The Winter 2022/23 Rangers Transfer Window Rumours and Deals - Thread

[the gunslinger 3,366]

37 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Not buying Tillman isn't on the agenda for me.  

Would be gutting

[compo 6,220]

Not long to go now about six days 

[der Berliner 3,287]

10 hours ago, craig said:

Read the part where I said "when used properly"  - At no point did I say we used them properly.  For used properly look at the likes of, oh I dont know.... Bayern Munich with Robben and Ribery or.... closer to home.... Arsenal this season with Saka and Martinelli.  Both those teams are using them properly - and, know what, they only play(ed) with one striker too.

 

Ours works though not as often as we like.  In terms of when did we use them properly - how about last week at Rugby Park ?  Sakala playing right wing, plays ball across goal for Morelos to score..... Kent gets down the left hand side, plays (poor) ball across box, ball from Morelos ends up back at Kent who cuts in on his favoured right foot and scores near post..... or how about Borna getting down the outside, standing the ball up to the middle where Morelos then scores with the header ?  Or does that not count as working ?

Sakala plays "inverted winger" in that one-striker line-up and shows that he is actually a striker. You see that from his goals, assists and shots at goal since being used there. The striker in the middle usually does his job, even though Morelos these days needs three or four attempts before the ball ends up in the net. Kent hardly ever shoots at goal, his hit-rate for an "inverted winger" is poor. We use him deeper now, but still need someone on the left "inverted winger" slot to put the ball away. No-one discounts his work-rate as such, yet, if he is used as an attacker, who should come up with more countable goods. Maybe that is going to be Cantwell. We've been a rather blunt force these last few seasons, playing a 4-2-3-1 with people not able to breach Scottish defenses in a way that is as successful as that of our neighbours from beyond the Clyde. What Arsenal does in a league that has not 80 % brickwall teams is another matter.

 

But maybe we better get back to transfer matters.

[der Berliner 3,287]

Just noted regarding Charlie McCann:

In addition to the undisclosed transfer fee, Rangers have retained a significant future sell-on percentage, as well as return options and matching rights on Charlie for the future.

 

... and we actually paid 750k to ManU back in summer 2021 for him. Whopping outlay for someone kept in the reserves and who showed up well when actually played in the first team.  We supposedly got 350k for him now.

[Bill 13,717]

3 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

Not buying Tillman isn't on the agenda for me.  

It's not just about the player but more about the price and the balance between Tillman and other priorities on a limited budget. No doubt he's a good player but it seems to me there are other more urgent signing requirements this summer.

 

I would also be cautious about Tillman (and Sands) until I knew a whole lot more about the terms of the current loan deal and what we may be bound to if we exercise our option to convert to a permanent contract.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Have seen it pointed out that if we run down Morelos and Kent contracts we can remove the sell on fees. 

 

I still say Morelos is part of the problem not the solution but we did this with Goldson so may be what we are doing here. 

 

 

[Gonzo79 13,764]

One would hope the board know what they're doing when it comes to contracts and the like but the last few years leave me in a bit of doubt. 

 

Still think we made an arse of things by keeping all three of Arfield, Davis and McGregor on.    

[craig 5,199]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

Have seen it pointed out that if we run down Morelos and Kent contracts we can remove the sell on fees. 

 

I still say Morelos is part of the problem not the solution but we did this with Goldson so may be what we are doing here. 

 

 

The sell on fees would be negligible anyway would they not ?  We wouldnt get much for them in January anyway given Bosman status.

 

Or are you saying that if we extend their contract then we are STILL bound by the original sell-on clause ?  

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,334]

12 minutes ago, craig said:

The sell on fees would be negligible anyway would they not ?  We wouldnt get much for them in January anyway given Bosman status.

 

Or are you saying that if we extend their contract then we are STILL bound by the original sell-on clause ?  

I've seen rumours that Liverpool have around 20% of any profit we make on Kent. So if we signed him now to a new 4 year deal and sold him this time next year for £20 million (number picked out the air) Liverpool get £2.6 million of it. 

 

The story goes Brighton were due an extra payment if Goldson renewed for us which is why his renewal went the way it did. 

 

IIRC Helsinki are in for 10% of any profit we make Morelos too.

 

But yes your night that some of the cash fees involved are negligible (in my eyes anyway) but perhaps there is method behind the madness somewhere.  

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, craig said:

The sell on fees would be negligible anyway would they not ?  We wouldnt get much for them in January anyway given Bosman status.

 

Or are you saying that if we extend their contract then we are STILL bound by the original sell-on clause ?  

I am saying if we let their contract expire then resign them there is no sell on fee. If we extend current contract then it remains. 

 

gives you the scope perhaps to give them a better deal.