Rangers reject bid for Lee Wallace.

[SteveC 150]

I'd be gutted losing Wallace but he is without doubt an EPL player if he was to go. Forest FFS.

 

Our best player is being hounded by Forest, shows how far we still have to come to get back to the top.

 

Sorry, can't agree with that - there has to be at least doubt. Quite a lot of it I'd say. He's great going forward but defensively? Redknapp despaired of Hutton at Spurs, even at a time when he praised his attitude, training and attacking forays because, "He simply can't defend". Being a "full back" for us, Papac aside, involves bombing forward but rarely defending wither desperately or in an organised way. I'm watching man City and Spurs just now - I'd say there is considerable doubt he'd be that effective in defence. He has been far and away our best player in the last two seasons, our MOTM in most games and I am thankful for that.

 

As I said above I see him as our captain when we get back to the putrid top division here - but remember the quality of that is, although better than where he has shone, still crap and he didn't set it alight. You'd have to be a standout star in the SPFL to even stand a chance in the EPL. Wallace would find the standard he faced each week at Forrest a massive challenge far less the EPL.

[Gribz 743]

I know we need cash but there should be uproar if we don't sell him for more than we paid for him. Making a loss on one of our best players and a consistently good performer would be unacceptable.

 

Ally, Durrant and Kenny should be doing everything on the training field to make our left hand side pretty formidable for Scottish level. We have Wallace and Templeton who are both capable of playing for Scotland and they should be working on a partnership. Robertson and Laudrup obviously had a great understanding in the 90s and while Wallace and Templeton wont get to that level of quality they should still be ripping up defences in this league and next year.

[ian1964 10,409]

Astute bit of business or just a false economy?

 

Richard Wilson

Sports writer

Thursday 30 January 2014

 

Rangers have reportedly rejected two bids from Nottingham Forest for Lee Wallace, although a deal could yet be struck to sell the Scotland defender before the close of the transfer window on Friday.

 

 

Even then, the player's preference is to remain at Ibrox.

 

Given the financial and political situation at Rangers just now, what are the pros and cons for selling the full-back?

 

CASE FOR

 

In short, the money. Graham Wallace, the chief executive, has been clear that the cost base needs to be cut because Rangers are operating outwith their means. There will be no significant income until season ticket renewal money begins to be received in June and July, which means that the cost cutting needs to happen now. There is increasing concern outwith the club that an immediate shortfall might be encountered next month, although Wallace is adamant there "is sufficient cash in the bank".

 

Either way, Rangers need to reduce their outgoings, so selling Wallace makes financial sense in that respect. He is most likely the highest-earning player at the club, and he is the most sellable asset. David Templeton would attract attention if he were a free agent, but since he is on a good wage at Ibrox, few other clubs would be prepared to match the wage and pay a fee. The same applies to Nicky Law, Cammy Bell, and Lewis Macleod, the young player with the most potential in the squad. There has been no significant interest in any of these individuals, though, while those players who are out of contract in the summer would need to be incentivised - most likely though a pay-off - to depart now.

 

So that leaves Wallace. He is an internationalist, a proven top-flight player in Scotland, and still at a young enough age to be considered a player who can improve further. He has consistently been Rangers' best player this season, so it is little wonder that Nottingham Forest showed an interest. It will also be felt that Rangers' imperative to sell is greater than the need of the buying club, which forces the price down.

 

Graham Wallace raised the notion of the squad taking a 15% wage cut as one means of reducing outgoings. The players will not countenance it at least until the executives are making the same sacrifice, although selling one comparatively high-earning player, and generating a fee, might reduce the need to negotiate a wage cut.

 

Ultimately, Rangers need to make savings, so selling Lee Wallace is an obvious consideration.

 

CASE AGAINST

 

It begins and ends with the fact that Wallace is Rangers' best player. He is the one member of the squad who would be expected to figure in a team that could challenge Celtic for the title once Rangers eventually return to the top-flight. While there is a financial case for selling him, there is also one for retaining him: Rangers paid £1.5m to sign him, and replacing him in 12-to-18 months would cost a similar amount.

 

Graham Wallace has made several comments about the short-term thinking that brought Rangers back into a financial mess, and it may be a false economy to sell the defender now. There are other consequences, not least the mood among the rest of the players, although footballers tend to be pragmatic and resilient, viewing the comings and goings in a squad as inevitable. None the less, with the financial backdrop at the club, selling Wallace might be seen among the players as a reflection of a grave situation.

 

The manager, too, does not want Wallace to leave, while the player himself wants to stay. McCoist values his experience and attitude, and his influence with the younger players in the squad. Many view Wallace as a future captain. The player is settled in his home life, with a partner and a young child, and has no ambitions to play in England. He coaches a local amateur team in Edinburgh - many of the players are his childhood friends - and he takes that part of his life very seriously. Money is persuasive, of course, but Wallace is unlikely to move to a club that pays well beyond his current salary.

 

Rangers must consider their options carefully for other reasons, too. If costs are to be cut, it is legitimate to point out that the first-team wage bill is only around 30% of turnover - well below UEFA recommendations - so cuts ought to be achievable in other areas of the business. The chief executive has tasked Philip Nash to conduct a full review, and so it may yet be that the football side does not bear the brunt of the cuts.

 

There is also the question of season tickets. The sale of the team's best player, as part of a cost-cutting exercise that would seem to preclude adding to the squad in the summer, is hardly much of an incentive for the fans to renew. The team will be weakened by Wallace's departure.

 

His future, then, is pivotal to Rangers' future, whatever the outcome.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/astute-bit-of-business-or-just-a-false-economy.23307260

[Darthter 542]

Our alleged valuation of Wallace (£1.4m) is, IMHO, FAR too low. Regardless of our current league standing or financial situation, I would have preferred to see a valuation of at least £3m+ (preferrably nearer £5m) publicly placed on him.

Get the £3m+ valuation into the media & hype up the player. Lets be perfectly honest, £1.4m for a player is pennies to EPL or championship sides.

 

Its all very easy to say that we are "only" playing in the 3rd tier, and that we need cash, but you can also flip that round & say that these clubs have considerably more cash than us, and can easily afford to pay more for a player - is Juan Mata REALLY worth £37m.....would the fee have been the same for another club??

 

As a club we must start working the transfer market more. Selling out top players on at a loss HAS to stop.

[der Berliner 3,239]

As it seems, Forest have taken Danny Fox on loan till the end of the season, with a permant deal possible in the summer. I would reckon that kills any interest they have in Wallace stone dead (for 6 months).