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

[Bluedell 5,343]

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.

Thanks for that.

 

If he is entitled to a percentage of the transfer fee with the club wanting to sell him then he is obviously entitled to stick to his guns. although I would guess that Rangers could make it difficult for him as he has his career to worry about and as such it may be in his best interest to consider a negotiation.

 

I have been criticial of Bain in the past for not minimising the club's costs, so it would be hypocritical of me not to hope that he is successful to the player's detriment. Nothing against Gow, just wanting Rangers to minimise any cash going out of the club.

 

I would disagree with the fact that he is being sacked. Players are put up for sale all the time. It doesn't mean that they are sacked. He could always do a Balde and see out his contract.

[calscot 0]

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.

 

He's only entitled to a percentage of the fee if it's written in his contract, and I would expect that he will be getting either that (say 10%) or a signing on fee.

 

He is not being sacked as if he turns down the transfer he will still be an employee of RFC. When you're sacked you're gone.

 

He has a binding contract, for which Rangers are trying to negotiate a mutual termination.

 

If the contract was so binding then there would be no such thing as transfers and Gow would just have to wait till his ends before he can leave.

 

Like I said, it's in BOTH parties interest that an agreeable settlement is made to mutually end the contract. However, neither side are reaching an agreement and I can see Gow ruining his career for the sake of greed when it's unlikely he'll lose any money.

 

His difficulty to negotiate with will also be noted by any potential new employers and so he might not have too many offers at the end of the day, if he sits out his Rangers contract.

[craig 5,199]

I am not convinced that being difficult to negotiate and then sitting out your contract would put off any potential suitors. Football is a business these days and most people have short memories.

 

It is in their interests to mutually terminate, of that there is no doubt.

 

However, if his contract says he gets, say, 50% of any subsequent transfer fee, then it makes not one bit of difference whether he gets a signing-on fee from another club - the reality is that his contract stipulates he gets the fee (this is supposition - but then we all are supposing things here as we dont know the contract) then he gets the fee. If anyone would be to blame for not considering he could be financially better off by getting said fee PLUS a signing-on fee elsewhere then it should be those within the club who offered him that clause in the contract.

 

Rangers are getting a fee for him - he cost them nothing - so the club are making money out of him (on transfer fees) and the only cost to them will be wages - and I can't imagine he was earning a significant wage anyway.

[Super_Ally 0]

JMS are you close to Gow?

 

No insinuations on my part, just can't remember if you have previously stated that you are, as that is the way your posts come across.

 

[craig 5,199]

JMS are you close to Gow?

 

No insinuations on my part, just can't remember if you have previously stated that you are, as that is the way your posts come across.

 

 

 

Am pretty sure that JMS did indeed confirm that he knows Gow or is "close" at least.

[Super_Ally 0]

It seemed obvious from his recent posting. Didn't want to make an incorrect assumption though. Just wanted to know "where he was coming from". In no way trying to discredit what he has to say, was just curious.

[calscot 0]

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.....).

 

There are two sides to a contract and Gow is only entitled to his side if he performs his obligations - that is to "work" for Rangers till the contract expires. He signed it, so he'll have to stick to it and wait till it ends.

 

However, Rangers are now negotiating a mutual end to the contract, his entitlements now are to haggle but ultimately he can only accept or refuse the final offer. After that he has no entitlements. He's perfectly entitled to fight for a billion pounds if he wants but he's not going to get it and it doesn't seem to be fair sum. Asking Rangers to stump up his wages till the end of his contract without doing the work also doesn't seem fair to me.

 

I'm entitled to make a judgment on that, and I consider him too greedy.

 

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.

 

The point is that you're entitled not to pay, but if you don't just think of yourself and your finances you don't always call in your full entitlement. I think if I had a great meal with friends and the service was wonderful, I'd judge my friends as "tight" if they didn't put a decent tip in or pay the service charge that they could afford, even though they'd be perfectly entitled not to.

 

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 ?

 

I did want to use it but it worked intermittently and basically they gave me false information and ultimately conned me. They told me that my area had a strong signal but I was finding it difficult to get a signal in convenient locations in my house and back garden. In the end I had to sit at my front window all the time and couldn't even go into my back garden.

 

The download rate started off ok but deteriorated to about 12kbits/s or less and not even a smidgen of the 3.5Gbit/s advertised. It also crashed after around 2 hours of use EVERY time despite exchanging the dongle twice.

 

It seemed to me that with all those complaints, it would be reasonable just to cancel my contract - vodaphone would no longer supply me and could stop paying them and try someone else. They could not lose except money they didn't deserve. I didn't even mind handing back my dongle and write off the �£50 I paid for it.

 

A decent thinking and moral company would have obliged but all they offered me was for me to pay my contract off early - for more than it would cost to keep it going... Just like Gow. I'm furious about that and they pretty much told me that I would waste my time taking them to court as they were covered by the small print - and because I had a two week "acceptance" period.

 

In the end I found it worked fine on my brother's computer where he lives and so sold him my contract for a discount.

 

Vodaphone may have conned me out of my money, but they will lose in that I will NEVER again sign any contract with them and will warn other people about their lies and poor customer service.

 

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.

 

The product wasn't as advertised and didn't live up to expecations, and it could be Gow is the same. However, I've been able to "transfer" my contract, but Rangers can't. Although I do realise, Rangers have the opportunity to make a profit. But then this is like me trying to sell my contract and dongle to someone else for a profit, but Vodaphone want to charge me for the rest of my contract even though they will be paid by the new owner. I still think that is wrong. So your analogy falls down.

 

What has Gow done wrong which makes him immoral to want to receive the contractual obligation ?

 

At the risk of repeating he wants HIS obligations while not fulfilling his side of the contract. That sounds greedy to me. Rangers have supplied another company to pay his contract so why does he need more?

 

Immoral might be the wrong word but I'd say he's being very unreasonable.

 

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.

 

When it comes down to it, the fault is most likely to ultimately lie with the player. He's obviously not fulfilling all the needs of his manager whether it's not playing well enough or his attitude. There is stuff we just don't know but plenty of other players are getting a game. In the end if he's not in the manager's plans it's in both parties interest to negotiate a transfer.

 

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.

 

Again he's not holding them to the contract, he wants to terminate the contract and get paid anyway. I would feel shafted if anyone I hired did that to me. And I do feel shafted by Vodaphone.

Edited January 5, 2009 by calscot

[calscot 0]

I am not convinced that being difficult to negotiate and then sitting out your contract would put off any potential suitors. Football is a business these days and most people have short memories.

 

You're probably right there but it usually depends on how talented you are, how long the memories go...

 

It is in their interests to mutually terminate, of that there is no doubt.

 

 

However, if his contract says he gets, say, 50% of any subsequent transfer fee, then it makes not one bit of difference whether he gets a signing-on fee from another club - the reality is that his contract stipulates he gets the fee (this is supposition - but then we all are supposing things here as we dont know the contract) then he gets the fee.

 

If that's in his contract then it's a different story. I didn't know he had 50% of the fee written in. If that's the case and Rangers are playing hardball then it is Rangers in the wrong. Although as you say they are perfectly entitled to say no.

 

Rangers are getting a fee for him - he cost them nothing - so the club are making money out of him (on transfer fees) and the only cost to them will be wages - and I can't imagine he was earning a significant wage anyway.

 

But that is the nature of football, Bosman has shifted things but transfer fees still persist. You make it sound as if Gow is just not playing the game.

 

It still sounds to me that for him to transfer to Wolves would be the win-win for both parties.

[craig 5,199]

You're probably right there but it usually depends on how talented you are, how long the memories go...

 

 

 

If that's in his contract then it's a different story. I didn't know he had 50% of the fee written in. If that's the case and Rangers are playing hardball then it is Rangers in the wrong. Although as you say they are perfectly entitled to say no.

 

 

 

But that is the nature of football, Bosman has shifted things but transfer fees still persist. You make it sound as if Gow is just not playing the game.

 

It still sounds to me that for him to transfer to Wolves would be the win-win for both parties.

 

I don't know if he has 50% written into his contract cal - I think that is the point I am making which is none of us truly know what is happening here - which is why there is so much debate surrounding Gow and his situation - we are all in the dark !

 

I am not trying to paint Gow in a positive light, just suggesting that if a contract stipulates something then anyone under their contract has a right to seek it to be implemented. That goes, again, in both directions. It almost reminds me of the Michael Ball situation where Gers refused to play him because it would trigger a clause in the contract with Everton meaning we would have to pay an additional fee. Contractually Rangers were in the right but we looked pretty bad by doing so. Who is right and who is wrong in this instance ? Who knows !!

 

His transfer to Wolves is only win-win if the player ends up financially as secure as he is with Rangers (financially..... if he loses money but gives his career a kick-start once more then one mitigates the other and ultimately is win-win - depending, of course, on just how much less he would be getting paid). It is a win for Rangers as they 1. get a transfer fee which would mitigate the wages they have paid the player and 2. get a salary off the books.

 

I would have liked Alan Gow to have been given a chance at LM - he had a good season the year before with Falkirk, looked decent in his fleeting appearances with us and, most importantly, no-one has nailed down that position for us this year. However, he isn't being quoted so it makes sense for all concerned (fans included) to move on !

[calscot 0]

I see what you're saying Craig.