According to the Code13 site: www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/0 ... um=twitter

According to the Code13 site: www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/0 ... um=twitter

Now on Saints site saintsrlfc.com/news/page/654

Now on Saints site saintsrlfc.com/news/page/654

Excellent news, we can get on with the season now.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Kyle.

what would count as serious misconduct?

Bizarre, what a shame Eastmond is behaving this way, 18 months ago he looked like he could be one of Saints and England's better players. Some people don't appreciate the position they're in, he obviously doesn't want to bother with Saints now he knows he's going, disappointing.

Terrible start to the season for Saints so far, they may argue otherwise? But 2 'home' defeats, losing one of their best players (however you look at it) and poor attendances at the Stobart, Royce has got a job on.

If we can avoid conjecture on the nature of the misconduct, then the thrad can be kept open. I have no idea about any allegations. What I would say, however, is that Saints have a very clear vested interest in ending Eastmond's contract ASAP without having to pay him off.

List could be endless there......very vague comment that.

Maybe we have found an available Scrum half knocking about somewhere

Several Saints fans have commented on "gestures" that may have been made towards the crowd on Friday.

I don't think anybody really believed Eastmond had the mental fortitude to win over the boo boys, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's done something silly and Saints wouldn't be devastated if he tripped himself up . . .

Think I posted on another thread that Kyle did something and did anyone think we could sack him for it.

Might not be the same incident but as I said in the other thread, it was a player that told me about what he'd done after the game.

you know how it'll look though if you sack him and he's goes to union 6months early......BAD

For who? Not for Saints.

Quote St Helens have suspended scrum-half Kyle Eastmond pending an investigation into "serious misconduct". A statement from the club said they will be making no further comment until the completion of the investigation.'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 759401.stm Ps, Hull KR Dobson Is Still A Free Agent

Quote St Helens have suspended scrum-half Kyle Eastmond pending an investigation into "serious misconduct". A statement from the club said they will be making no further comment until the completion of the investigation.'" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 759401.stm Ps, Hull KR Dobson Is Still A Free Agent

i agree . he has taken the money. good luck too him but it is clear he has no interest in the current team who are paying his wages.

However the whole thing smacks to me of some bad handling of the whole situation.

If he was under contract at Saints why was he allowed to talk to Bath.

If Bath payed a transfer fee to allow him to talk then Saints should have let him go there and then.

How could he sign a contract with Bath when he is still playing for saints, there has to be a conflict of interest.

If this is just an attempt to get him out through the back door , how did Saints get into a position where they had to do this

I never had any problem with him going to union, he will prob earn a lot more brass in the long run. Who wouldn't go for a better paid job if offered? But he seeme such a spoilt arrogant little turd I hope he falls flat on his face.

How do you propose we stop him? We can no more stop him doing that than having an interview to work at W H Smith.



They didn't, why would they? He spoke to Sale too.



Why?



Saints have had no control over the situation. The only control they have is over how he behaves as an employee of Saints. No doubt Saints won't be too upset if he has been given enough rope to hang himself and clear up some cap space . . . .

Didn't Sean Long do this before? Did he get suspended?

What's "this"?

Reminds me of this: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... citor.html We all know what happened shortly after that was announced! (www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 90224.html)

Reminds me of this: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... citor.html We all know what happened shortly after that was announced! (www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 90224.html)

www.chanlawyers.com.au/asps/Seri ... onduct.asp St Helens fans may well say he has been working through the list; a. fraud b. theft c. assault d. intoxication at the workplace He has defrauded the fans, stolen from the club, he must have reacted with his fists when a fan got in his face and if his last two performances are anything to go by he was definitely not in control of his basic bodily functions for the last two games at the Stobart. If he wants to go he has demonstrated "conduct that includes willful or deliberate behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract and causes imminent and serious risk to the health or safety of a person or the reputation, viability or profitability of the business."

www.chanlawyers.com.au/asps/Seri ... onduct.asp St Helens fans may well say he has been working through the list; a. fraud b. theft c. assault d. intoxication at the workplace He has defrauded the fans, stolen from the club, he must have reacted with his fists when a fan got in his face and if his last two performances are anything to go by he was definitely not in control of his basic bodily functions for the last two games at the Stobart. If he wants to go he has demonstrated "conduct that includes willful or deliberate behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract and causes imminent and serious risk to the health or safety of a person or the reputation, viability or profitability of the business."

Dumb down that last paragraph for me a bit

Sounds like swinging the lead

Wanting to leave League for Yawnion.

Should have been charged weeks ago in that case

You can't stop people speaking to each other. You can have as many laws or terms in a contract as you like, but if they wish to talk, talk they will. It's so much easier these days anyway, since 99% of the time it's the agent acting as a go between, so no need for the player to get directly involved.

Not sure about "should have let him go" either, to tell you the truth. Why should they? He is contracted to the end of the season at least, and the vast majority of contracts these days, end with players signing for another club in mid season and then playing out their contract, without any problems at all. Why should anyone have assumed this would be different? In fact the only reason for Bath to have paid a transfer fee would have been to buy out the remainder of his contract, which the fact that he's still a Saints player, suggests they haven't, so there is no conflict of interest.

Talking to the other code, did you not know that was illegal??