Broadfoot to leave?

[craig 5,199]

True. I don't know what his demands were, but it is rumoured he's on �£3k/week and requesting �£10k. Although as I say unsure on the truth of this. Supposedly though, that would put him in line with the likes of Whittaker whom he had been performing better than.

 

 

 

How many people in your mum's area are on �£3k a week (That's just his wage to, sure there's bonuses and other extras) or more?

 

He was on a modest wage by footballers standards. Not in the real world.

 

So if Whittaker is on 10 k a week then Broadfoot would have good reason to want the same, or similar. So maybe, just maybe, there is something in the story. Who knows ?

 

Not many in the area are on 3k a week my man. It is a new development and I THINK that the cheapest house is north of 400k (and the area is high with unemployment). I will never understand why the developers built there (the houses are nice to be fair).

 

Apparently..... Boyd was also in the process of buying TWO houses there and was being offered some kind of discount due to him being somewhat "high-profile"..... then when they came to close the deal they reneged on the discount so Boyd told them to shove it. So they lost out on the sale of two houses.

 

The whole story is somewhat intriguing.... it was an old hospital and the local authorities sold it to a friend of my uncle for not very much (less than 200k I think). 5 years later he had managed to get planning permission and sold it for just under 10 million. The local media were up in arms about it.

 

To make it more interesting..... the guy who owned and sold it for millions..... his daughter was seeing Broadfoot (though I believe they have now split up).

[calscot 0]

The story could have been leaked to give Broadfoot a scare if he's asking for a payrise, when Rangers are about to go into a cost cutting exercise. Broadfoot is definitely not worth as much Whittaker and the former Hibs man was a totally different kind of signing.

 

When people in the real world are taking pay cuts in return for job security, I don't think it's good timing for old Kirk.#

 

I don't think he's the kind of player most of us want at the club long term but we're probably happy if he's putting in decent performances and only taking a "modest" wage.

 

I've been top of my pay scale for years so I'm never that sympathetic to people on far higher wages than me who demand 200% pay rises. Especially at a time when you have fans questioning the value for money of a ticket.

 

The question is, does Broadfoot deserve the same wage as we gave Trevor Steven? Even though it's 20 years later, I really don't think so.

[craig 5,199]

The story could have been leaked to give Broadfoot a scare if he's asking for a payrise, when Rangers are about to go into a cost cutting exercise. Broadfoot is definitely not worth as much Whittaker and the former Hibs man was a totally different kind of signing.

 

Possibly this is why the story leaked. It could also have been leaked by KB's advisors to try to scare Rangers. Whittaker has been one of our better performers of late but at the time this news broke (which was months ago and is now re-surfacing) Broadfoot was playing by far the better football.

 

Not sure I agree that Whittaker is definitely worth more than KB. There are far too many variables to say but KB can say he is a full internationalist whilst Whittaker can't. As far as transfer values go I would suspect we would get approximately the same for both players.

 

Either way though, Broadfoot has been one of the better players in our first team this season so probably justifies a wage increase, especially as he seems to be one of the lowest paid of the 1st team squad.

 

When people in the real world are taking pay cuts in return for job security, I don't think it's good timing for old Kirk.#

 

Timing is probably anyone's worst enemy right now, that is for sure. My wife has just lost her job primarily due to timing of work permit renewal - so many people looking for so few jobs !

 

I don't think he's the kind of player most of us want at the club long term but we're probably happy if he's putting in decent performances and only taking a "modest" wage.

 

I would like to see what he offers at CB as a replacement for Weir to be honest. Given our financial position I think that it is more important that we have versatile players and KB offers that. Does a job at RB even though his natural position is CB. He has the right attitude, drive, determination and application - and he stays behind at training to try to learn from Weir too. Would I like a better player ? Maybe but only after seeing what he can, or can't do at CB.

 

What I do believe in though is having more "performance-related" contracts, try to motivate players to do well and, if they don't, they don't get paid as much. So a modest basic and then bonuses based on performances and/or results.

 

I've been top of my pay scale for years so I'm never that sympathetic to people on far higher wages than me who demand 200% pay rises. Especially at a time when you have fans questioning the value for money of a ticket.

 

Different industries pay different salaries though. If being top of your pay scale is good for the going rate of that industry then fine. Seems that KB is not being paid "at the top of his pay scale" though, especially for an internationalist whose peers are doing better than him.

 

Converserly, if one of your peers was at the top of the payscale and was performing no better than you and you had the added accomplishment of being nationallly recognised by representing your organisation, yet you were getting paid less, would you not feel aggrieved ?

 

The question is, does Broadfoot deserve the same wage as we gave Trevor Steven? Even though it's 20 years later, I really don't think so.

 

That is a very harsh comparison. Trevor Steven was one of the best footballers of his era - how much would a "Trevor Steven" be getting paid in this day and age ? Upwards of 75k a week probably.

 

We have plenty of other players at Rangers getting paid the same as Trevor Steven was - and they aren't as effective as Broadfoot has been. So maybe we should let them all go ?

[calscot 0]

Possibly this is why the story leaked. It could also have been leaked by KB's advisors to try to scare Rangers. Whittaker has been one of our better performers of late but at the time this news broke (which was months ago and is now re-surfacing) Broadfoot was playing by far the better football.

 

Not sure I agree that Whittaker is definitely worth more than KB. There are far too many variables to say but KB can say he is a full internationalist whilst Whittaker can't. As far as transfer values go I would suspect we would get approximately the same for both players.

 

I think Whittaker has far more potential and showed touches of class lately that Broadfoot can only dream of. Whittakers problem is consistency rather than potential ability while Broadfoot is the opposite. I would say the former is usually worth a lot more in football, which is why Mendes will be one of our top earners.

 

Either way though, Broadfoot has been one of the better players in our first team this season so probably justifies a wage increase, especially as he seems to be one of the lowest paid of the 1st team squad.

 

Give him 10% then. That's a hefty pay-rise for most people these days and fantastic in today's climate. I would welcome that myself. I get about a 2 or 3% cost of living payrise every year and that's it. No bonuses either.

 

Timing is probably anyone's worst enemy right now, that is for sure. My wife has just lost her job primarily due to timing of work permit renewal - so many people looking for so few jobs !

 

Sorry to hear that.

 

 

I would like to see what he offers at CB as a replacement for Weir to be honest. Given our financial position I think that it is more important that we have versatile players and KB offers that. Does a job at RB even though his natural position is CB. He has the right attitude, drive, determination and application - and he stays behind at training to try to learn from Weir too. Would I like a better player ? Maybe but only after seeing what he can, or can't do at CB.

 

What I do believe in though is having more "performance-related" contracts, try to motivate players to do well and, if they don't, they don't get paid as much. So a modest basic and then bonuses based on performances and/or results.

 

I completely agree but it can only work if everyone is doing it. I think UEFA have to step in here and link basic wages to some guaranteed income formula. Players can then have profit sharing bonuses. That way a club can never go bust. So a team that gets relegated only has to pay what it can afford.

 

Different industries pay different salaries though. If being top of your pay scale is good for the going rate of that industry then fine. Seems that KB is not being paid "at the top of his pay scale" though, especially for an internationalist whose peers are doing better than him.

 

Football salaries are definitely different and you have to negotiate your own wage. It's incredibly complicated but I don't personally think Broadfoot deserves much more. We're trying to cut costs at the moment and every penny of his wage comes out of the fans pockets, many of whom are now unemployed.

 

Converserly, if one of your peers was at the top of the payscale and was performing no better than you and you had the added accomplishment of being nationallly recognised by representing your organisation, yet you were getting paid less, would you not feel aggrieved ?

 

It happens all the time and it's difficult to measure. If I was on a fixed term contract I don't think I'd have a cat's chance in hell of say doubling my salary and if I was that good, I'd be looking to move on at the end of my contract.

 

Football is not quite the same as industry anyway. You could compare it to entertainment where I'm sure many DJ's think they do a better job than Jonathan Ross but are luck to be on 100grand rather than his 6M salary.

 

Ibrox is a bit box office and Broadfoot certainly doesn't help bring in the big crowds.

 

That is a very harsh comparison. Trevor Steven was one of the best footballers of his era - how much would a "Trevor Steven" be getting paid in this day and age ? Upwards of 75k a week probably.

 

We have plenty of other players at Rangers getting paid the same as Trevor Steven was - and they aren't as effective as Broadfoot has been. So maybe we should let them all go ?

 

Maybe I'm being harsh but you've read Cammy's point that we're paying far more for far less these days.

 

In a massive recession, how can fans empathise with Broadfoots demands?

 

I think the problem is not that he isn't paid enough, it's that the rest are paid far too much.

 

Sometimes you have to pay more to get top players but Broadfoot got a big payrise to come to Rangers and I don't really think he could get a lot more elsewhere and I'm sure even if he did, it would be a professional step down.

 

Players usually demand higher wages with the threat that they'll get better offers from other clubs and so the wage in necessary to keep them. In the current financial mess, I can't see that happening with Broadfoot and I also think he's easily replaceable.

 

He's got a very weak case and I can't see Rangers pandering to him and in the end, in my own selfish way, I hope they don't - beyond a modest rise.

Edited April 24, 2009 by calscot

[gisabeer 409]

Whittakers on ten grand a week?

 

Unbelievable in my eyes. no more than a squad player, infact you could take him out of the squad and you wouldnt notice.

 

Like broadfoot i dont see him as a long term solution.

[craig 5,199]

I think Whittaker has far more potential and showed touches of class lately that Broadfoot can only dream of. Whittakers problem is consistency rather than potential ability while Broadfoot is the opposite. I would say the former is usually worth a lot more in football, which is why Mendes will be one of our top earners.

 

Still think you are being harsh on Broadfoot. When this news broke months ago Broadfoot was by far the better performer and, in fact, the majority of our fans, I would contend, preferred Broadfoot at RB to Whittaker. I would agree that Whittaker has more potential but potential isnt always realised. Realistically Broadfoot is saying that he has been one of our better performers (rightly so) and that he wants compensated as such - nothing wrong with that either.

 

Give him 10% then. That's a hefty pay-rise for most people these days and fantastic in today's climate. I would welcome that myself. I get about a 2 or 3% cost of living payrise every year and that's it. No bonuses either.

 

But you cant have your cake and eat it cal. You type this and compare it to your own circumstance and then subsequently say that football is different to industry. If it is different, which it is, then the comparison is weak.

 

I am not saying that he should get 10k a week, but given his performances this season and given him breaking into the international squad I think he has every right to say "Hey, Whittaker is getting 10k a week and isnt an international. I have also played at least as well as him this season. Yet I am only on 3k a week - I want more". I think he has that right. Whether he gets it is a different question.

 

Sorry to hear that.

 

No worries, these things happen to many of us. I think she fancies the idea of being a kept woman.... I, however, am scouring the local job market on her behalf.....

 

I completely agree but it can only work if everyone is doing it. I think UEFA have to step in here and link basic wages to some guaranteed income formula. Players can then have profit sharing bonuses. That way a club can never go bust. So a team that gets relegated only has to pay what it can afford.

 

I dont necessarily agree that everyone needs to be doing it although it would make it easier if UEFA took the lead. Salary caps worked in NFL, NHL and could help bridge the gap in football.

 

I believe Celtic have more performance related salaries these days. No-one can deny that wages are crippling us, especially wages for players who arent even getting a game (Hemdani immediately springs to mind). So have players on a reasonable basic wage and then have the remainder made up with performance-related bonuses.

 

That said, it would more than likely make it more difficult to entice better players with these type contracts.

 

Football salaries are definitely different and you have to negotiate your own wage. It's incredibly complicated but I don't personally think Broadfoot deserves much more. We're trying to cut costs at the moment and every penny of his wage comes out of the fans pockets, many of whom are now unemployed.

 

 

Yep, complicated indeed. I actually think the opposite. If Broadfoot can do a job at RB (which he can) and can do a job at CB (which he did earlier in the season) then I think he IS worth more than 3k. AND.... you could argue that by giving him a pay raise it CUTS costs, not increases them. He can perform two positions comfortably but gets just the one salary (say he gets 100% pay raise to 6k). If we have to replace Weir are we likely to get a replacement at 3k ? I doubt it, unless we go for another SPL CB (which most fans dont really want to see). It is one squad place instead of 2. He is also proven whereas any replacement isnt (look at Gow for example).

 

It happens all the time and it's difficult to measure. If I was on a fixed term contract I don't think I'd have a cat's chance in hell of say doubling my salary and if I was that good, I'd be looking to move on at the end of my contract.

 

I think it depends on the company mentality. One company will say "he is on a fixed term contract, he can like it or lump it" and short-term they win financially. Long term though ?? As you say, you likely walk away at the end of the contract. And how much for the company to replace you when that happens and, quite possibly, for an inferior employee ? Another company will say "this guy can do the job, has proven it, we want to keep him, so lets make it equitable for him" - they keep the person, dont need a replacement and, quite possibly, have an employee who is very thankful to the company for being made equitable - might also mean more effort and more loyalty.

 

Which company are Rangers ??? I think we all know.

 

Football is not quite the same as industry anyway. You could compare it to entertainment where I'm sure many DJ's think they do a better job than Jonathan Ross but are luck to be on 100grand rather than his 6M salary.

 

Ibrox is a bit box office and Broadfoot certainly doesn't help bring in the big crowds.

 

But neither does Whittaker.

 

 

Maybe I'm being harsh but you've read Cammy's point that we're paying far more for far less these days.

 

In a massive recession, how can fans empathise with Broadfoots demands?

 

I think the problem is not that he isn't paid enough, it's that the rest are paid far too much.

 

I am not trying to empathise, I really am not. My point is looking at it from a Broadfoot perspective and I can see why he thinks he should have higher compensation.

 

I do agree though, it is that the rest get paid too much. But in the dog-eat-dog world that is professional football that isn't Broadfoot's problem but those who gave those contracts. Broadfoot wants a piece of the action and rightly so. The contract negotiators ar Rangers should do their job a little better if there is such inequity (although, in saying that, when KB signed his contract he was happy with it - but times change and his performances would suggest he deserves a higher salary).

 

Sometimes you have to pay more to get top players but Broadfoot got a big payrise to come to Rangers and I don't really think he could get a lot more elsewhere and I'm sure even if he did, it would be a professional step down.

 

The professional step down is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are primarily talking finance. I am sure the "big pay rise" happened to many players when they came to Rangers. In Broadfoot's case it wouldn't have been as much as some. Again, his performances suggest he warrants being paid as a first team regular.

 

Players usually demand higher wages with the threat that they'll get better offers from other clubs and so the wage in necessary to keep them. In the current financial mess, I can't see that happening with Broadfoot and I also think he's easily replaceable.

 

It is hard to say if someone is easily replaceable. Depends on who the replacement is obviously - and there are no guarantees there.

 

He's got a very weak case and I can't see Rangers pandering to him and in the end, in my own selfish way, I hope they don't - beyond a modest rise.

 

I agree his case is weak but not because of his own personal short-comings but because of the economic climate.

 

That said though it is a balancing act for the club too - if they lose him then how much will they have to pay to get a suitable replacement ? What if said replacement turns out to be a bust ?

 

It could also be in the club's interests to work with the player to give him a decent pay raise.

 

There are worse offenders at Ibrox than Kirk Broadfoot for wanting the money - and many of the pros at Ibrox could learn a thing or two about application from him too. That is a side issue though....

Edited April 24, 2009 by craig

[Super_Ally 0]

Whittakers on ten grand a week?

 

Unbelievable in my eyes. no more than a squad player, infact you could take him out of the squad and you wouldnt notice.

 

Like broadfoot i dont see him as a long term solution.

 

Actually �£12k was the figure I heard.

 

Was just too lazy in my post as Broadfoot was asking for 10k to be around the same as other guys like Whittaker and I wasn't going to quibble over 2k in 10.

[Super_Ally 0]

So if Whittaker is on 10 k a week then Broadfoot would have good reason to want the same, or similar. So maybe, just maybe, there is something in the story. Who knows ?

 

Not many in the area are on 3k a week my man. It is a new development and I THINK that the cheapest house is north of 400k (and the area is high with unemployment). I will never understand why the developers built there (the houses are nice to be fair).

 

Apparently..... Boyd was also in the process of buying TWO houses there and was being offered some kind of discount due to him being somewhat "high-profile"..... then when they came to close the deal they reneged on the discount so Boyd told them to shove it. So they lost out on the sale of two houses.

 

The whole story is somewhat intriguing.... it was an old hospital and the local authorities sold it to a friend of my uncle for not very much (less than 200k I think). 5 years later he had managed to get planning permission and sold it for just under 10 million. The local media were up in arms about it.

 

To make it more interesting..... the guy who owned and sold it for millions..... his daughter was seeing Broadfoot (though I believe they have now split up).

 

 

Not being rude Craig. Have meant to reply to this. Just not sure what I want to say.

[craig 5,199]

Not being rude Craig. Have meant to reply to this. Just not sure what I want to say.

 

 

No worries man, was just some musing anyway.

[calscot 0]

Craig, I see what you're saying about Broadfoot but I think you're slightly missing the Rangers point of view - using your previous arguments about Gow, Boadfoot signed his contract and therefore should he not honour it?

 

You are only worth in football what you can negotiate and a bunch of reasonable performances plus the odd appearance for your country don't always mean you can double it or more, no matter what others are paid or how they are performing.

 

If an MP thinks he's done a better job than a bank chief, should he demand a bigger pension than the wunch of bankers? Should we as tax payers just pay them what they think they are worth?

 

In this climate, and as a Rangers fan, when the likes of Broadfoot demands 3 times more money from season ticket holders, my immediate reaction is to tell him to bugger off. And it seems Rangers are thinking the same way. He is in no way indespensible.

 

I really think you're wrong about the box office aspect with Whittaker - who has recently given some of the biggest highlights at Rangers matches recently with a few goal of the season candidates as well as some great moves. If only he could do it every week he would be an incredibly exciting player.

 

I think you forget that Whittaker was a sought after players who commanded a fee of �£2M, and that's why he can also negotiate a higher salary. If both player go up for sale I'd be confident in guessing who'd bring in the most money and who would go to a bigger club.

 

I think we need to get the wages under more control and so need to get some squad players in at a much lower wage level around that of Broadfoot. On a superstar's wage, he's just no use to us if we're trying to build a better team for less money.

 

Grudgingly I might be happy enough giving him 4 grand a week but for more than that I'd prefer to let him go. He can have all the arguments in the world but I just don't think he's worth more than 200 grand a year and I'm confident that the market will bare me out.

 

I would rather get rid, put Whittaker in at right back and promote a youngster as backup - Alan Lowing for instance.