Possibly.

However, given the opportunity to not have to dent the bank balance, by writing off an amount that we're were owed anyway, or having to pay a similar amount for somebody else, I don't blame the board for the decision they made.

And, like I said below, we have no reference point as to whether the amount quoted was a fair reflection on the going rate at the time.

And (he says) having just thought about it...

The gamble on the clause for us was 125k. At least this way, had Ashton NOT played for England, the amount be risked was only 25k. Again, to me that's a fairly prudent decision to have made.

Posted By: Arganth, Oct 6, 12:28:25