs you

spot on frankie

As has been proven, a young centre has offered more in a few weeks than Yeaman has for 3 years. Giving him another deal is stifling the progress of a keen, young player who's making their name in the U19's

I've heard and seen nothing of Yeaman's off-field activities for the club, nothing on the FC Foundation or in the press, so perhaps someone can enlighten me what a player who has offered nothing onfield did to warrant a job?

Regarding cover (& applying some maths), we have 8 players covering the 5 back positions (wings, centres & full back):
Shaul, Naughton, Lancaster, Talanoa, Fonua, Tuimavave, Logan & Michaels.
So, 60% cover.

In the forwards (prop, second row & loose) we have 17 players covering 8 positions (discounting hooker and assuming we go with three on the bench in the 17):
Taylor, Watts, Green, Bowden, Feka, Whiting, Westerman, Pritchard, Mini, Manu, Downes, Fash, Turgut, Hadley, Ellis, Thompson, BTW.
Which is 113% cover.
If we put 4 forwards on the bench, 17 players covering 9 positions, that's still 89% cover.

It's (apparently) a one year deal, that's all. Chill out.

Seriously, what has Yeaman done to some of you?

Washbrook and Lee are both local, Richard Horne got plenty of stick too - not sure what that point was all about(?).

Anyway, it depends on the situation, as I've stated about three times already in this thread now. If he's been given a new 1 yr deal, which is what we're expecting, then he'll be a backup player in 2016 - that's it. I think we do need n extra back in the squad to provide that cover, whether that be Yeaman or someone signed externally, or Arundel, I couldn't care less.

Nobody, and I'll repeat that, NOBODY thinks Yeaman should be starting for us next season. EVERYBODY agrees his best days are long gone.