simplythebest 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Absolutely and sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you for an argument mate. Was enjoying the debate myself tbh, but I'm fine with leaving it at that. No don't take that the wrong way mate, I've been enjoying it myself. But I think a lot of it is coming down to what we believe was in the players' heads, the stuff about lack of communication etc sounds reasonable in theory i'll confess but I just have serious doubts that this did come into the thinking, the players may have said it but it would not be the first time at all footballers have not been so truthful about motives to make themselves look better. I think some of the expectations surrounding this apparently desired communication were unrealistic, Rangers employ so many staff and the story has pretty much been played out in the media anyway, so I think if being kept up to date personally and having dossiers on the new owners was so important they should have pushed more. It doesn't sound like they were exactly banging down Charles Green's door so that's a big reason why i'm skeptical. For me Rangers were good to these guys, McCabe, Fleck and Ness were developed and brought into the limelight by the club, in the case of Ness he spent so much time injured, so I don't really believe the transferring over to request a move idea was unrealistic to expect. Naismith, Whittaker, Lafferty, McGregor, Davis all had their careers really kicked off by Rangers, they earned plenty of money through lucrative contracts we handed out and Naismith in particular must have spent about 18 months combined on the treatment table. McGregor also had injuries and made an arse of himself on Scotland duty while defying Walter Smith yet we gave him another chance and benched a true pro in Alexander in the process, not to mention having to deal with his private life constantly being the front page. Whittaker's form was piss poor at times and he contributed greatly to costing the club millions by throwing the ball at a player, but we stuck by him. Lafferty also had plenty of time injured, including an injury created by him fooling around on the team bus, also some of his on the field antics that brought shame on the club, but again we kept sticking by him even if he and Ally didn't see eye to eye near the end I think he owed us a bit more. Davis was on the road to no-where at Villa after being unfancied by Martin O'Neill and we rejuvenated his career while also making him captain eventually, in my opinion he got away with some pretty anonymus displays at times as well. Aluko is one I can maybe deal with a bit better because he wasn't here that long and actually paid Aberdeen to sign, although even then i'd have thought he'd like to get us a fee considering we took him on when no-one else was. You may disagree with some or all of that but for me if anything we were owed that last bit of loyalty. Edited August 22, 2012 by simplythebest 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) No don't take that the wrong way mate, I've been enjoying it myself. But I think a lot of it is coming down to what we believe was in the players' heads, the stuff about lack of communication etc sounds reasonable in theory i'll confess but I just have serious doubts that this did come into the thinking, the players may have said it but it would not be the first time at all footballers have not been so truthful about motives to make themselves look better. I think some of the expectations surrounding this apparently desired communication were unrealistic, Rangers employ so many staff and the story has pretty much been played out in the media anyway, so I think if being kept up to date personally and having dossiers on the new owners was so important they should have pushed more. It doesn't sound like they were exactly banging down Charles Green's door so that's a big reason why i'm skeptical. For me Rangers were good to these guys, McCabe, Fleck and Ness were developed and brought into the limelight by the club, in the case of Ness he spent so much time injured, so I don't really believe the transferring over to request a move idea was unrealistic to expect. Naismith, Whittaker, Lafferty, McGregor, Davis all had their careers really kicked off by Rangers, they earned plenty of money through lucrative contracts we handed out and Naismith in particular must have spent about 18 months combined on the treatment table. McGregor also had injuries and made an arse of himself on Scotland duty while defying Walter Smith yet we gave him another chance and benched a true pro in Alexander in the process, not to mention having to deal with his private life constantly being the front page. Whittaker's form was piss poor at times and he contributed greatly to costing the club millions by throwing the ball at a player, but we stuck by him. Lafferty also had plenty of time injured, including an injury created by him fooling around on the team bus, also some of his on the field antics that brought shame on the club, but again we kept sticking by him even if he and Ally didn't see eye to eye near the end I think he owed us a bit more. Davis was on the road to no-where at Villa after being unfancied by Martin O'Neill and we rejuvenated his career while also making him captain eventually, in my opinion he got away with some pretty anonymus displays at times as well. Aluko is one I can maybe deal with a bit better because he wasn't here that long and actually paid Aberdeen to sign, although even then i'd have thought he'd like to get us a fee considering we took him on when no-one else was. You may disagree with some or all of that but for me if anything we were owed that last bit of loyalty. Can't really say I disagree with much of that. I also agree that the fans and manager were owed that last bit of loyalty. However, surely you have to admit that the speculation the players were left to absorb in the absense of communication from the club could have put some question marks over the owners motivations and intentions and therefore what they were likely to do with any money brought in from the sale of those players. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Charles Green could have approached the players TUPE in a better manner? If he had the opportunity to correct his mistakes, do you think he would? Edited August 22, 2012 by UCF2008 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Can't really say I disagree with much of that. I also agree that the fans and manager were owed that last bit of loyalty. However, surely you have to admit that the speculation the players were left to absorb in the absense of communication from the club could have put some question marks over the owners motivations and intentions and therefore what they were likely to do with any money brought in from the sale of those players. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Charles Green could have approached the players TUPE in a better manner? If he had the opportunity to correct his mistakes, do you think he would? You could put that argument forward but I don't think it was for them to decide owners' motivations, it's not an unusual leap of faith in the sense that players will sign for owners and boards that they won't know that much about, what matters is them getting paid and being satisfied to play for the manager. Their pay was protected through TUPE otherwise they'd be able to walk away anyway, Sandy Jardine was quick to criticise them for not getting the club a transfer fee, the fans, the stadium, the training ground, the employees were the same so again for me I can't take it as a realistic excuse that they feared where the money was going. If Charles Green really was planning to run off with the money then Rangers wouldn't survive as a football club regardless. I doubt it, mainly because I can imagine Charles Green being stubborn. He was obviously a very busy man at that time with the CVA and then getting the newco situation sorted, he met the players that stayed when they returned to training so I imagine he felt he shouldn't have to have personal meetings and give out dossiers to convince these guys to have loyalty to the club that had done so much for them. If he believes like I do that they're making up excuses to cover up money being the only motivation then he'll not think any talking would have made a difference anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I doubt it, mainly because I can imagine Charles Green being stubborn. He was obviously a very busy man at that time with the CVA and then getting the newco situation sorted, he met the players that stayed when they returned to training so I imagine he felt he shouldn't have to have personal meetings and give out dossiers to convince these guys to have loyalty to the club that had done so much for them. If he believes like I do that they're making up excuses to cover up money being the only motivation then he'll not think any talking would have made a difference anyway. We'll never know if it would have made a difference, but at least Green's contribution to the outcome wouldn't be in question. Could we not have delayed the transfer of players to the newco for instance? Since the administrators held funds to cover wages - the same funds the club recently claimed were overdue in being handed over by D&P - Would it not have been wiser to hold off on the player TUPE until after they'd returned for pre-season. This would have given an opportunity for face to face talks and for the club's situation to become clearer before these decisions had to be made. Do you think D&P chose to rush it through? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 We'll never know if it would have made a difference, but at least Green's contribution to the outcome wouldn't be in question. Could we not have delayed the transfer of players to the newco for instance? Since the administrators held funds to cover wages - the same funds the club recently claimed were overdue in being handed over by D&P - Would it not have been wiser to hold off on the player TUPE until after they'd returned for pre-season. This would have given an opportunity for face to face talks and for the club's situation to become clearer before these decisions had to be made. Do you think D&P chose to rush it through? Maybe it had to be rushed through otherwise HMRC would have had control over the assets etc? Honestly not so sure on that one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Young players like Ness & McCabe wouldn't have been on particularly high wages at Rangers. They saw an opportunity to get out & get better deals elsewhere and took it. All I ask of them and all the others who did likewise is to stop bull-shitting us with 'lack of communication' and 'uncertainty'. We know why you all left. We are not stupid. Just be honest with all of us Rangers supporters. That's all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Young players like Ness & McCabe wouldn't have been on particularly high wages at Rangers. They saw an opportunity to get out & get better deals elsewhere and took it. All I ask of them and all the others who did likewise is to stop bull-shitting us with 'lack of communication' and 'uncertainty'. We know why you all left. We are not stupid. Just be honest with all of us Rangers supporters. That's all. They are not and were not bullshitting anyone regarding the lack of commumication from the club. It's completely unfair to say they've been telling porkies, bullshitting or whatever else you want to call it when practically all of the players have commented about the lack of communication including players who have stuck with us. Someone else mentioned Jig talking about it which is true and Andy Little also commented on the lack of communication. You can't pick and choose which players you're calling liars when they all have the same story regarding this subject of poor communication. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 They are not and were not bullshitting anyone regarding the lack of commumication from the club. It's completely unfair to say they've been telling porkies, bullshitting or whatever else you want to call it when practically all of the players have commented about the lack of communication including players who have stuck with us. Someone else mentioned Jig talking about it which is true and Andy Little also commented on the lack of communication. You can't pick and choose which players you're calling liars when they all have the same story regarding this subject of poor communication. Sorry M8 but I don't think any of the departees had any intention of staying. As I said they saw an opportunity and took it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Maybe it had to be rushed through otherwise HMRC would have had control over the assets etc? Honestly not so sure on that one. If HMRC object to the transfer of assets then we're not out of the woods yet 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Lack of communication = A convenient excuse You can just see their agents rubbing their hands with glee. Edited August 22, 2012 by GovanAllan 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.