Seems we pay more to Villa for Westwood who in turn pay Crewe a percentage

See link
http://www.uptheclarets.com/crewe-to-be ... ful-season" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth every penny, I thought he was probably our best player over the long 10 or so games.

Let's hope they put it in a fund to cover their legal costs.

He was a steady player when brought in, a bargain in the grand scheme of things.

700k a season for Crews academy.
Has certainly delivered the goods over the years.

That club would be gone without it's academy.

Trickle-down economics!

Should we not have let him sit out that Bournemouth game then if him playing cost us another £1million?! I assume if he missed that, he doesn't hit the 50% target in the clause and we don't need to make the payment to Villa?

mikeconroy10 wrote:Should we not have let him sit out that Bournemouth game then if him playing cost us another £1million?! I assume if he missed that, he doesn't hit the 50% target in the clause and we don't need to make the payment to Villa?

It's an interesting thought, it was the very last game that took him to 19.

Waste of a million playing him in last game. Should have played Mcneill and given the lad some experience.

i'd have thought that, given we favour structuring deals on possible future payments, it wouldn't be in our interests to be seen to be trying to avoid paying them.

FCBurnley wrote:Waste of a million playing him in last game. Should have played Mcneill and given the lad some experience.

Well you wouldn't play McNeil in Westwood's position so that's a non-starter. Hardly a major problem even if we have lost a million.

mikeconroy10 wrote:Should we not have let him sit out that Bournemouth game then if him playing cost us another £1million?! I assume if he missed that, he doesn't hit the 50% target in the clause and we don't need to make the payment to Villa?

We were thread bare to be fair, and I think Mr Dyche wanted to go out on a high.
Hindsight however makes it look a very valid point.

1m is still very substantial to us.

quoonbeatz wrote:i'd have thought that, given we favour structuring deals on possible future payments, it wouldn't be in our interests to be seen to be trying to avoid paying them.

I'd agree with that. Only aware of us once previously having left a player out to avoid any further payments and that was Easton.

ClaretTony wrote:I'd agree with that. Only aware of us once previously having left a player out to avoid any further payments and that was Easton.

Are you sure that that wasn’t in order to avoid further embarrassment to the lad?

quoonbeatz wrote:i'd have thought that, given we favour structuring deals on possible future payments, it wouldn't be in our interests to be seen to be trying to avoid paying them.

Would also come across as pretty shitty if we saved ourselves £1m (what % of our turnover is that?) to deprive a smaller club like Crewe some reward for one of our better performers.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but wouldn't have sat right with me, given where we've been.

Lord Beamish wrote:Are you sure that that wasn’t in order to avoid further embarrassment to the lad?

I do know it wasn't the case but one more appearance meant a further payment and the decision had already been taken to release him at the end of the season so it was probably sensible. His last appearance did come at Watford when he was almost their best player.

Also be fairly poor practice to say to Westwood, we accept you have been patient, never been a problem in training while being a substitute but now you have been given your chance and been as good as anyone in the games played we need to drop you for this last game to save £1m.

Luckily the club and manager have a bit more class.

It's what several B*****ds Managers were having to do under orders relayed via India .... so I'm glad the Club did not tie our Managers hands, based on that consideration.....

ClaretTony wrote:Hardly a major problem even if we have lost a million.

That Million could have improved facilities for fans, improved the fanzone, given a lick of paint to the Bob Lord stand or replaced the door with the sign on

. wonders if he’s the only one thinking perhaps it was just an oversight by the club rather than them doing it because they have class?

Barry_Chuckle wrote:That Million could have improved facilities for fans, improved the fanzone, given a lick of paint to the Bob Lord stand or replaced the door with the sign on

Really ?
Presumably this fee would have kicked in the next time he plays so why delay it for the sake of a few months ?
One quick look at the accounts and our bank balance shows we are hardly having cash flow problems are we ?!!

If we choose not to spend money on the ground improvements you are suggesting that is a completely different issue and is nothing to do with a lack of funds which is clearly not an issue for the club at the moment.

Some people find the smallest opportunity to have a dig at the club without knowing the facts but yet automatically assuming its been an oversight. I don`t know the facts either but it all seems pretty logical and sensible to assume we paid this because we have no intention of selling the player and Dyche was always going to play him again.

Ashley Westwood exceeded all my expectations.I thought he was a total waste of money but I was happy to be proved wrong

If we did play him knowing we could have saved a million I applaud the Club it would have been so easy to say he isn’t playing and saved the Money, but I believe we should ALWAYS play or BEST available team. I think that this is an add on based on total appearances rather than appearances this season and therefore we would have to pay it when he played his next game anyway. It would be strange if he signed last season adding a clause for games this Season but hey I could be wrong as I have no idea how these things work outside of Football Manager games.

Dyche runs team affairs and I would think he picked him on merit and need. The board may have been cringing mind, but the model works for us where Dyche runs things where the team is concerned.

Westwood was really good when he came in. I think he’s a good player.

Whilst I am sure the people who currently run the Crewe Academy are all squeaky clean, giving them an extra £200K doesn't sit well with me given the past activities of some of the 'coaches' who plied their nasty trade there.

I'm not sure Crewe have really taken responsibility for what went on under their name.

KeighleyClaret wrote:Whilst I am sure the people who currently run the Crewe Academy are all squeaky clean, giving them an extra £200K doesn't sit well with me given the past activities of some of the 'coaches' who plied their nasty trade there.

I'm not sure Crewe have really taken responsibility for what went on under their name.

We are not giving Crewe a penny - Aston Villa are. But that is because of a contractual obligation on Villa's part, nothing to do with how Crewe have or have not run their academy, a matter which surely shouldn't be up for discussion on this thread.

Claretforever wrote:Westwood was really good when he came in. I think he’s a good player.

I'd agree with that and, until those last two games we had a really good points return with him in the starting eleven.