Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:
It’s not the awarding of another contract but the fact it was for two years. I like many others believe at his age and injury record one would have been more prudent giving two years to Batchelor who we were willing to let go.
Perhaps there was a balancing act involved?
This is the sort of thing that goes on that none of us are really privy to?
Perhaps Ashurst wasn't willing to do just one year but wanted two, reasonable enough. So perhaps we did a split the difference and offered him two years at a lower rate. It will have suited him for security as he heads towards retirement and allowed us to spread the cost of a player over two years and thus reduce the wage bill and allow us to use him more sparingly should injuries hit.
I don't know any of this in his case but I do it happens.