Jim White 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Mervan Celik's move to Rangers has become subject to controversy as the midfielder's former club claim they are still owed compensation. More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 This is all we need. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well, we simply should not do this ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I've merged these two threads since they're on the same subject. I don't know if we've tried to pull a swifty or not (would it be a surprise?), but it all hinges on whether or not GAIS have indeed done everything correctly and have the correct paperwork. I've heard that we have 90 days to pay the fee anyway although I don't know if that's 90 days from signing the player or 90 days from when a compensation fee is agreed. Either way, if we don't pay them off then this could drag on for months and the press will have a field day with it. We really don't need the hassle or more, ongoing bad publicity than we already have, so I'm tempted to say just bloody pay them the £200k and be done with it. Then again, we've got so many major issues hanging over the club and giving us bad publicity at the moment, that a small compensation dispute should really be the least of our worries. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If there is a chance we can save £240k due to a technicality then I'm sure Whyte will go for it considering what we know of his MO. We ARE a club in desperate trouble and if we can save that kind of cash then it actually makes sense to do so. It all hinges on whether they have done all they need to to qualify for the compensation. They don't seem to have clarified this, so it seems to me that they are the ones chancing it by trying to embarrass Rangers into paying them money they have forfeited by not following protocol. If we can be done on tax technicalities, I don't see why we shouldn't use technicalities when it benefits us. It would be different if we were actually "buying" a player and trying to find a way welsh out of the money but the fact is the guy was a free agent, did not belong to that club, and the only way they can claim compensation is to have documented proof that they made an offer for the player to stay - otherwise how do we know it was sincere? If they haven't done that then that's their incompetence - and is equivalent to one of us trying to claim a lottery win without being able to provide the ticket or say trying to return goods with no proof of purchase. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If they did not make him an offer to sign a new contract then it is them who are trying to pull a quick one. I myself have been told by my higher manager that promises an old manager made to me were worthless because i had nothing in black or white. That is business and if you fall foul to it then it is in principle your own stupid fault. I would also say "Show me proof you wanted to keep him and you will be paid. Otherwise, sorry he was unwanted by you and we have no obligation to pay compensation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If there is a chance we can save £240k due to a technicality then I'm sure Whyte will go for it considering what we know of his MO. We ARE a club in desperate trouble and if we can save that kind of cash then it actually makes sense to do so. It all hinges on whether they have done all they need to to qualify for the compensation. They don't seem to have clarified this, so it seems to me that they are the ones chancing it by trying to embarrass Rangers into paying them money they have forfeited by not following protocol. If we can be done on tax technicalities, I don't see why we shouldn't use technicalities when it benefits us. It would be different if we were actually "buying" a player and trying to find a way welsh out of the money but the fact is the guy was a free agent, did not belong to that club, and the only way they can claim compensation is to have documented proof that they made an offer for the player to stay - otherwise how do we know it was sincere? If they haven't done that then that's their incompetence - and is equivalent to one of us trying to claim a lottery win without being able to provide the ticket or say trying to return goods with no proof of purchase. I wrote my post before I read yours Cal, it is the same meaning but yours is better explained. Pressing agree would have been easier.:smile: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If i was Mr Whyte i would be saying to them "don't try and kid a kidder" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Regardless of how this plays out surely we were preparing to have to pay the fee ? We wouldnt have known that they didnt have the paperwork done - so if we have to pay, we should already have budgeted for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Regardless of how this plays out surely we were preparing to have to pay the fee ? We wouldnt have known that they didnt have the paperwork done - so if we have to pay, we should already have budgeted for it. Does Whyte budget for anything? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.