Did Mcgregor And Zaluskis Get Paid Of?

[DeanMK 4,656]

Even if they were paid their salaries in full it would be cheaper for the club than keeping them on the books

Not enough to justify not holding out for a transfer fee.

[the_r_sole 366]

Not enough to justify not holding out for a transfer fee.

What kind of transfer fees would you imagine these two could command?

they were both in the last years of their contract so holding on to them would have very likely meant paying for them to sit on their arse whilst paying their wages and all of the employers costs then losing them for nothing...

the cost to rangers for employing these guys would be significant, it makes good business sense, if you've ever employed anyone you will understand this

[Alec87 331]

Don't know about zal but been told Darren got 75k, which was a third of what he would have been due to pay off his contract.

Is that you Darren ?

[DeanMK 4,656]

What kind of transfer fees would you imagine these two could command?

they were both in the last years of their contract so holding on to them would have very likely meant paying for them to sit on their arse whilst paying their wages and all of the employers costs then losing them for nothing...

the cost to rangers for employing these guys would be significant, it makes good business sense, if you've ever employed anyone you will understand this

Even if they'd been sold on for £1k we'd be making money by not having to pay out their remaining contract.

[TheMotor 2,208]

Even if they'd been sold on for £1k we'd be making money by not having to pay out their remaining contract.

Nobody would sign them, full stop.

Neither has had a stellar career, both have a history of injuries, 30+ years old and getting paid 2 or 3 times the salary of most other players at a similar level. Played in a team who were overwhelming favourites to win our league but couldn't even get promoted via the play-offs.

[DeanMK 4,656]

Nobody would sign them, full stop.

Neither has had a stellar career, both have a history of injuries, 30+ years old and getting paid 2 or 3 times the salary of most other players at a similar level. Played in a team who were overwhelming favourites to win our league but couldn't even get promoted via the play-offs.

Hibs signed Darren McGregor?

[GOAT 30,449]

Fuck sake no wonder cunts can't stand this forum at times, the guy asks a question and he's a tarrier?

[TheMotor 2,208]

Hibs signed Darren McGregor?

Yes, because they didn't have to pay any fee to us or him and they could get him on a reduced salary because we gave him £75K.

[DeanMK 4,656]

Yes, because they didn't have to pay any fee to us or him and they could get him on a reduced salary because we gave him £75K.

So if this £75k is true then my original point stands. He'll not have been paid his entire contract in a lump some like I've heard people speculate.

[TheMotor 2,208]

So if this £75k is true then my original point stands. He'll not have been paid his entire contract in a lump some like I've heard people speculate.

Sorry, I didn't see your original point. No, not the full contract. That's pretty rare, although it can happen.

[BigDak 781]

the cost to rangers for employing these guys would be significant, it makes good business sense, if you've ever employed anyone you will understand this

I was always under the impression football players were paid through a company, i.e. Darren McGregor Ltd, so that it wasn't wages the club was paying but a fee to the company for his services.

Darren McGregor Ltd then pays the shareholders in Darren McGregor Ltd dividends and Darren McGregor works out a nice wee tax efficient way of getting paid.

Therefore, Rangers aren't really being penalised by paying the added extras that companies do on employees wages.

[the_r_sole 366]

Even if they'd been sold on for £1k we'd be making money by not having to pay out their remaining contract.

It's very likely they wouldn't have been sold on because they were under contract and a club would know they would therefore command a transfer fee. They were in the last year of their contracts so much easier for a skint club to let us keep paying them and take them on a free at the end of the year

The cost of having them at the club is much greater than their salary, therefore it makes sense to agree a payoff based on their salary to get them off the pay roll given that they wouldn't be contributing to the club - if they were on ~ 5k a week it would be costing us more than that in NI contributions alone

[the_r_sole 366]

I was always under the impression football players were paid through a company, i.e. Darren McGregor Ltd, so that it wasn't wages the club was paying but a fee to the company for his services.

Darren McGregor Ltd then pays the shareholders in Darren McGregor Ltd dividends and Darren McGregor works out a nice wee tax efficient way of getting paid.

Therefore, Rangers aren't really being penalised by paying the added extras that companies do on employees wages.

not sure about that tbh - but i've only ever seen the few leaked payslip that did the rounds and none of them seemed to be set up like that

I think it would be a bit too obvious you are acting as an employee given the regular amounts etc, can't remember what the criteria are, i'm sure they'd be paying for the best accounting too!

[BigDak 781]

It's very likely they wouldn't have been sold on because they were under contract and a club would know they would therefore command a transfer fee. They were in the last year of their contracts so much easier for a skint club to let us keep paying them and take them on a free at the end of the year

The cost of having them at the club is much greater than their salary, therefore it makes sense to agree a payoff based on their salary to get them off the pay roll given that they wouldn't be contributing to the club - if they were on ~ 5k a week it would be costing us more than that in NI contributions alone

Surely though if

It's very likely they wouldn't have been sold on because they were under contract and a club would know they would therefore command a transfer fee. They were in the last year of their contracts so much easier for a skint club to let us keep paying them and take them on a free at the end of the year

The cost of having them at the club is much greater than their salary, therefore it makes sense to agree a payoff based on their salary to get them off the pay roll given that they wouldn't be contributing to the club - if they were on ~ 5k a week it would be costing us more than that in NI contributions alone

Just for the purposes of discussion, surely if we had put the feelers out telling clubs that we'd sell the players for £1,000 that would've allowed any club to come in for them and let us sell them on without having to pay costs for "mutually" consenting to end their contract.

Or does the club buying the player have to pay the selling club to essentially break the contract between them and the player which had another year to run?

not sure about that tbh - but i've only ever seen the few leaked payslip that did the rounds and none of them seemed to be set up like that

I think it would be a bit too obvious you are acting as an employee given the regular amounts etc, can't remember what the criteria are, i'm sure they'd be paying for the best accounting too!

A couple of friends of mine do this in the field they're in. It's not illegal or anything (and I think it's quite common place) and basically Darren McGregor Ltd pay Darren McGregor's wages, probably at the minimum wage, for the best tax efficiency, and fee out his time to Rangers.

Basically like what would happen if Rangers wanted to re-paint Ibrox. They'd get in touch with a painter who would charge Rangers a fee for providing the painting service and then pay their employees wages.

So Darren McGregor Ltd charges Rangers £5K/week (for example) for services provided by them and then pays DMcG wages.

I don't know if that happens (and you say you've seen payslips from Rangers) but I would think the players would be trying to be as tax efficient as possible.

[the_r_sole 366]

Just for the purposes of discussion, surely if we had put the feelers out telling clubs that we'd sell the players for £1,000 that would've allowed any club to come in for them and let us sell them on without having to pay costs for "mutually" consenting to end their contract.

Or does the club buying the player have to pay the selling club to essentially break the contract between them and the player which had another year to run?

I guess it's all negotiated, but the danger would be that the players wouldn't jump for less wages and no signing on fee if they were under contract with much better terms. And I would imagine the minimum terms for selling the player are set out in the contract.

Ending the contract makes it easier for everyone as there is nothing to hamper a move to a new employer (especially this close to the end of the window - you would also think their agents would have been trying to pimp them anywhere!)

A couple of friends of mine do this in the field they're in. It's not illegal or anything (and I think it's quite common place) and basically Darren McGregor Ltd pay Darren McGregor's wages, probably at the minimum wage, for the best tax efficiency, and fee out his time to Rangers.

Basically like what would happen if Rangers wanted to re-paint Ibrox. They'd get in touch with a painter who would charge Rangers a fee for providing the painting service and then pay their employees wages.

So Darren McGregor Ltd charges Rangers £5K/week (for example) for services provided by them and then pays DMcG wages.

I don't know if that happens (and you say you've seen payslips from Rangers) but I would think the players would be trying to be as tax efficient as possible.

not seen ones from rangers, there were a few leaked ones (tevez at utd, riise at liverpool, sure I saw dion dublins or someone too) - I can't remember the criteria hmrc put on an employee as opposed to an independent consultant

I know some people working off shore do it, but when you've got a varied work load it's a bit more straight forward...

If they weren't working as employee surely we would never have had the ebt issue at all?

And was it not the employers NI contributions that Whyte didn't pay?

[BigDak 781]

I guess it's all negotiated, but the danger would be that the players wouldn't jump for less wages and no signing on fee if they were under contract with much better terms. And I would imagine the minimum terms for selling the player are set out in the contract.

Ending the contract makes it easier for everyone as there is nothing to hamper a move to a new employer (especially this close to the end of the window - you would also think their agents would have been trying to pimp them anywhere!)

not seen ones from rangers, there were a few leaked ones (tevez at utd, riise at liverpool, sure I saw dion dublins or someone too) - I can't remember the criteria hmrc put on an employee as opposed to an independent consultant

I know some people working off shore do it, but when you've got a varied work load it's a bit more straight forward...

If they weren't working as employee surely we would never have had the ebt issue at all?

And was it not the employers NI contributions that Whyte didn't pay?

Good points.

Aye, you're right, it was NI contributions he held back and employee loans that were paid.

My mate's in oil and gas too and he gets paid via a company then just takes dividends.

Maybe the football association require them to be employees so they have rights etc.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

Even if they'd been sold on for £1k we'd be making money by not having to pay out their remaining contract.

Aye we would. Unless the players waived their right to a pay off.

A contract must be fully paid unless the player agrees to something else. That's why some players just sit around collecting wages even if another team wants them.

[KeyserSoze 14,513]

Im sure he will fight to keep any players that other clubs might be interested in but the economic reality is that if good offers are made for good players the club will look at selling.This is counterbalanced by the fact that as one good player departs then another good find replaces him.Im pretty sure you will find that this might well be the MW and Rangers way for the future.

I really hope that we are in a position in the future to tell anyone but Barcelona to fuck off.... that is my wish. I don't wish to have a rotating door with players never settling properly etc.... but understand that sometimes "money talks" - I hope we get that balance right and we don't end up like Murderwell or Scumdee Utd who sell there better players at the expense of success... it's a hard one to judge, that's for sure.

[TheMotor 2,208]

Surely though if

Just for the purposes of discussion, surely if we had put the feelers out telling clubs that we'd sell the players for £1,000 that would've allowed any club to come in for them and let us sell them on without having to pay costs for "mutually" consenting to end their contract.

Or does the club buying the player have to pay the selling club to essentially break the contract between them and the player which had another year to run?

A couple of friends of mine do this in the field they're in. It's not illegal or anything (and I think it's quite common place) and basically Darren McGregor Ltd pay Darren McGregor's wages, probably at the minimum wage, for the best tax efficiency, and fee out his time to Rangers.

Basically like what would happen if Rangers wanted to re-paint Ibrox. They'd get in touch with a painter who would charge Rangers a fee for providing the painting service and then pay their employees wages.

So Darren McGregor Ltd charges Rangers £5K/week (for example) for services provided by them and then pays DMcG wages.

I don't know if that happens (and you say you've seen payslips from Rangers) but I would think the players would be trying to be as tax efficient as possible.

You can't do it because it contravenes third party ownership rules.

It's not illegal, just against the FA rules in this, and many other, countries.

[johnOban 64]

Thanks for some good amswers and views. Think some of the posters on here should think first before accusing me of being a tarrier ?

[BigDak 781]

You can't do it because it contravenes third party ownership rules.

It's not illegal, just against the FA rules in this, and many other, countries.

What contravenes third party ownership rules?