As a Wigan fan you of all people should realise alot of young guns drop off the ship after a steady start. Kyle wanted to beour highest paid player on a 4 or 5 year deal. You just cannot justify giving him that. It's crazy. Luke Robinson showed good promise at Wigan, can you imagine if you had given him a 5 year deal on 100 grand ? he'd still be there ripping into your salary cap with pi** poor performances.

Kyle Eastmond isn't your average academy product. He is a once in a decade sort of player, someone who looks as good as Jason Robinson was.

Whether he makes it as an organising 7 isn't relevant. After 15 or so games he's already the most dangerous player we have, genuinely the only threat we have in the backs. And you want to make it easy for him to walk free in 2 years? That will be the basis of Offiah's advice to him, sign for 2 years, I'll build up your profile and you'll be at Twickenham on mega bucks by the time you are 23.

At the moment he looks dangerous two or three times a game. It's just not enough.

Compared with Matt Gidley's input two or three times a season (When his contract was up) or Gardner who last did something positive when he helped his Nan into an old persons home in 2007 or Wello who couldn't threaten a tortoise?

Kyle is a superstar already, forget his potential. He is already by far our best player and the only one we have (Along with Leon) with the ability to do any damage as an individual.

And usually score from those chances, like in the grand final. A lot depends if this is an extension or replaces his existing deal. Extension great, replacement not so great

It's obvious Eastmond is alot more impressive and has more potential than Luke Robinson and majority of other young Wigan players when they were at this early stage of his career. I can't recall any of those players given the roll as a starting and key member of the national side.

Maybe this work out well and it's good that Rugby League and St Helens have secured his services for the time being but if he performs well as planned the Rugby Union approaches will only re-appear soon and we'll be going through all this again.

Wigan have put faith into giving Sam Tomkins a five year contract and though it's a risk, we can only go off what we've seen so far, and so far he's forecasted to be worth that contract length and more. So has Eastmond IMO, that's why he should be tied down to a lengthier contract.

Did we really need 3 threads about Kyle? No.

All three have now been merged.

Quote ="ABP'"It's obvious Eastmond is alot more impressive and has more potential than Luke Robinson and majority of other young Wigan players when they were at this early stage of his career. I can't recall any of those players given the roll as a starting and key member of the national side. Maybe this work out well and it's good that Rugby League and St Helens have secured his services for the time being but if he performs well as planned the Rugby Union approaches will only re-appear soon and we'll be going through all this again. Wigan have put faith into giving Sam Tomkins a five year contract and though it's a risk, we can only go off what we've seen so far, and so far he's forecasted to be worth that contract length and more. So has Eastmond IMO, that's why he should be tied down to a lengthier contract.'" BBC story news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 358697.stm Jason Robinson "He's been likened to myself but in many ways I wasn't as talented as him at his age, with his ball-handling skills and his kicking," said Robinson. like you said he is a stand out talent

Quote ="ABP'"It's obvious Eastmond is alot more impressive and has more potential than Luke Robinson and majority of other young Wigan players when they were at this early stage of his career. I can't recall any of those players given the roll as a starting and key member of the national side. Maybe this work out well and it's good that Rugby League and St Helens have secured his services for the time being but if he performs well as planned the Rugby Union approaches will only re-appear soon and we'll be going through all this again. Wigan have put faith into giving Sam Tomkins a five year contract and though it's a risk, we can only go off what we've seen so far, and so far he's forecasted to be worth that contract length and more. So has Eastmond IMO, that's why he should be tied down to a lengthier contract.'" BBC story news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 358697.stm Jason Robinson "He's been likened to myself but in many ways I wasn't as talented as him at his age, with his ball-handling skills and his kicking," said Robinson. like you said he is a stand out talent

Don't see what the fuss is about the contract length.

It would take a much, much higher salary to get him tied to a 4-5 year deal, and there is absolutely no guarantee he is going to fulfill his early promise. It's still early days for Kyle.

He's got a deal that recognises his fantastic improvement and potential, he's got the number 7 shirt - now he has 2 years to prove he deserves that shirt for the long-haul, and the salary that comes with it.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the length of the contract was asked for by Kyle and his 'agent'? rather than put forward by the club?

I'm yet to see Kyle put 10-15 games together as a starting number 7 doing all the things that a number 7 should be doing (organising, kicking in general play etc). Without doubt he is a fantastic prospect and he has been mightily impressive in mostof his performances but he has been pretty well shielded thus far, playing in a variety of positions and you only had to look at the Tri nations were Sinfield took on the majority of the decision making and kicking to leave Tomkins and Eastmond to play more off the cuff stuff.

I'm not bagging the lad and I would personally have preferred an extra year but I'm not losing any sleep at the fact that McManus hasn't just signed away 100-150k a year for 4 years to a lad who is yet to show his real hand.

I think that is almost certain

Isn't the new deal is on top of his current deal, therefore meaning really we have him for at least 3 years?

The club has obviously not broke the bank with a bumper 5 year deal - they probably couldn't afford & didn't want to match the sums expected by Offiah for a deal of that length without a full year in the scrum half role.

This deal is ideal for Kyle giving him 2 years to establish himself as a class number 7 & increase future earning potential at a current top club. Its not ideal for the club or fans as the Warrington / Union rumour mill will tick over in the background.

It does give Saints the option to extend the deal in 12 months should they see fit based on performances & SC space available whilst the player is still under contract and hopefully when they are in a better position to commit a little more SC after the retirement of KC / Gidley / Fozzard.

Definitely something along those lines:

I think the club will have asked for 4/5 years but Offiah will have wanted megabucks to commit for so long knowing what potential earnings would be if Kyle stars in the next 12-24months.

Eventually it probably came down to them getting Saints absolute top wages offer (for Kyle) and Offiah saying they will commit to not a day over two years at that rate.

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.

[urlhttp://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_5740232,00.html[/url

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.