craig 5,199 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Maurice Edu said he couldn't walk away from Rangers following their administration because they gave him his childhood dream of playing in the Champions League. Edu and his team-mates took pay cuts of up to 75 per cent in March to help keep the Gers alive. That agreement runs out tomorrow - but the 26-year-old USA international is adamant he has made no decision. He had also feared the club would have gone under if everybody hadn't stuck together. "It's hard to walk away from because you imagine what would have happened if we all just decided to do that. "What happens to the club? The team? We all tried to really stick together, support one another. "The Champions League is very important. I feel fortunate I was given the chance to play in it. "One of the draws of going to Rangers was that I was allowed that opportunity. "As a kid that's what you dream of." The £2m signing from FC Toronto now has a clause in his contract that allows him to walk away if another club offers £300,000, and admits the future is uncertain. "I've been able to play in the Champions League now and once you get a taste of it you want to play in it more and more. "Hopefully, Rangers are playing at the top level in Europe again soon but the way things are going right now it may take a while. "I'm hoping for a resolution - sooner rather than later is ideal." ====================================== The main piece here for me is the bit in bold. We absolutely MUST get these discounted transfer fees dealt with. 300k is a pittance and even without an embargo we would struggle to get any kind of quality to replace guys at these prices. Edu isnt everyone's cup of tea but I think he had a reasonable season - definitely worth more than 300k. And when you look at the fees for other players, even such as Lafferty, 575k is a pittance for him too. He isnt worth the 3.3 million we paid for him (IMO) but he is still worth far more than 575k. Naismith's is the most criminal one if it is as low as 2 million. Those 3 guys alone should be worth, collectively, probably about 7-8 million (Naismith should be worth 5, then 2-3 for the other 2 combined) but we could lose them for less than 3 million. Another 5 million loss. They have to be sorted out, and pronto. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 All release clauses must be changed asap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If these players were all so desperate to stay at Rangers, they wouldn't have insisted on these clauses being added to their contracts. Let's not get all dewy-eyed about this when their first love is cash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If these players were all so desperate to stay at Rangers, they wouldn't have insisted on these clauses being added to their contracts. Let's not get all dewy-eyed about this when their first love is cash. Think I can agree with you for once casey. The cock sucking like praise for the wage cuts is something i've never got in to, yes it was a good gesture and I appreciate it but there's no way any of them will have had to adjust their lifestyles with the money they already had and are still earning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 If these players were all so desperate to stay at Rangers, they wouldn't have insisted on these clauses being added to their contracts. Let's not get all dewy-eyed about this when their first love is cash. Were some of these clauses not inserted as a deterrent to having Whyte back ? Rather than actually wanting to leave, they just didnt want to have Whyte back at the club so they used this as a means to try to ensure it wouldnt happen ? Of course, they can still decide to not enforce the clause too but that would require them to stay at Rangers and/or sign an amended contract extracting the clause. We will see who really has the club at heart during this close season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 Think I can agree with you for once casey. The cock sucking like praise for the wage cuts is something i've never got in to, yes it was a good gesture and I appreciate it but there's no way any of them will have had to adjust their lifestyles with the money they already had and are still earning. Really ? So you think guys like Rhys McCabe, Hemmings, Perry, Cole wouldnt have felt the pinch ? Not every player makes mega-bucks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If these players were all so desperate to stay at Rangers, they wouldn't have insisted on these clauses being added to their contracts. Let's not get all dewy-eyed about this when their first love is cash. They were never going to do it for nothing - well apart from McCulloch and probably Papac and it would not have been easy to leave outside the transfer window without being released. They would also not want the negative press of walking out. They are paid enough to cope with a short term cut. Some will be after their money back, others probably just wanted to keep their options open as they didn't know what kind of Rangers we'll end up with. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Were some of these clauses not inserted as a deterrent to having Whyte back ? Rather than actually wanting to leave, they just didnt want to have Whyte back at the club so they used this as a means to try to ensure it wouldnt happen ? Of course, they can still decide to not enforce the clause too but that would require them to stay at Rangers and/or sign an amended contract extracting the clause. We will see who really has the club at heart during this close season. I don't think that Whyte would have been back regardless, but the clauses remain even when/if they go back to full pay. As you say, this summer will be the acid test. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Think I can agree with you for once casey. The cock sucking like praise for the wage cuts is something i've never got in to, yes it was a good gesture and I appreciate it but there's no way any of them will have had to adjust their lifestyles with the money they already had and are still earning. People tend to live to their means, so there would have been sacrifices made by most of them, some more than others. They're not all millionaires. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I don't think that Whyte would have been back regardless, but the clauses remain even when/if they go back to full pay. The clause is based on Whyte's return. If he doesn't come back, even if the get out clause is 1p it's meaningless. 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.