graeme_4 35,186 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Has he actually left for free? Does anyone know what his wage was? Does anyone know what the new keepers wage is? What's the expected sell-on value of the new guy once he's developed? More than the £100K or so Gilks is probably worth? Overall, what option would be likely to be more profitable? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Some short sighted moaners on here. We have a 23 year old who's true value is already a multiple of what we just payed for him. We have 2 assets now fighting it out. Either could come out on top. We could make millions off either one in future. Gilks was steady and available back up. He arrive for free, did his job and served his purpose. We have just moved forward not backwards. This is excellent business. 2 talented keepers at a good age, with good reputations in England. Both saleable assets. Both can improve with us. Both are schooled in playing out from the back the way our manager wants. Total cost 250k. I don't see the downside. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 72,135 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, trueblueal said: Some short sighted moaners on here. We have a 23 year old who's true value is already a multiple of what we just payed for him. We have 2 assets now fighting it out. Either could come out on top. We could make millions off either one in future. Gilks was steady and available back up. He arrive for free, did his job and served his purpose. We have just moved forward not backwards. This is excellent business. 2 talented keepers at a good age, with good reputations in England. Both saleable assets. Both can improve with us. Both are schooled in playing out from the back the way our manager wants. Total cost 250k. I don't see the downside. Spending money on a position we don't exactly need, would rather it went on a centre back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 29 minutes ago, K.A.I said: It's not a case of seeing negatives we are taking it literally on face value anyone saying ah but he MIGHT have something in his contract are the reachers not the other way about Exactly. His contract may have had a clause in it, he may have been negotiating with the club to say he wants to be playing and happy to leave for free. One thing for sure, we will never know the exacts. On face value I personally have no issues, we have lost a 34 year old n gained a younger keeper with potential to develop and make money on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Maybe there isn't a long term centre back option avaiable in our bracket? We seem to be trying for Oxford, I'm quite sire the manager knows what we need. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said: Exactly. His contract may have had a clause in it, he may have been negotiating with the club to say he wants to be playing and happy to leave for free. One thing for sure, we will never know the exacts. On face value I personally have no issues, we have lost a 34 year old n gained a younger keeper with potential to develop and make money on. Then again there might be no such clause Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raging blue 1972 894 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 If Gilks wanted away then odds on he has another club lined up,. In that case we should have been looking for a fee. Also if (and I say if because I have no idea) this boy is not as good then we have effectively wasted a quarter of a million (if reports are correct) weakening our team Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 14 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Then again there might be no such clause Obviously. That's the nature of a forum, people speculate and give opinions. Gilks always came across as a decent professional. If it's clear to him that he is on the bench every week at 34 he probably thinks I want to end my career playing and is good enough to do so. Best letting him go that forcing somebody with no value to see out his deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 17 hours ago, Bears r us said: 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. Or we have replaced one good keeper with a better, younger keeper with more potential and thus a good investment and released a player who is looking for first team football and who may have lost his motivation. We don't need to look for a negative slant all the time - then again this is Rangersmedia! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozblue 4,332 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 hours ago, trueblueal said: Maybe there isn't a long term centre back option avaiable in our bracket? We seem to be trying for Oxford, I'm quite sire the manager knows what we need. This is what a lot of fans don't take into consideration and it is not only centre backs who fall into that category; for example I was just reading that Aaron Mooy a 26 yr old Australian central midfielder who once played for St.Mirren has been the subject of an $11 million bid from an English championship club, but was turned down by his parent club,Manchester City. Now this is a tactic of the Abu Dhabi United Group the parent company of The City Football Group who own Manchester City. They own other clubs under their umbrella, namely; Melbourne City FC (previously Melbourne Heart) , New York City FC, and have shares in Yokohama F Marinos; they can take the likes of Mooy from Melbourne City to Manchester City then loan them out to other clubs (in Mooy's case, Huddersfield Town) then either bring them back to Manchester City if they are good enough or sell them at a profit. Now Mooy is a decent enough midfielder but nothing special, so if City are knocking back an offer of $11 million for him, what fucking chance do we have of getting a quality player when we are fishing in a pond of journeymen and free transfers? Certainly there will be players available who would do a better job than our current players, but it's another thing getting them and being able to shell out the required transfer fees to even start negotiations with their current clubs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears r us 30,998 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 50 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said: Or we have replaced one good keeper with a better, younger keeper with more potential and thus a good investment and released a player who is looking for first team football and who may have lost his motivation. We don't need to look for a negative slant all the time - then again this is Rangersmedia! You might be right old chap, but we seem to be so good at giving away players for no fee, which is rather annoying since we seem to have so little money. It is possible that we have got a fee but if we have it would be nice to be told. EDIT: it seems we have got a fee, hopefully it was for more than 20 pence Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prso's headband 35,928 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well least the board didn't fuck this one up. Apparently we got an undisclosed fee for Gilks to Wigan according to official Rangers page. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShanksRFC 3,870 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Moved to Wigan for an undisclosed fee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozblue 4,332 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Prso's headband said: Well least the board didn't fuck this one up. Apparently we got an undisclosed fee for Gilks to Wigan according to official Rangers page. Best of luck to MG at Wigan. He never let us down and I can't blame him for wanting game time especially at his age. It was a pretty hard gig trying to oust big Wes with the kind of form he has been in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prso's headband 35,928 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, Ozblue said: Best of luck to MG at Wigan. He never let us down and I can't blame him for wanting game time especially at his age. It was a pretty hard gig trying to oust big Wes with the kind of form he has been in. Yeah I liked him. Social media would have you believe the better keeper left Some rockets out there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShanksRFC 3,870 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Prso's headband said: Yeah I liked him. Social media would have you believe the better keeper left Some rockets out there. A lot of casual fans on social media who rarely watch any of our games bar Old firms. Some shite spouted on those fan pages, I've had to unfollow most of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeWallaceRFC 3,920 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 So in the end we did actually get a fee for him... this thread Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackrfc95 4,255 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 So after all that, it appears there was a fee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFyfe 1,438 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I wonder how much we got for him He put in some good performances Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranter 136 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 If we've got a fee for Gilks it seems good for everybody. He gets a better chance of game time and we've got a seemingly good young keeper coming in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemac 5,076 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I wouldn't mind betting we got the exact same figure that we paid for alnwick. Or as close to as possible, and alnwick will be coming in on lower wages (few grand a week I should expect maximum) so overall it has cost us nothing. Therefore because gilks was a freebie, we've essentially got alnwick on a freebie. Good deal tbh. What people also fail to consider is our youngsters might not be good enough. An injury to big Wes and a kid coming in as back up from our academy, a few sour performances and it'll devastate the lad, knock his confidence and could drift off into obscurity, all the while you lot that pray for our academy players to get a chance slaughter him. I remember seeing all the slagging posts about McKay. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Soprano 13,964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, LeeWallaceRFC said: So in the end we did actually get a fee for him... this thread in before somecunt says they heard it was 5 ton and a freddo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKirk 25,811 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 18month loan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 We got 50 million Dembele dollars for him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozblue 4,332 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, Prso's headband said: Yeah I liked him. Social media would have you believe the better keeper left Some rockets out there. I remember there were posters on here who wanted Foderingham dropped after Gilks debut;Fucking unbelievable. Gilks never put a foot wrong in the games he played, but even thinking about dropping Foderingham was total lunacy. I said at the time that Gilks could arguably be first choice for the majority of clubs in the Premier league, just a shame for him so could big Wes. 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.