Quality film

You'd have to flop lower than whale pooh, to get to Saddened'S CREDABILITY LEVEL

I'm surprised there's been no speculation on what he's done. Even on Twitter all everybody is saying is "he's been suspended pending investigation". When it was Gleeson there were some great stories doing the rounds.

come to thinkm of it, isn't this an oxymoron, Saddened's credibility

few hypotheses

1) Eastmond is playing poorly and Saints obviously want rid

2) he flipped the signals at his own fans at the weekend ... apparently

I was at that game and i didnt see him do that he pointed to hes name on the back of shirt
when getting stick at the end of the game

You would have to speak to the Saints fans on their board about that. I think he pointed to his name, pointed to where something had happened on the pitch and also gave the finger.

He isn't playing. That's the problem. It isn't that he's playing poorly. He just isn't getting involved. I'm quite sure Saints want to get rid of him. Certainly most of us fans do. It's a shame that things have ended up like this. Had he been more professional about everything then we could have just enjoyed his last season with us. But he's been a plank and, apart from anything else, his attitude during a game is having repercussions upon the rest of the team. On Friday, Gaskell was playing scrum half and stand off; he's only played five games at first grade level. I think most of us could have thumped Kyle just for leaving his junior partner so isolated.


I can assure you he didn't. But he did make a sign.

It is a shame. As a wire I thank him for making Sts job so bloody hard. As a fan of Rugby League as a sport i couldn't see the back of him soon enough.

I had heard it was a one finger salute. But he has done something of ill-discipline on that pitch and I would assume that is why he has been dragged up on it.

It can't be as he won't have been paid it. Hicks was paid up, but his salary didn't count because he hadn't played that year. Eastmond would not be paid, it would be as if we had sold him. If we merely paid him up and told to go on his merry way now, then that would count in full against the cap.

My reading of it is:-

- If Saints terminate his contract, his old playing salary is discounted under the cap
- However, if they pay him a Termination Payment, then the value of that payment DOES count against the cap and is pro-rated over the remaining years of the contract

So, working this through with a non specific example:-

Player A has 1 year left on his £100k a year contract with Club B.
Player A announces that he is leaving to play for Club RU.
Player A starts being a complete Odemwingie which leads to abuse from his home fans.
Club B would like to get rid of Player A but know that, if they agree to a mutual termination, and make a payment, he'll want the remainder of £100k which, as he only has a year left, will count against this year's cap.
Club B wants to get rid of Player A and pay him nothing on termination because they can then use the £100k to sign a replacement.

If I was Club B, I would find a reason to sack Player A for gross misconduct. In those circumstances, Player A would not be "entitled" to a termination payment of a payment in lieu of the remainder of the contract. At the very least, Club B can say, 'look Player A, you've been a bad boy, you're not getting the remaining value of the contract, but we will give you, say, £30k?'. Club B would then have a few quid to spend on that replacement.

Just a thought...

I'd have thought if they wanted to pay him something to go (i.e. £30k to use your example), then they would simply negotiate that with him, surely Bath would have been happier to get him during their pre-season rather than after their season has already started. By going for serious misconduct, it looks like they want rid without having to pay him anything. Surely serious misconduct allows an employer to do that?

You didnt take the bait from my earler comment





The sooner he leaves saints the better for them, the longer he stays the better for us

I agree I want Kyle to stay and this soap opera to drag on and on.

It won't make much difference either way. This season is a write off and the focus us 100% on next season although the club are unlikely to admit it publicly.

Absolutely, that's the point I'm making. If I'm Player A, unless I think I'm at risk of termination due to serious misconduct, I would want a pay off. Under the Cap Rules, if I'm reading them right, then every penny they pay him as a Termination Payment would count against the cap. If Club B can dismiss him then great. However, from a negotiation standpoint (and it's in everyone's interests that this is settled amicable) anything they can use to say 'look, you're entitled to nothing, but we'll give you £30k to go now' is useful.

One nuclear option from Club B would be to:-

- Terminate without notice
- Make no termination payment (except holidays etc)
- Sign a replacement
- Let Player A sue
- Settled claim with Player A

Don't know if the cap has any mechanism for payments made in settlement of Employment Tribunal or Count Court claims but I doubt it...

If Saints tried to get him dismissed for giving the V to the fans I doubt that would be grounds. Firstly there are many on here who have stated publicly that he didn't and secondly he could plead provocation as it's already been stated on public forums that he has been given plenty of abuse by some Saints fans.

Saints wouldn't be so stupid as trying to sack Eastmond for that. It would cost them far too much and be too risky

Ah, yes, just re-read your earlier post and in the sentence "Player A would not be "entitled" to a termination payment ", I originally missed the "not"!

I can see two good outcomes from this:

> Eastmond stays with saints all season and the side show continues.

> saints sack and Eastmond raises a claim for unfair dismissal screwing the club up financially

I don't think provacation would necessarily be a defence in these circumstances. One person who I do work for is an absolute King Warrior. She doesn't quite flick the Vs at me but she might as well do. She provokes me all the time. Much as I'd like to, I can't tell her to f off. If I did, I'd be at serious risk of a (fair) dismissal. As long as it's legal, then taking that sort of abuse is in the job description for a rugby league player - mind you, so is taking on the line and he's not done that this year.

That said, I still agree that it would be risky if that's all he has done.

This time two years ago Warrington's season didn't look too promising.

Remember when Lowes went, these boards were full of people saying it's not a new coach Warrington need, its a whole new team, and get rid of the pension hunting Aussies King and Monaghan for starters

The problem Saints have is that we are down on numbers in terms of senior players. Our main strength during the SL era was always that we had the best players in SL in the key positions. Now we just replace legends with kids.

Gaskell and Wheeler at 6 and 7 for two months unless we manage to sign a replacement. How many games do you see us winning with that partnership?

Crusaders @ Stobart & Away
Salford @ Stobart
Catalans @ Stobart
Wakey @ Stobart
Cas @ Stobart

There is 12 whole Points to add to your 5.

Also you will win at Leeds on Saturday.

stop making things up, go back and read steve 51's post where he highlights the section of the rules in regard to SC.

HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN! 5 GAMES IN.......