Walter Smith: I may not be able to stop Madjid Bougherra leaving

[calscot 0]

In the courts it all depends whether Gow can show "loss". If he gets a similar contract at Wolves I can't see how he has a case beyond milking the situation by claiming compensation for "inconvenience" or something.

 

I think it's deplorable, that anyone thinks people should fight for absolutely every penny they think they are entitled to. I think it lacks any morals.

 

There are millions of situations where we can callously do this for our own personal benefit, from not paying any tips ever to the likes of Vodaphone shafting me because I signed a 2 year contract for a product that hardly worked.

 

In fact my experience of the latter seems similar to Gow's situation and just means I have no respect for him at all.

 

Rangers are "entitled" to let him rot in the U19's until the end of his contract and fine him two weeks wages for every case of indiscipline, so maybe they should do just that as that will be both sides fulfilling their contract. However, you don't always have to claim your full entitlement and nor is it always morally correct to do so.

 

If Gow tries to shaft Rangers in the courts, I hope that other clubs take notice and avoid him like the plague.

[craig 5,199]

In the courts it all depends whether Gow can show "loss". If he gets a similar contract at Wolves I can't see how he has a case beyond milking the situation by claiming compensation for "inconvenience" or something.

 

I think it's deplorable, that anyone thinks people should fight for absolutely every penny they think they are entitled to. I think it lacks any morals.

 

There are millions of situations where we can callously do this for our own personal benefit, from not paying any tips ever to the likes of Vodaphone shafting me because I signed a 2 year contract for a product that hardly worked.

 

In fact my experience of the latter seems similar to Gow's situation and just means I have no respect for him at all.

 

Rangers are "entitled" to let him rot in the U19's until the end of his contract and fine him two weeks wages for every case of indiscipline, so maybe they should do just that as that will be both sides fulfilling their contract. However, you don't always have to claim your full entitlement and nor is it always morally correct to do so.

 

If Gow tries to shaft Rangers in the courts, I hope that other clubs take notice and avoid him like the plague.

 

You cant say with assurance it is about "loss" calscot. Loss is only relevant where the contract has no stipulation, like a business interruption insurance claim - if you have to close, say, a pipeline because of an explosion, the you "lose profit" - however, if the closure drives prices up then you dont "lose" due to mitigation of less oil pumped vs higher price.

 

If Gow has a contract which entitles him to, say, 300k then loss only comes into play if that contract stipulates that should player or club wish to part ways then there is no compensation due IF another club ensures no money lost. If the contract merely says that Rangers will pay Gow a signing on fee of 300k after a year then the club have no rights but to pay it - they are obligated under the contract.

 

At the end of the day you would need to see the contract to determine if Gow has a case or not. But basically neither you nor I are right OR wrong because the contract will stipulate what should or should not be paid and neither of us are privy to that contract.

 

This has been discussed ad nauseum - but I fail to see why Gow should not fight for every penny he thinks he is entitled to. Why shouldn't he ? The club offered him his contract, he signed it and is therefore entitled to it. It really IS that simple. You can say it is immoral all you like but a contract s legally binding and anyone signing it is justly entitled to fight for payment under the contract terms. Why is it deplorable ? Because Rangers suffer financially from it ? If that is the case then you should also probably find it deplorable the extent of the bonuses our CEO gets for having to pay off players to get them off the books - fiscally irresponsible (for certain players and contracts) yet gets a nice chunk of change bonus himself (sure he reduced the wage bill - getting rid of the high earners, and better players, and bringing in players who are now deadwood and taking money for nothing again.....).

 

Ahhh, but not paying tips is perfectly acceptable - it is a GRATUITY, bonus - not something you are obligated to under contract - so not really relevant to the issue at hand.

 

You signed a contract with Vodafone and what happened ? You were obligated to it, right ? The product hardly worked, was that because it was faulty or because you just didnt want to use it ? You signed a 2 yr deal (both sides sign) and if the product didnt work then fine, you have just complaint. However if the product simply wasnt being used then that is a completely different circumstance. And from your synopsis I presume the product was faulty - however, in Gows case the product isnt faulty, just not utilised. Different circumstance IMO.

 

Rangers COULD let him rot but seems like they dont want to. So whilst what you say is fine the reality is that they dont want to do it. Maybe it is me but I come from a different school of thought. If two sides sign a contract - both Rangers AND Gow signed that contract - then there is a contractual obligation to fulfill the contract. Morals dont really come into it for me.

 

What has Gow done wrong which makes him immoral to want to receive the contractual obligation ? Not play for Rangers ? Whose fault is that ? WS ? Gow ? Bain ? We dont know for sure so I will remain on the fence in that regard.

 

And just how would Gow be "shafting" Rangers in the courts ? Again, if Rangers signed a contract with the lad and he successfully sues that is most certainly NOT shafting anyone - it is holding them (Rangers) to a contract which they WILLINGLY agreed to and signed.

[JMS 0]

In the courts it all depends whether Gow can show "loss". If he gets a similar contract at Wolves I can't see how he has a case beyond milking the situation by claiming compensation for "inconvenience" or something.

 

I think it's deplorable, that anyone thinks people should fight for absolutely every penny they think they are entitled to. I think it lacks any morals.

 

There are millions of situations where we can callously do this for our own personal benefit, from not paying any tips ever to the likes of Vodaphone shafting me because I signed a 2 year contract for a product that hardly worked.

 

In fact my experience of the latter seems similar to Gow's situation and just means I have no respect for him at all.

 

Rangers are "entitled" to let him rot in the U19's until the end of his contract and fine him two weeks wages for every case of indiscipline, so maybe they should do just that as that will be both sides fulfilling their contract. However, you don't always have to claim your full entitlement and nor is it always morally correct to do so.

 

If Gow tries to shaft Rangers in the courts, I hope that other clubs take notice and avoid him like the plague.

 

 

Once again it just shows that their are some on this board who let personalities get in the way before objective thinking.

[Super_Ally 0]

Once again it just shows that their are some on this board who let personalities get in the way before objective thinking.

 

Tbf. if it's his last line that you are referring to (not bothered reading all this) anyone who takes his former employers to court is not going to be looked well on by potential employers.

[Bluedell 5,344]

If I was Bain then I wouldn't fully pay-off a player who wanted to leave.

 

If Gow doesn't want to leave then he is entitled to ask for some sort of pay-off, but he's taking a risk with his career. If the club say no then he could end up doing a Balde and not getting played and it doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Likewise the club aren't under any obligation to give him a pay-off.

 

I would have thought that some sort of compromise would have been in order, but that could set a bad precedent that the club may not want.

[craig 5,199]

If I was Bain then I wouldn't fully pay-off a player who wanted to leave.

 

If Gow doesn't want to leave then he is entitled to ask for some sort of pay-off, but he's taking a risk with his career. If the club say no then he could end up doing a Balde and not getting played and it doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Likewise the club aren't under any obligation to give him a pay-off.

 

I would have thought that some sort of compromise would have been in order, but that could set a bad precedent that the club may not want.

 

 

I agree with this - but only if it isnt in any signed contract. If there is something in a signed contract stating certain financial rewards given certain circumstances then the contract should be honoured by both parties (to the extent that the club want him or he wants to be here - either way).

 

If not in a contract then the club are not obligated - that is the thing, none of us really know what is going on so we are flying in the dark,.

[JMS 0]

I agree with this - but only if it isnt in any signed contract. If there is something in a signed contract stating certain financial rewards given certain circumstances then the contract should be honoured by both parties (to the extent that the club want him or he wants to be here - either way).

 

If not in a contract then the club are not obligated - that is the thing, none of us really know what is going on so we are flying in the dark,.

 

Okay, last year he stated to all and sundry at Ibrox he did not want to leave but they told him to look for another club, various people at Ibrox gave him a hard time and the powers that be put him up for sale.

Contrary to all the crap that some posters put up, He that is, Alan Gow is only looking for what he is Entitled to, that is what is in his contract.

They that is, the powers that be are not wanting to pay him as they have said to him, it's not as though you've done anything here.

 

Hope that clears it up for you all.

[Bluedell 5,344]

Okay, last year he stated to all and sundry at Ibrox he did not want to leave but they told him to look for another club, various people at Ibrox gave him a hard time and the powers that be put him up for sale.

Contrary to all the crap that some posters put up, He that is, Alan Gow is only looking for what he is Entitled to, that is what is in his contract.

They that is, the powers that be are not wanting to pay him as they have said to him, it's not as though you've done anything here.

 

Hope that clears it up for you all.

Not really, I'm afraid. It depends on the wording of the contract.

 

Are you saying that his contract says that he will be entitled to full payment to the end of his contract under all circumstances if the club decide to sell him?

 

I just can't see clubs putting that sort of clause in players' contracts, for a number of reasons. Why would JCD move, for example, if he was entitled to get full payment to the end of his contract, and why would Rangers want to transfer him as they would get no benefit. Why all the talk of getting players off the payroll?

[JMS 0]

Not really, I'm afraid. It depends on the wording of the contract.

 

Are you saying that his contract says that he will be entitled to full payment to the end of his contract under all circumstances if the club decide to sell him?

 

I just can't see clubs putting that sort of clause in players' contracts, for a number of reasons. Why would JCD move, for example, if he was entitled to get full payment to the end of his contract, and why would Rangers want to transfer him as they would get no benefit. Why all the talk of getting players off the payroll?

 

He is entitled to a percentage of the transfer fee, and it was not him that asked to leave, so in effect he is being sacked.

He has a binding contract, signed by both parties.

[calscot 0]

I agree 100% with you Blue Dell.

 

The contract is that the player "works" for the club and the club pay his wages, both until the contract ends. If either side breach that contract then the other side has a case for compensation which for the player could be the rest of his contract.

 

However, no side has breached the contract and so Gow is not "entitled" to a penny of a payoff.

 

What is happening is a NEGOTIATION to jointly terminate the contract and Gow is asking for far more money than Rangers think is reasonable. In this negotiation, the only "entitlements" are for either side to agree to terminate or to continue till the end of the contract.

 

All this "entitlement" stuff just doesn't exist. Why would a club play a players the rest of his contract rather than save money in interest by keeping him and letting him rot in the U19's.

 

However, in this instance it is in both parties interest to negotiate a mutual termination as Rangers get a fee, reduce the wage bill and Gow get's a signing on fee and gets to continue his career and play first team football.

 

Gow seems to think he can stiff Rangers for the rest of his wages even though he would be working for Wolves and getting his wage from there. I think that's unreasonable and so do Rangers.

 

If Wolves give him a signing on fee and match his wage then he will be better off financially especially with appearance money and bonuses on top. So why does he feel he's entitled to stiff Rangers for more?