Our chairman says in todays League weekly that Eastmond turned down a new contract 3 months ago and that now we will wait to see if he plays well constatly at scrum half before offering him a new deal.

That is just plain stupid and proves to me that he is GONE!!

He also says that Eastmond as 15 months on his contract and if he signs a new deal then he does but if he doesent then it's bye bye.

Dissapointing imo. We should offer him the deal now.That creepy bast*rd Tony Smith will be sniffing around him in the 4 nations. (thats if his not signing for Sale, like i was told months ago).

Sad, but we knew this months ago. If he plays a single game at scrum half after turning down a contract, more the fool us.

So this was after we decided to let SL go to Hull I presume?

for me this could be more of a reason that we should buy danny brough. a top top scrum half with a better kicking game than eastmond,long,wilkin&pryce combined!

So Arnold has turned down a contract offer and people are criticising Big Mac for it?



IMHO Eammon is correct, he offered a contract and it was declined. Eastmond should now prove to the board he is worth the money he/his agent are asking for. Granted he is a an exciting talent, however, he is 20 years old and hasn't done it yet. He needs to show week in week out he can do the job before we commit big money to a relatively newcomer.

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

There comes a time when you've got to make a judgement though. If he plays 12 months as scrum half and does well, surely his contract demands will raise even further?

I just don't think we should be spending 12 months building the side around him at scrum half when he's quite clearly going to be leaving the club. He should stay in a non-key position like the wing.

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.

Didn't he get injured and then play on with the injury?

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.

Eastmond still has 12 more months of his contract left, so I'm right in thinking other league clubs can't officially sign him up until a date towards the end of next season, right? And that they'd also owe us a transfer fee if he moved, because of his age?

Only SH? Something in my head tells me that Wheeler could do a decent job at 7 for us. We also don't know if the board have a signing lined up if Eastmond did leave?

Scott Moore? I wouldn't feel disgruntled if I were him. It would have been nigh on impossible to break into the team in front of Cunningham and Robes. The loan period has done him wonders and although he may now habour affection towards huddersfield, I don't think he'll have any resentment towards Saints.

I've looked thru that paper 3 times and it's defo not in there.

Officially they can't announce it until September, but as in the case of Long and Gilmour it can be agreed to let a player sign at any time of the season.

Saints would be entitled to some money for Eastmond but it would only be a small fee, based on the number of years he has been at the club. (I think Wigan had to pay Bradford £25,000 for Mark Flanagan) who was of a similar age.

Eastmond has already proven himself to have huge natural talent, the most exciting player that Saints have produced for many years. Can he control the team from SH? He hasn't shown that yet, but that wouldn't necessarily stop him being a top class winger, centre or fb. Should he get paid more as a SH than as a centre? Would you pay Danny Brough more than Lyon? If he can prove himself as a SH next season, then he will be a top replacement for Long. If he doesn't he will still be the most exciting player in the RedV and worthy of a top contract as a goal kicking centre/winger. Eastmond can be the future of Saints, for the next 10 or 12 years, but even if he leaves after next season, he will have had an impact and played a part in the clubs success.

In both of those cases the player in question had the club's permission to talk to other clubs. If a player doesn't have that permission then any discussion with other clubs prior to September is tapping up.


I would suggest he would command a good deal more than that, given that he is likely to be a full international by the time of any potential move.

I'm not sure what transfer fee we'd get from Union. Probably nothing. And what if he commits to Sale early? We could be in the same situation as Wigan were with Ashton, who they had to drop because he couldn't be bothered. THAT would be a clamity.



They'd HAVE TO have a signing lined up, because we would be buggered otherwise. Which highlights the lunacy of this situation because whomever we have lined up will KNOW it's a seller's market and whatever we save on Eastmond will only be gobbled up by him and his agent. I've not seen anything in Wheeler that suggests to me he is a natural SH. Regardless of who gets the job, it'll mean months - perhaps a year - of getting used to each other before we see the real fruits. Hardly the Sugarcandy "Golden Generation" mountain McManus promised tho. The keystone player of his plan is threatening to collapse.



Then we'd better hope he doesn't harbour any grudges. Because if he does we'll be in street for sure.