calscot

I can see Fleck being SLOWLY introduced into the team next season.

Laughed at that, it really does - and isn't it a bit of a coincidence that Rangers can be so easily converted to Orangers?

I think we should knock the Davis deal on the head and find an alternative attacking midfielder for the 3M. However Davis does match the profile of players we are looking for - promising young, British players whose values could rise.

There's a long way to go so it's a bit of wait and see. McCoist mentioned about looking for a midfielder in his interview but maybe decisions can't be properly made until it is known that we have a deal or not with Davis. The 3M on the table would certainly make a difference about what other midfielders we could look at. There always seems to be a lot more movement at the end of the transfer window when clubs start to panic or time just runs out for alternative buyers or targets.

I was hoping he would leave as he just doesn't seem to have the right attitude. I agree with McCoist's thinking surely it's a compliment to be picked against Barcelona and not against St Mirren? What happened to that old saying that a foreign player won't fancy cold, wet Wednesday night at Love Street or whatever? I think at a club as big as Rangers and even some not so big, you have to realise you may not play all the matches due to it being a squad game these days. If you want to play all the time you have to show you are undoubtedly the best in your position and that you are highly motivated to play and have the right attitude. I don't think Hemdani had any of those attributes. He's a good player but never showed last season that he should be in the team every week. Not even a little bit. He was valuable when we needed extra support in midfield in Euro games when we played 3 central midfielders but we didn't need that in the SPL and Thomson showed he was a better choice in domestic games. But what makes me wish he would leave is the impression he's given about his attitude which also seemed to affect his play at the end of the season. He's clearly not happy and wants to leave and I'm wary that the only reason for him to stay is money. Money is not a good motivator and even worse when it's about not getting as much elsewhere rather than a pay rise. I would prefer to free his wage for a new midfielder who has more attacking flair than we have at present and who also actually wants to play for us.

I agree that he has to be challenged but I see no need to take an antagonistic position all the time. I think there is a lot to be said for being a lot more collaborative as well as properly negotiating divided issues. If we're going to criticise him, it has to be fair criticism also with offered solutions and alternatives rather than just saying he's wrong. A lot of the very recent criticism on here has not been totally fair in my opinion and SDM certainly seems to be able to do no right in some fans' eyes. I'd like SDM to be judged by his actual actions and not just prejudged by entrenched negative opinion. It is possible to be a skeptic without being a cynic.

Is it really necessary to spend all our time challenging Murray - and for what exactly? I was one of his biggest critics when he was managing the club badly and took us into a huge burden of debt, but that era seems to be over and he's not exactly been running the club into the ground lately. Are we talking here about constructive criticism when he does something wrong or just continually slagging him off for the sake of it? When you criticise someone all the time whatever they do, they stop listening to you altogether like a weary husband with a nagging wife.

So MacGregor (young for a keeper), Hutton, Broadfoot, Whittaker, Burke, Thomson, Davis, Adam, Niasmith and Boyd never got a chance last season? Cuellar, and Beasley are old age pensioners and Fleck and Furnman never got a game? You don't think Webster, Smith or Lafferty will get a chance next season? We may have played Weir but how was that a mistake? I'm confused about your very negative attitude that just doesn't seem congruent with who played for the team last season.

Pete for every player you mention there is another that we paid a lot for and got little in return and another we've not paid for who did nothing (Brown may even be a case in point). No-one can predict the future. In good management you put your estimated value on something and stick with it otherwise your spending gets out of control and your decision making becomes very clouded. It's the same when going to an auction, you have to have a maximum number in mind for a lot or you can get sucked in and pay way over the odds and maybe get yourself into financial difficulty. When looking at two of your examples, there would have been an outcry if we'd paid 1M for McDonald and there was even derision about even bidding for an SPL player who had risen very slowly and without fanfare to his peak at Motherwell. We signed Boyd and Naismith instead who both seemed (and still do) to have more potential than the helicopter Sunday man. As for Brown, 4M was too big a chunk out of our budget and I think right now we should be pleased at missing out on him. He may turn out to be a legend for Celtic but right now it looks like far too big a gamble. It seems clear that our ceiling for buying up and coming talent is about 3M, any more is too big a gamble and a reduction of any profit. I think you're being a bit unfair here. Rangers may not always sign who the fans want but lately we've been doing not bad and we certainly better results than at any time this decade - and some of the fans' alternative choices have been cringeworthy.

I can't see how beating a man and not scoring is better than not beating a man but scoring anyway. The only time I can really remember a player beating a man to score was Whittaker but I wouldn't put him up front instead of Boyd...

Yep it's a strange bid right enough. If the price was 3M he'd be at Ibrox and ironically you'd think that if we offered the same as Blackburn then you'd expect both Fulham and Davis preferring Rangers. I don't think he's worth 4M and would not be happy at Rangers paying that. I suspect that there are better players around for that sort of money and Davis was not very effective at all at the end of the season. I wouldn't be too disappointed if Davis didn't come especially as it would free up 3M for a more creative midfielder which most of us thing we're crying out for.

Completely lost you there, Gribz...

Unless you have different knowledge to the rest of the world and media or that the media are continuously lying, it is common knowledge that there is a credit crunch. Maybe you don't watch the news much or are one of these people who believe we are being lied to all the time. Your company may not have a problem but to generally apply that to the rest of the UK is akin to a slim American discrediting the fact that the US is one of the most obese countries in the world purely because they themselves are not fat. Maybe I'm naive for believing all the news programs on telly, internet and newspapers about the Credit Crunch - or maybe you need to start catching up on the news because from where I'm sitting, you sound incredibly uninformed. So let's get this straight and in a nutshell. As far as I'm aware from various, generally creditable news services, it is currently a lot harder for people to borrow money for mortgages, and not only that with products having higher interest rates, and a gloomy financial climate less people are motivated to buy a new house. This means that building companies have dramatically reduced the amount of house building they are doing due to the difficulty of finding buyers. Not only that, they are mothballing projects that have already started and well underway. Now if you think this is untrue, then please enlighten us with your version of the "truth" and explain why the media are lying to us... Now it doesn't take a leap of logic to realise that these companies will as a result be facing cash-flow and income problems as well as reduced profits and will be looking for alternative projects with guaranteed payments. As far as I know Murray's companies are well involved in building and therefore he may decide to enhance Ibrox in some way to stimulate cash income for his companies while becoming more popular with Rangers fans and more impressive to the public in general. Perhaps (and I don't know one way or the other), like your company, Rangers, with the backing of MIM will have little trouble raising capital from the banks compared with your average new home buyer, which could lead to the project going ahead. Now with regard to the return in investment, I put it to you that this is EXACTLY what the feasibility studies are about. They will be about the complexities and possibilities of what can be done, how much each scenario will cost and what the the length of time as well as the likelyhood that the investment will be returned, and then of course the annual increased income from the stadium. That is why the cost of a 70,000 stadium must be balanced with how often the seats will be filled. It may be more cost effective to have a 60000 stadium that is 95% full most of the time. I do not see how this needs a transfer of ownership in the slightest as the scenarios will be unaffected except for the ability of the owners to raise finance - something that I doubt will be difficult for SDM unless there is some information that I'm not privy to. The only other way ownership affects things is the motivation of the owner to go ahead with the project. With the situation I have described and by the fact the feasibility study is in progress, I think it's fair to say that Murray's motivation cannot be completely ruled out. As to bringing the club to the brink of failure, that is a mistruth. At no time was Rangers in any danger of going into receivership. The debt was very high but and although it was close to the maximum of what the club could support, it was within those limits. Leeds went over the edge yet the club is still in business. Murray always knew he could pay of some of the debt with the money he's made from Rangers and eventually did so - probably due to his own culpability and with his plaything unable to function so well it wasn't so enjoyable. He also had not raised cash previously from a share issue like Celtic have twice, but when he did so he must have been very disappointed by the fans investment even taking the mitigating circumstances into account. Murray does have a habit of selling dreams but as we are so used to it now, not many fall for them, including me. However, there are times when he delivers to a certain extent and even at the end of the season we were two games away from basking in his "moonbeams". I've been one of Murray's biggest critics during our darkest time but I think it is time to stop demonising him for past mistakes and judge him on his current form as well as not negatively spinning everything he has done like some propaganda agent. At the moment, the only thing I can see for which to criticise him for is that he is late with his announcement for the revamp of Ibrox and has not informed us why. Fair enough have a go about that, but don't try additionally to malign him with mistruths about the past. And to try and boost your argument by inferring that the media are know nothing about the current financial climate is totally baffling and reduces your credibility. "What Credit Crunch?", indeed...

I explained earlier and the facts speak for themselves. You may not like SDM or trust him one iota. And without prejudice for or against the man, the FACT is that when it comes to building work at Ibrox and of course the training centre, it really cannot be reasonably disputed that Mr Murray has delivered on these projects. When he promises to build then it gets done. At the moment and times in the past he has promised nothing.All he is doing is commissioning feasibility studies which I believe have been actioned. You can dislike anything SDM does, but you can't argue with the facts. I believe in praise where it is due but even if you don't want to praise someone you can at least acknowledge what they have done. SDM may have taken Rangers to a dangerous financial position, but that does not change the fact that he improved Ibrox and was instrumental to it becoming a 5 star stadium of above average quality. He was also instumental in the construction of Murray Park.

I see what you are saying but to me while Rangers are still prepared to keep Gow, there is no burden. They made an offer it was turned down end of story. Gow can stay if he likes but as he's unlikely to get in the first team much, it seems to me that it's for money reasons only. That maybe doesn't make him an arse but nor does it make him a well rounded and likable person worthy of any sympathy. I'm not a money oriented person (I'm not averse to it but I believe there are many other values to pursue) and so do not sympathise with those who are - especially when to me they are more than adequately recompensed. Lot's of fans DO sympathise with him, I find it strange and I'm trying point out why I don't think he deserves it. Maybe "greedy" was harsh but it's how it looks from my point of view.

I just think it's hard to say we have no ambition for not spending 3.2M on one player, when we've spent that amount on another. To me our ambition will be reflected by how much we spend altogether (although spending more than you can afford is hardly ambitious - just how ambitious were Gretna?), but more importantly how high the quality is that we bring in. It seems obvious that in terms of spending we're not exactly being under-ambitious so my point is that I have no knowledge to believe Marvin is of higher quality than Lafferty (albeit in a different position- I'm comparing because the fees are similar), and I don't think a youtube video will convince me. The Dutchman may be better than the Irishman but I'd prefer to wait and see before making a judgement. I agree that Holland is probably better value than England but there are other factors to take into account - Premiership wages are out of our league; Lafferty is very young with rumours of great potential; he counts as one of our under 21 players in the squad; he fits into our model of a team with a base of Scots and NI players; and our manager seems to like him. If we'd spent nothing then your post would make more sense to me but as far as I know we've so far spend more than 'boro so to me now is not the time to conclude our ambition is less just because they sign someone you like for a good price.

I don't think it's normal that players get a cut of the transfer fee as they usually get a signing on fee from their new employers. Rangers did give one to Hutton probably as the deal was so large and probably very beneficial to the cash flow of the club. However they may see this as a bad precedent and so could be nipping it in the bud. If every player gets a cut of the transfer fee, we'll have a lot less to spend. Rangers obviously think they are better off in the long term by keeping Gow rather than paying him off - something that SDM has intimated that he's sick of doing. It's a complex subject but it does seem to me that players are continually looking to squeeze more and more money out of the clubs. I'm therefore with Rangers on this.

I think you are in the minority. Most people would take less and generally do. The company may as well continue to employ you and get something back for their money as it won't cost them anymore. That's what's happening with Gow as the situation stands. Most redundancy packages depend on how long you have been at the company and legal requirements are not that high. The only burden on them is to try and negotiate with Gow and come to an agreement. Their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA in negotiation parlance) is to keep him on as a squad player and continue to pay his wages. Gow's BATNA is obviously to stay at Rangers and try and work his way into the team. I don't know how you can say that. They obviously signed him because they thought he could do a good job from what they had seen of him. Now he's been employed for a year they no longer rate him in that category. You seem to expect Rangers to be clairvoyant. They signed him, they changed their mind, now they are trying to find an acceptable solution that benefits both parties. It is an interpretation and opinion of how equitable you think both sides are being during an impasse. I think Gow's have been too high - obviously so do Rangers. You obviously disagree. Rangers are in no way obligated in the way you suggest, which is why Gow has not been paid off with the amount he demanded and why he is still employed by Rangers with his wage being paid as usual. The rules you imply simply do not exist because Gow has not been sacked and his contract has not been terminated. I'm really disappointed in your wording here as to me you are calling most people an idiot. Most people will negotiate a settlement that is less than their contract otherwise the company is likely to keep them on. It's obvious to me they would usually compromise and a settlement eventually reached. He is not "owed" one penny. He will only be owed money for services he provides - ie he is due his salary at the end of every month (or whenever) as stated in his contract if he abides by his part of the deal. Gow may not really wish to leave, but the only way Rangers can move him on is by "mutual" consent. I'm using this LITERALLY and without sleight of hand. If Rangers want him to go without mutual consent THEN you will become correct and he will be due the remainder of his contract. All agreements in negotiations are by definition, "mutual". If my company offered me a couple of hundred grand to leave I think we'd have a mutual agreement, that doesn't mean I'm dying to leave. Rangers have therefore tried to negotiate with him to make him an offer that will make him prefer to leave but have failed to do so. Gow would obviously want to leave if he is paid a big enough golden handshake. I don't know where you are getting this balance of responsibility, it doesn't exist in this case. The only responsibility each side have is to fulfill their side of the contract. It seems obvious to me that Rangers would prefer to no longer employ him but are also not willing to pay the rest of his contract up front. Rangers would instead prefer to spend the exact same amount of money and have the player in the squad. If I contracted a lease car for two years and asked to be released from the contract after a year and they wanted the second years money up front. I would just keep the car for another year. Even if I had bought a replacement. I don't think I'm the one distorting what is going on... It is a negotiation between two parties to try and come to a mutual conclusion. Maybe you just can't see it. I think it's strange to glibly say to pay out money willy nilly while complaining that there is not have enough to spend - although I'm not saying you said that. In my experience, football fans do that a lot - as do tax payers. Are you twisting my words? You don't think it's greedy, I do; when I think someone is greedy, my respect for them diminishes. If that is precarious then so be it. I never said he should agree like a nodding dog. I said I thought he was demanding too much. The interpretation of too much is up to each individual. Rangers obviously agree somewhat with my evaluation. They obviously don't agree with yours. Not even close - in fact you are so far away that to me you look very naive to think Rangers would pay it instead of doing the obvious of just keeping the guy on the books - in fact it would be cheaper due to interest and cash-flow. They have no obligation whatsoever, to allow Gow to collect two wages. Even Gow is not silly enough to demand what you suggest and is asking for a lesser amount. But then you have implied he must be an idiot for his stance. Like I keep trying to explain - there are two parties here with a contract between them. One wants to end the contract early by offering the player another employer, the second in addition wants a large pay off to terminate the contract as he has been offered a lower wage. The first party don't agree with the valuation of the payoff and offer less. The second party does not agree with that valuation and they obviously both refuse to find a compromise. In conclusion they obviously didn't reach an agreement and therefore the contract is still in effect. I can't see how that is a bifurcation - it's a simple synopsis of the situation. The opposite would be the case if Gow wanted to terminate the contract - then Rangers would want to be paid off with �£250k. At this stage the evaluation of what is a fair payoff is purely a matter of opinion. As long as the contract is not broken, the law nor any rules come into it. Gow could ask for a billion pounds if he likes or Rangers could offer him nothing. They cannot be punished for this or be forced to agree. Gow was asking too high for Rangers liking, and Rangers were offering too low for Gow's liking. Now as a football fan, although I can see Gow's point; however, I am more worried about Rangers finances than his and I am entitled to judge what I think is a fair amount. I like to think it's more than about money but with the huge wages even bit part players get, I'm a bit sick of the money first attitude of so many of them. To me, there is far too much greed in the game and when I consider who stumps up the money, I personally find it distasteful. In the end I think Rangers, due to who they are, pay many players more than they are worth, which is why when they don't make the grade they are difficult to move on except at considerable expense. To me a solution would be performance related pay but the difficulty is getting the players to agree to the contract in a climate where they expect a lot of money for just turning up. I don't think I have said one word that is stupid or unreasonable, everything has been based on the facts centered round a negotiation. The ONLY thing I see that can be argued about is my opinion of the demands of each side and whatever conclusion I come to about the character of either party. You cannot say my opinion is wrong but you can try and explain to me how I may come to a different conclusion. However, I don't see how you can do that without shifting to the negotiation paradigm as my opinions have nothing to do with a virtual sacking which has not happened. Both sides will probably put all opinions like mine aside and keep it strictly business - that what business does. But in the end the negotiations failed so it's back to their BATNAs and business as usual.

Sorry, that's obviously different. How about you asking for your NEXT YEAR'S wages while being set up with another job? It's not about legal entitlement as there is no legal entitlement in this case. He has not been sacked and will be continued to be paid till the end of his contract unless it is mutually terminated. Maybe that's why you missed the point... This is more a debate about feelings about the player. I don't like what he's doing while others don't like what Rangers are doing. As I've explained, Gow isn't owed a single penny (unless his wage has not been paid of which there is no evidence). It's a negotiation to mutually end his contract, he can take it or leave it. Rangers thought his demands were over the top (and I agree) and so the deal fell through. Also, I didn't talk about my money personally, it was fans generally. I'm pointing it out as it seems many people forget this aspect when their sympathies side with a player demanding a lot of money to leave to another club. To me it's the same kind of thinking when people complain about high taxes at the same time as complaining why the government doesn't spend more on something. They forget where the money comes from. It's all very well to say pay all the players what they want, but it usually comes with complaints about lack of big money transfers as well as high ticket prices. Again, he's not entitled to a penny, he however, entitled to turn the offer down - which he did. My beef is that in my opinion his demands were overly greedy. That's my opinion. He's perfectly entitled to ask for the remainder of his contract by that doesn't mean I have to respect him for it. I think I'm entitled to form an opinion of him as greedy and express that on this forum. Like I said it's all about your viewpoint. If you choose to see from the player's POV then you might not see Rangers in a good light. It was a general observation.

And we spent 3.25M on Lafferty - so who is showing the greatest ambition?

For 17 grand a week, I'd play midweek reserve games in Siberia in winter...

Buffel's done it for three years, I think it's feasable that he recognises that he could permanently damage the rest of his career with one more season on the bench. He's got offers and it's a bird in the hand and all that. There is a difference between sacrificing one year of a salary compared to two or three and it's obviously got to the stage where he thinks it's more prudent to move at this juncture. If he'd taken the move to Hannover two years ago his career would probably have been in a far better state, while saving us 1.7M. I think the mistake we make or are forced to make is that we pay some players too much - I think we have to to get them to play in our league. We then get stuck with them when no-one wants to pay them the same wage or a big signing on fee.

Reply to Barry ^ Who says it has to be so objective? If someone tries to make more more money out of me than I'd like to pay, just because he's morally entitled to do it, doesn't mean I have to like it - or like him. Please explain how is that ridiculous? Celtic were perfectly entitled to request a postponement for a game and the SPL were under no obligation to extend the league, yet they have been castigated here - which I think is fair. And also please explain why it's ok for a player to fight for more money while it seems a crime if Rangers try to save money? Seems to me that some people are confused about whose side they are on... Both sides are legit but it looks different from each point of view. I'm on the side of Rangers FC and I want the fans money to be spent well and so I'm against players trying to squeeze out every penny they can get. Some people here, seem to me, to be on the opposite side. That is their right, but from my point of view, it all seems very strange.

So is he any good? Nobody's said much and I haven't heard of him. We've just signed 3 players for 6M and are set to spend more, and one of those players will cost more than this guy. So I don't understand the ambition bit - would we have been more ambitious if we signed the Dutchman instead of Lafferty, and if so, can you enlighten us to why that is so? Not looking for an argument, I just don't get your point...

If I got the facts wrong, then I hold my hands up. I just based my opinion on how I interpret the media. Unwanted players like Buffel and Gow lose all my sympathy when they suddenly seem difficult to deal with when clubs come calling to give them first team football. Gow allegedly wanted a 6 figure pay off from Rangers which you may think reasonable until you consider that money effectively comes out the pockets of your average fan, some of whom are on minimum wage or unemployed. While I can understand most people wanting more money or to not take a pay cut, I think football has become horrendously greedy, and if a player holds a club to ransom, then while he's only looking after himself, he's doing it at the expense of the fans and I therefore don't have to like them. There are many fringe players who have left in a far more dignified fashion - and some should now look to Carlos Cuellar to see how a true gentleman acts. From my memory (which may be clouded) Buffel has been unwanted and unrated for three years now, by THREE different managers and has received about 2.5M in wages for little contribution to the team - while having chances to leave and restart his career. I think the management have made big mistakes on this but it doesn't change my impression that Buffel has seemed very difficult to deal with which then culminated in him becoming injured and impossible to sell. I think when a situation like that happens, there is just no way back into the team with the final nail coming from an add-on payment for so many league appearances.