deco19761 1,006 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Captain Hilts said: He was always a very competent international keeper before we signed him and he showed nothing in the games that he played to suggest this was no longer the case. Letting a player who was 6 months in to a 2 year contract walk for fuck all is a joke, and it's not the first time it's happened under this board and Warburton. We could've easily got a few hundred grant at least for him from a English Championship side IMO. Exactly. Same old shit from a new shitty board.it eill be the same if MOH is let go. Bought him for 500k. Be sold for.100k same old shit. Martin bain took all sorts from our club cos he was getting back handers I am certain of it. Took a fee less than a player was.worth ,the club rjat bought him were happy. Bain was happy and the only cunts to be royally fucked was our club. I fear the same rules will apply with this board. Fucking shambles Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Gaz52 said: And doesn't make any sense considering Gilks is obviously the one who wants away, so we did have to pay it to bring another keeper in. It makes perfect sense. Gilks was our player, under contract. If we can't get money then we don't have to release him just because he wants away. There's a few routes we could go down : promote Kelly to number 2, tell Gilks he can leave at the end of the season or find another goalkeeper that will come as back-up for free. The worst thing we can do is release Gilks and spend quarter of a million on a back-up goalkeeper replacement and in true fashion that's what we appear to have done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gaz52 said: And doesn't make any sense considering Gilks is obviously the one who wants away, so we did have to pay it to bring another keeper in. The thing is Gaz if the post above is true about Gilks being on a two year deal (18 months to go) then the wage difference will need to be huge for it to make sense IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarrosa 124 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Bears r us said: It seems very strange to me, and wonder what the difference in wages would be considering the deal seems to have cost us £250K. If he's on £2k a week less, then in 125 weeks we'll have broke even Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Jimbeamjunior said: Prove himself by being a number 2 to a pretty young keeper as well, thats good strategy right there Our club is a shambles, mind we sold lewis macleod. For 750 grand and the board got abused for it But the point is Gilks wanted away and was linked with a move before Alnwicks name came up So the move makes perfect sense. But ignore all that and moan at the board. I'm no fan of DK either but even I can give him a break on this one Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,954 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Captain Hilts said: He was always a very competent international keeper before we signed him and he showed nothing in the games that he played to suggest this was no longer the case. Letting a player who was 6 months in to a 2 year contract walk for fuck all is a joke, and it's not the first time it's happened under this board and Warburton. We could've easily got a few hundred grant at least for him from a English Championship side IMO. Not Warburtons fault, if gilks wanted away then its the board that deals with him and other clubs Remember we currently have two board members who sat on a previous board while paying off guys like burke, darcheville and others, and they brilliantly got us a few hundred grand for Charlie adam who was a 9mill player 2 years later Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Gaz52 said: But the point is Gilks wanted away and was linked with a move before Alnwicks name came up So the move makes perfect sense. But ignore all that and moan at the board. I'm no fan of DK either but even I can give him a break on this one What part of he's our player, under contract and 6 months into a 2 year deal don't you understand? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,954 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Gaz52 said: But the point is Gilks wanted away and was linked with a move before Alnwicks name came up So the move makes perfect sense. But ignore all that and moan at the board. I'm no fan of DK either but even I can give him a break on this one The move makes sense? We just spent 250 grand on a position we were very secure in, all because a player wasn't happy Quick release waghorn and buy someone for 250k Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fantana 28,894 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gaz52 said: People are missing the point that Gilks wanted away due to a lack of football. We can either keep paying his wages or let him go as no team is willing to buy him. Then if Wes needs replacing we put the guy in we forced to stay against his will? Aye good one Like we get Craig Gordon go (if you believe his story over Allys)? Gordon seemingly would have signed if he had been offered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 a nominal fee would have been nice. We could have put it towards fixing our dodgy roof The wages difference must be significant if we are paying £250K for a player and still saving money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Gilks appear d to be a more than capable back up, so to let him go for free, if he has, is a totally weird one. He must of been on a hefty whack if we needed to free him that bad to bring in a keeper valued at £250k. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterD 7,446 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, K.A.I said: What part of he's our player, under contract and 6 months into a 2 year deal don't you understand? Yep. He should have been told he was either honouring his contract, someone was paying for him, or he could buy out his own contract. Having a player want to leave so you just allow him to is dreadfully weak. Letting them go then spending £250k to replace him is poor from the manager & the board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Barbarrosa said: If he's on £2k a week less, then in 125 weeks we'll have broke even IF indeed and two and a half years down the line we might break even. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hilts 12,819 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gaz52 said: People are missing the point that Gilks wanted away due to a lack of football. We can either keep paying his wages or let him go as no team is willing to buy him. Then if Wes needs replacing we put the guy in we forced to stay against his will? Aye good one I'm 99% sure that Warburton would've told Gilks when he arrived that he would be nothing more than a back up to Foderingham this season and would play in cup games. I can only assume that Gilks has received an offer of regular playing time at another club that he didn't expect to receive and has asked for a move. Either way, he still had a lengthy time left on his contract and I really can't see how paying him off rather than getting some kind of fee for him does us any good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,654 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 "He wanted to leave but". So? We wanted money for him..... Soft touch as usual Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 72,135 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Best of luck to him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 After making a few posts about what seems stupidity do we really know Gilks has left on a free ?? If not some of us might be scraping the egg of our faces later on tonight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Does this also mean Kelly will shortly be surplus and let go for free? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,654 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Bears r us said: After making a few posts about what seems stupidity do we really know Gilks has left on a free ?? If not some of us might be scraping the egg of our faces later on tonight. Seems highly unlikely we've received a fee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Bears r us said: After making a few posts about what seems stupidity do we really know Gilks has left on a free ?? If not some of us might be scraping the egg of our faces later on tonight. its you thats got the egg on your face. madrid have signed him for 80 gazzillion spanish dubloons Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,954 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Whats more worrying is that if we did indeed let him go, and no doubt we will pay port vale in installements, maybe conditional payments etc Are we that struggling financially that we rid a high wage keeper for a small wage keeper that we'll barely pay for this season Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, BridgeIsBlue said: Seems highly unlikely we've received a fee. I have no doubt you are right, but just thought I might be jumping the gun after making a few posts saying how stupid releasing Gilks on a free would be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, cushynumber said: its you thats got the egg on your face. madrid have signed him for 80 gazzillion spanish dubloons I was indeed including myself in the possible egg application to said mugs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersfansmediawatch 1,055 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Would much rather have kept him, It's looking like he has came to a mutual agreement with the club to terminate his contract,Hopefully that's all it is and hopefully we haven't once again filled another players pockets. Smashing big keeper and never put a foot wrong in the games he did play, All the best big Gilks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said: Whats more worrying is that if we did indeed let him go, and no doubt we will pay port vale in installements, maybe conditional payments etc Are we that struggling financially that we rid a high wage keeper for a small wage keeper that we'll barely pay for this season If it were that bad we could have just used Kelly as the back up surely? Dont see this as a financial cutback. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.