craig
-
Posts
33,477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
118
Everything posted by craig
-
Aside from anything else.... if we get a bid of 4.5 mill for BF that again is decent business, especially as he is approaching 31.
-
Cant agree one bit with the suggestion that Hemdani is either a "big lad" or "good in the air" - I have rarely seen him even CHALLENGE for a header, let alone win any. And a "big lad" for me suggests someone physical, Hemdani certainly is NOT a physical player. If you mean tall, he doesnt seem that tall but I havent looked at his stats to know for sure. He didn't do much wrong but I am sorry, the idea of a snail-like Weir beside an almost similar paced Hemdani sends shivers down my spine just thinking about it.
-
Lovenkrands has now been dropped to Schalke reserves for the rest of the season......
-
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
I don't know if he has 50% written into his contract cal - I think that is the point I am making which is none of us truly know what is happening here - which is why there is so much debate surrounding Gow and his situation - we are all in the dark ! I am not trying to paint Gow in a positive light, just suggesting that if a contract stipulates something then anyone under their contract has a right to seek it to be implemented. That goes, again, in both directions. It almost reminds me of the Michael Ball situation where Gers refused to play him because it would trigger a clause in the contract with Everton meaning we would have to pay an additional fee. Contractually Rangers were in the right but we looked pretty bad by doing so. Who is right and who is wrong in this instance ? Who knows !! His transfer to Wolves is only win-win if the player ends up financially as secure as he is with Rangers (financially..... if he loses money but gives his career a kick-start once more then one mitigates the other and ultimately is win-win - depending, of course, on just how much less he would be getting paid). It is a win for Rangers as they 1. get a transfer fee which would mitigate the wages they have paid the player and 2. get a salary off the books. I would have liked Alan Gow to have been given a chance at LM - he had a good season the year before with Falkirk, looked decent in his fleeting appearances with us and, most importantly, no-one has nailed down that position for us this year. However, he isn't being quoted so it makes sense for all concerned (fans included) to move on ! -
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
Am pretty sure that JMS did indeed confirm that he knows Gow or is "close" at least. -
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
I am not convinced that being difficult to negotiate and then sitting out your contract would put off any potential suitors. Football is a business these days and most people have short memories. It is in their interests to mutually terminate, of that there is no doubt. However, if his contract says he gets, say, 50% of any subsequent transfer fee, then it makes not one bit of difference whether he gets a signing-on fee from another club - the reality is that his contract stipulates he gets the fee (this is supposition - but then we all are supposing things here as we dont know the contract) then he gets the fee. If anyone would be to blame for not considering he could be financially better off by getting said fee PLUS a signing-on fee elsewhere then it should be those within the club who offered him that clause in the contract. Rangers are getting a fee for him - he cost them nothing - so the club are making money out of him (on transfer fees) and the only cost to them will be wages - and I can't imagine he was earning a significant wage anyway. -
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
I agree with this - but only if it isnt in any signed contract. If there is something in a signed contract stating certain financial rewards given certain circumstances then the contract should be honoured by both parties (to the extent that the club want him or he wants to be here - either way). If not in a contract then the club are not obligated - that is the thing, none of us really know what is going on so we are flying in the dark,. -
When you see stuff in the middle like that it is because there is a picture with a caption - when someone copies and pastes it also pulls int he picture caption. Delete the stuff in bold and you have what Boyd said.
-
Exactly what I was getting at Pete.
-
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
You cant say with assurance it is about "loss" calscot. Loss is only relevant where the contract has no stipulation, like a business interruption insurance claim - if you have to close, say, a pipeline because of an explosion, the you "lose profit" - however, if the closure drives prices up then you dont "lose" due to mitigation of less oil pumped vs higher price. If Gow has a contract which entitles him to, say, 300k then loss only comes into play if that contract stipulates that should player or club wish to part ways then there is no compensation due IF another club ensures no money lost. If the contract merely says that Rangers will pay Gow a signing on fee of 300k after a year then the club have no rights but to pay it - they are obligated under the contract. At the end of the day you would need to see the contract to determine if Gow has a case or not. But basically neither you nor I are right OR wrong because the contract will stipulate what should or should not be paid and neither of us are privy to that contract. This has been discussed ad nauseum - but I fail to see why Gow should not fight for every penny he thinks he is entitled to. Why shouldn't he ? The club offered him his contract, he signed it and is therefore entitled to it. It really IS that simple. You can say it is immoral all you like but a contract s legally binding and anyone signing it is justly entitled to fight for payment under the contract terms. Why is it deplorable ? Because Rangers suffer financially from it ? If that is the case then you should also probably find it deplorable the extent of the bonuses our CEO gets for having to pay off players to get them off the books - fiscally irresponsible (for certain players and contracts) yet gets a nice chunk of change bonus himself (sure he reduced the wage bill - getting rid of the high earners, and better players, and bringing in players who are now deadwood and taking money for nothing again.....). Ahhh, but not paying tips is perfectly acceptable - it is a GRATUITY, bonus - not something you are obligated to under contract - so not really relevant to the issue at hand. You signed a contract with Vodafone and what happened ? You were obligated to it, right ? The product hardly worked, was that because it was faulty or because you just didnt want to use it ? You signed a 2 yr deal (both sides sign) and if the product didnt work then fine, you have just complaint. However if the product simply wasnt being used then that is a completely different circumstance. And from your synopsis I presume the product was faulty - however, in Gows case the product isnt faulty, just not utilised. Different circumstance IMO. Rangers COULD let him rot but seems like they dont want to. So whilst what you say is fine the reality is that they dont want to do it. Maybe it is me but I come from a different school of thought. If two sides sign a contract - both Rangers AND Gow signed that contract - then there is a contractual obligation to fulfill the contract. Morals dont really come into it for me. What has Gow done wrong which makes him immoral to want to receive the contractual obligation ? Not play for Rangers ? Whose fault is that ? WS ? Gow ? Bain ? We dont know for sure so I will remain on the fence in that regard. And just how would Gow be "shafting" Rangers in the courts ? Again, if Rangers signed a contract with the lad and he successfully sues that is most certainly NOT shafting anyone - it is holding them (Rangers) to a contract which they WILLINGLY agreed to and signed. -
Kinnear says he is interested, Smith says there is no contact. Maybe there hasnt been contact, just that Kinnear is telling the media he wants BF without actually telling Rangers.
-
6 mill for Bougherra would be good financial business - sadly we need the money !
-
Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
If it is contractual and Gow has a signed contract which is watertight then he should sue the club for money he is rightly owed. IF it is that straight forward. -
SO does Bain get a bonus dependent on selling price ? And confidentiality clauses are not uncommon.
-
Hemdani was the best of a very bad bunch though in that season. I dont think we have enough creativity in our midfield, that is where our problem is - and Hemdani doesnt provide that. We need some creativity and then play that person beside either Mendes or Ferguson. Hemdani is decent but he would get overrun by players with pace and directness
-
Well one thing is for sure - if we DONT win then the league most definitely will be over. We cant keep looking these gift horses in the mouth and then passing the chance up.
-
Rangers put �£7.5million price tag on keeper McGregor
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
I would give Alexander his chance. He did nothing to deserve being dropped in the first place. If someone DID offer us 7.5 million I would take it. AM has been culpable for a few dropped points this season too - it would definitely seem that his off-field antics are affecting his on-field performances. -
Are you sure he had dropped out of the team ? He scored their goal on December 26th and, at least, started the match - not sure if he finished it but that doesn't suggest to me that he had dropped out of the team (they have only had one game since December 26). That said, if they wanted him then a fee had already been agreed so that would suggest that they either don't want him or they don't think he is worth the agreed price. Interesting though that he is now wanted by Wolves who are sitting atop the table.
-
Newcastle prepare �£4.5m offer for Rangers defender Bougherra
craig replied to johnnyk's topic in Rangers Chat
Of the two I would rather we sold Barry. I think BF is an excellent player but at times he holds the team's performance back. I don't doubt he and Mendes can play together but they are too similar for me. I think that Thomson and Mendes was a more productive partnership. I would give Davis and Mendes a shot too until Thomson is fit again. I really do wonder what happened with Gow - here we are being touted for Dean Shiels yet we have Gow on the books who, the season before he joined us, had the most assists in the SPL. I would rather have Gow than Shiels, and I bet their wages wouldnt be too far off parity. As for Bougherra, if he doesn't want to play for us then get shot. That said, it would be interesting to know WHY he doesn't want to play for us. I know what you are saying Alex about Newcastle et al and why not sign them from Charlton - but at the same time we managed to get him here for just a couple of months and still turn a 100% profit. I would rather we did that than not - financially good but also, sadly, shows the type of club we have become - a selling one. The major downfall is that we no longer have stability and worse for us is that it has recently been all the CB's we uncover that we are losing, leaving us having to rely on Davie Weir. -
Happy New Year everyone. Hopefully a good one for all !
-
I am a new admin so not 100% sure but I thought the exact same thing Pete. I thought a thread deletion had to be done by mods and/or admin. I certainly didnt delete it either and aside from Pete (who also didnt) I havent seen any of the others on for a few days. Interesting - maybe a poster can delete a full thread but it would be news to me.... Yieldshields, could you confirm whether or not you deleted that yourself. I dont know of any of the admins or mods who would administer a complete thread deletion as we all know that there are often very valid posts within threads and that one was no different. Apologies for the confusion guys but a lot of the mods/admin arent around right now.
-
Yieldshields was not persuaded to delete that thread, at least not to the best of my knowledge. I am more than happy for Yieldshields to state why he deleted that thread and whether he was pressured by admin or the mods. Castigating the management team for poor selection, poor tactics, poor signing policy is absolutely fine by me. Slating the players for poor performance, poor attitude etc is fine by me. However, calling a player a "twat" or an "idiot" is neither necessary nor appropriate in my opinion. It is also part of the forum rules to not indulge in personal attacks and each member accepts that rule upon signing up to the forum. That thread remained for quite some time and without it being moderated at all - I am all ears if anyone would like to explain to me how an interview with Charlie Adam should be posted in a thread and titled "the idiot speaks again" - there were far better ways to post that. Now, you slating WS in your final paragraph is perfectly acceptable in my view - a "has-been, waste of space" isn't really a personal attack in my view. So I don't see why your post would be deleted
-
Cheers for clearing up the timing of Bougherra's signing. Not convinced though that he wasnt always being lined up as a "replacement" - the fact Cuellar was missing despite McCoist saying he was fit will have me sceptical for a long time. Whittaker will never convince me that he is a decent enough full-back. He doesn't convince me one bit and, in fact, I would rather plat Broadfoot there. Smith has been injured and whilst Papac is playing out of position he has done a decent job so it is difficult to bring Smith back in. But I too would rather see Smith start to get games for match fitness - if he isnt injured get him back in ! Playing players out of position makes no sense to me unless you have injuries and suspensions to contend with. Spending 3 million on Davis to then play him at RM was stupidity in my opinion. Regardless of the fact that he is doign a decent job there it isnt his natural position and given we had BF, KT and PM there was little chance of him getting a game at CM. Worse still, then spending 2.5 million on Edu makes even LESS sense (Yes Gribz, it was 2.5 million for him !!). Even after Cuellar went Smith didnt buy another CB so knew full well he would be going with Weir for at least 6 months. And the other CB's he had he was using at full-back so what happens if they become required at CB ? You are left short at full back as all the money spent in close season was on either central midfielders or strikers. Versatility is fine but, for the most part, should mean that they are squad players (unless they quite obviously are better than what we have - but seriously, which of our "versatile" players do we think should be first choices ??). When do you dont have a ton of money to spend it is beneficial to have versatile players as they can cover a few different positions and you only pay one wage. But WS spent a ton of money on players and many of them dont even get a game. Of the players I mentioned in my first post I think there were 8 players and 5 of them getting a game, one of those is playing out of position and looking like a pub team player (Lafferty)whilst another one is playing out of position too (Davis). So we spent about 18 million on those 8 players and only 3 of them playing in their natural position. Personally I would have preferred we spent 3 million each on 6 players who would have played their natural position and probably enhanced the team.
-
Not sure I agree Pete. Nacho wont be on that great a wage although I agree Shiels will cost less. I dont think Nacho is necessarily being offered up - his contract is up at the end of the season so can sign a pre-contract in Jan. What saddens me is that we have a bunch of wasters in our team - some guys who have real talent but dont channel it properly. I am utterly convinced that if they had the hunger, drive and enthusiasm of Novo then we would be top of the league. The wee man wears his heart on his sleeve and would bleed for this club - yet he is one of those that looks like he could be headed out the door. Players of his ilk used to be players we would do our damnedest to keep hold of but now, sadly, we are losing them. Sure, he isnt the most talented player in the world but he leaves nothing on the pitch - and we could do with a bunch more players like him !
-
I dont think it is difficult at all to moderate Shroomz - people are entitled to the opinion on the quality of play from ANY player and can vent and say the player isnt good enough, is shit or whatever - where moderation WILL occur is when it pecomes a personal attack. I never paid too much attention to the title thread but I have to agree with S_A - to call someone an idiot without knowing them at all is a personal attack and not one that is warranted. Would it have hurt to say "one of our worst players speaks again" rather than callng said person an idiot ?