: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:53 am  

Are people seriously suggesting that Saints would let both Graham (their best player) and Eastmond (one of the top young talents in the country in a position we struggle with) come to Wigan.

What would our fans say if we gave them Tomkins and O'Loughlin?

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:15 am  

Odemwingie wrote:

What would our fans say if we gave them Tomkins and O'Loughlin?

Some of the whinging gits sat near me would say this could only be a good thing

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:15 am  

Odemwingie wrote:

Are people seriously suggesting that Saints would let both Graham (their best player) and Eastmond (one of the top young talents in the country in a position we struggle with) come to Wigan.

What would our fans say if we gave them Tomkins and O'Loughlin?

Eastmond comes off contract at the same time as Fielden! All it takes is a word in Eastmonds ear to say a good chunk of Stu's wages has been ear marked for him and we will have him at least thinking about the swap!

Guess it comes down to who wants him the most after that!

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:26 am  

ksm1701 wrote:

Some of the whinging gits sat near me would say this could only be a good thing

There not the tosspots sat near us at the DW against aussies who keeped saying Slater would get found out in SL

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:26 am  

Odemwingie wrote:

Are people seriously suggesting that Saints would let both Graham (their best player) and Eastmond (one of the top young talents in the country in a position we struggle with) come to Wigan.

What would our fans say if we gave them Tomkins and O'Loughlin?

Agreed. But if you don't ask, you don't get.

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:51 am  

Odemwingie wrote:

Are people seriously suggesting that Saints would let both Graham (their best player) and Eastmond (one of the top young talents in the country in a position we struggle with) come to Wigan.

What would our fans say if we gave them Tomkins and O'Loughlin?

They wouldn't have much of a say if Wigan can offer them more then they can(if they're off contract) and the players were willing to take the coin on offer.

Wigan should make a huge play for Eastmond imo. He's a quality young player and has the potential to be truely world class. It could help Wigans cause that he has an agent who will try and get him to go to the highest bidder.

It's a long shot but worth a go imo.

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:21 am  

NickyKiss wrote:

They wouldn't have much of a say if Wigan can offer them more then they can(if they're off contract) and the players were willing to take the coin on offer.

Wigan should make a huge play for Eastmond imo. He's a quality young player and has the potential to be truely world class. It could help Wigans cause that he has an agent who will try and get him to go to the highest bidder.

It's a long shot but worth a go imo.

Unfortunately, I think this is the reason why he'll end up in Union at some point. Just suppose he plays really well on Saturday? The hotter the property he is, the more they'll be interested. As for Eastmond, he may at the present time be young and naive enough to want to stay and make his name in RL, but money will talk in the long run - as it did with Gasnier, SBW, Sailor, etc. No matter that they all ruined their careers, they also got very rich, which when they had families and mortgages to pay became the bottom line.

I think there's a bigger danger of Eastmond defecting at present than almost anyone else. He's got that 'running back' look about him, which seems to be nine points of the law where Union scouts are concerned.

I'd love us to get him - I'd love anyone to get him rather than see him go to Union. But I'll be amazed if it happens.

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:05 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

Unfortunately, I think this is the reason why he'll end up in Union at some point. Just suppose he plays really well on Saturday? The hotter the property he is, the more they'll be interested. As for Eastmond, he may at the present time be young and naive enough to want to stay and make his name in RL, but money will talk in the long run - as it did with Gasnier, SBW, Sailor, etc. No matter that they all ruined their careers, they also got very rich, which when they had families and mortgages to pay became the bottom line.

I think there's a bigger danger of Eastmond defecting at present than almost anyone else. He's got that 'running back' look about him, which seems to be nine points of the law where Union scouts are concerned.

I'd love us to get him - I'd love anyone to get him rather than see him go to Union. But I'll be amazed if it happens.

The comparisons to the best League to Union convert of alltime in Jason Robonson won't so the game anay favours in trying to keep him.

He's a natural athlete who's game would cross over just as easily and they will throw huge money at him.

If the RFL would bring in rule where players brought through your system didn't count fully on the salary cap maybe clubs could manage to hold onto the likes of Eastmond but then it'd upset the have nots and they make the rules.

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:16 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

The comparisons to the best League to Union convert of alltime in Jason Robonson won't so the game anay favours in trying to keep him.

He's a natural athlete who's game would cross over just as easily and they will throw huge money at him.

If the RFL would bring in rule where players brought through your system didn't count fully on the salary cap maybe clubs could manage to hold onto the likes of Eastmond but then it'd upset the have nots and they make the rules.

We could also bring in a 'Club England' type alteration to the cap, where top players being targeted by Union are paid extra from a central kitty. No-one should be under any illusions - it was only this that kept Cunningham and Radlinski in the game.

I know it's a choker, players appearing to exploit the game, but I don't see an alternative. If we lose Eastmond, we lose one of the best prospects RL has produced in quite a while. This won't be like Farrell or Robinson, who went when they were veterans. It won't be like Pryce or Walker, who still had it all to prove and surpised no-one that they didn't go on to make it. A fair comparison might be Harris, who was a very exciting league youngster when he left, and when he returned looked like an old man. That's what you really call exploiting the game - getting one big payday to defect, then getting another when you defect back (even though you're basically finished).

: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:48 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

We could also bring in a 'Club England' type alteration to the cap, where top players being targeted by Union are paid extra from a central kitty. No-one should be under any illusions - it was only this that kept Cunningham and Radlinski in the game.

I know it's a choker, players appearing to exploit the game, but I don't see an alternative. If we lose Eastmond, we lose one of the best prospects RL has produced in quite a while. This won't be like Farrell or Robinson, who went when they were veterans. It won't be like Pryce or Walker, who still had it all to prove and surpised no-one that they didn't go on to make it. A fair comparison might be Harris, who was a very exciting league youngster when he left, and when he returned looked like an old man. That's what you really call exploiting the game - getting one big payday to defect, then getting another when you defect back (even though you're basically finished).

I think his inclusion in the squad ahead of the likes of Burrow, Pryce and Brough was a little sweetner to try and keep him in the game but that alone won't be enough when he could go to Union and be playing infront 80,000 fans on a regular basis even in friendlies against Argentina

Money talks at the end of the day and between Saints or another league club willing to make a bid and the RFL we need to do all we can to keep the lad in the game.

How depressing will it be if he leaves?