GovanAllan 0 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Some are just too keen to bash the club on everything these days. It's not the club they want to bash. It would appear that Charlie is Rangers & Rangers is Charlie these days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) It would appear that Charlie is Rangers & Rangers is Charlie these days. I think Charlie likes making it appear that way. The club really needs a chairman you can comfortably put behind a microphone to help balance that one out. Edited April 3, 2013 by UCF2008 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Rangers paint it in there favour other side paints it in there's, shock horror. And he was being greedy he wanted twice the money the club put on offer by asking for 2 years. According to him, he was prepared to take a significant wage cut to negotiate 2 years. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's also true that by the time this was proposed Bell had been signed and it was too late leaving Alexander with the scraps as an offer. We don't know. If these situations were better handled in the first place though... What happened to 'my door's always open'? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Rangers paint it in there favour other side paints it in there's, shock horror. And he was being greedy he wanted twice the money the club put on offer by asking for 2 years. he was offering twice as much service in return. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) let's be honest here. the club are forcing him out because they have found a cheeper but poorer quality goalkeeper. people may think that's ok but given he was a "hero and loyal" for staying 12 months ago I find it shabby and a worrying trend. I was similarly dissatisfied when novo and Numan were treated this way. Edited April 3, 2013 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I cant work out why deals like this cant be agreed and are more based on performance and playing bonuses. Give him a lower basic then he makes more on clean sheets and performances. If we have Bell coming in it gives players an incentive to play and he'll work harder to keep his place. He's been a good servant, was a fine back up to McGregor then cemented his place as No.1 and didnt run away like others at the sign of trouble. Im not convinced Bell will be a top Ibrox keeper. The standard of signings isnt good enough long term but we are in a catch 22 situation imposed by the SPL. The come back may take longer than expected as when we get back to the top flight we're going to have a squad of decent youngsters and average SPL standard players. Thats why our coaching staff needs to be stronger and better to develop players more and get every % of talent out of the experienced players. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 let's be honest here. the club are forcing him out because they have found a cheeper but poorer quality goalkeeper. people may think that's ok but given he was a "hero and loyal" for staying 12 months ago I find it shabby and a worrying trend. I was similarly dissatisfied when novo and Numan were treated this way. In your opinion, imo Alexander was always a no.2 and always will be. Time will tell on Bell for me he's better than Alexander at this stage of his career so hard work should see him get better. As for the loyalty bit think he falls into the same basket as Jig, it was very convenient for them to claim loyalty when they had no chance of matching the contracts they are on somewhere else. Some players leave well some don't, it has been the same all through Rangers history and will be the same in the future, nothing to worry about. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 According to him, he was prepared to take a significant wage cut to negotiate 2 years. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's also true that by the time this was proposed Bell had been signed and it was too late leaving Alexander with the scraps as an offer. We don't know. If these situations were better handled in the first place though... What happened to 'my door's always open'? The wage cut was always on the cards both parties knew this, this was all about length of contract Rangers thought 1 year was enough. If he thinks he's good enough at his age to get 2 years then sign the first year and prove to Rangers he's still up to the job. For me it was more like he knew Bell is coming to be no.1 and he want another 2 years cushion of sitting on his arse before he retires. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 he was offering twice as much service in return. Back on the bench service you mean, when we could pay a young keeper less to cover Bell and do the same job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 as i say forced out in favour of the cheep option. and poorer. 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.