Jump to content

Pay fines if we do not play Kent


Smile

Recommended Posts

It can't be good for a player to know he'll get picked regardless of form and effort because it will cost the club money not to play him.

Nor can it be good for either club. Players are taken on loan with a view to helping them and the club, but if it turns out the player isn't good enough or isn't putting in the effort then the club shouldn't be fined for leaving him out

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Middleton came from norwich, he isnt even a product of our academy lol

Middelton was picked up and put in to the academy.  The same is true of guys like Bates.  They're not signed for the first team we're looking to develop them until they're good enough for the first-team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Siwel said:

The run up to the last 3 Old Firm games we’ve conveniently seen 3 different players coming out claiming the sectarianism by Rangers fans was horrendous. Even Didier Agathe saying he had to take an armoured car to training, move house 9 times and people shouted “agathe loves curry” at him in matches :lol:

they need to make things up .

 

the only vaguely racist thing I think they could come up with that would be true 

is 

Nakamura ate my dog 

???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever way you want to spin the arrangement, it raises the possibility that reasons other than performance and ability may influence the manager’s team selection.  Can’t say I’m very keen on this, even more so due to Gerrard’s background and close relationship with Liverpool.

We don’t need any more ’Warburtonesque’ decisions, where relations with the loanee’s club takes precedence over what might be best for our team in any game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

If we wanted him from any other EPL club there would likely be a fee.

Liverpool waive the need for that fee to be upfront.

We only pay said fee if we don’t utilise / develop him enough. 

Would far rather this situation, than paying upfront. 

I honestly don’t see the problem at all mate. As you say it’s actually a decent enough situation to be in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Siwel said:

We’re not gonna play him just because we want to save a bit of cash.

I'd hope not but wouldn't be surprised.

To save cash there's been at least a couple of players in our recent past that were rumoured not to be picked to play because further games would mean activating an additional payment clause 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not thrilled about this signing but it's a pretty great deal having it done this way. If he's shite we'll have to pay the fee we would have to for any other loan signing, if he's good we'll be getting a decent addition for free

Nothing to moan about here at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orangeclement said:

At no point in that article does it say we will have to pay a fee if he doesn't play ......

Glad I skipped article and read last post. Seems a ludicrous idea, too many take tabloids shite too seriously.

Please think seriously before you post anything in the tabloids. Freddy Starr never, ever ate a hamster, and Rangers never died.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it the only downside would be if the boy isn't good enough, but in this instance it's not as if we're taking a chance on an unknown player who's been recommended to us or by video shots, Gerrard knows how good he is and must believe he will be a good addition and will probably get enough game time in order to waive the loan fee, personally I'm much more happy with this situation than taking a chance on a complete unknown prospect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, To Be A Ranger said:

I'd hope not but wouldn't be surprised.

To save cash there's been at least a couple of players in our recent past that were rumoured not to be picked to play because further games would mean activating an additional payment clause 

Michael Ball comes to mind . IIRC , he waived ( or deferred ) money owed to him whilst also negotiating a settlement with Everton , in order to play a part in the remaining games of the Helicopter Sunday 2 season !

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Goosetav said:

McGregor and Arfield don't have any pedigree?

Arfield had a mediocre career unless you think Burnley brilliant McGregor at the end of his career and came from Hull. 

Not really the quality I expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

If we wanted him from any other EPL club there would likely be a fee.

Liverpool waive the need for that fee to be upfront.

We only pay said fee if we don’t utilise / develop him enough. 

Would far rather this situation, than paying upfront. 

Too much common sense in this post 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bad Robot said:

Agreed and is it just me or do we keep getting players who aren't getting regular starts from the teams they are coming from which isn’t a great sign

hoodwinked Is a word many bears may have on their minds throughout this come season at this rate .

We better be getting at least 2/3 quality attacking additions in before the start of or we can forget being a credible challenge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...