Rossiter

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

12 minutes ago, TheKingObv said:

I doubt he's gonna accept less than his full wages in payment. Why not just keep him on the very slim chance he overcomes his problems within the next couple years? 

This. The only way this could make sense to me is if the guy is a total prick who you don’t want around the place any more. I doubt that’s the case with him.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

Has Gerrard actually mentioned him since he took over?

[Aubie92 1,074]

20 hours ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

Why would Wallace be removed? Poor and we might need him with our disciplinary issues.

He's our third choice left back; gaffer probably think Dorrans is more likely to feature if/when fit than Wallace. Even if Barišić or Flanagan get injured or suspended, he'd view Halliday as a back up option. (That and the quotas for the UEFA squad mean it's not as straightforward as just naming your best 25 players or so.) 

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

4 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

Has Gerrard actually mentioned him since he took over?

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16347861.Rangers-boss-steven-gerrard-backs-jordan-rossiter-to-recover-from-injury-setback/

[BlueSuedeSambas 53,800]

19 minutes ago, TheKingObv said:

I doubt he's gonna accept less than his full wages in payment. Why not just keep him on the very slim chance he overcomes his problems within the next couple years? 

I’d rather we took the hit, paid him off and freed up the money he’s getting for a player can actually contribute.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

3 minutes ago, DBBTB said:

I’d rather we took the hit, paid him off and freed up the money he’s getting for a player can actually contribute.

We’d pay him the money he’s getting in the payoff, there’s nothing to free up. 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

5 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16347861.Rangers-boss-steven-gerrard-backs-jordan-rossiter-to-recover-from-injury-setback/

Cheers. Nothing for 2 months then, not overly encouraging.

[gers31 246]

34 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

You don't just let someone go unfortunately.

He's contracted and is entitled to whatever those terms are for the duration. Whilst an offer can be made to ask him to rip it up (ie half what he'd be paid if  he stayed up front now if he goes), I'd imagine that's unlikely as it's us that pay medical bills, operations etc too.  I also doubt we've got that money available to give such a lump sum.

Don't think there's much of a solution unless he miraculously gets and stays fit.

As much as I agree with you mate Rossiter needs to do the right thing if he can't stay fit and rip his own contract up but can't see that happen anytime soon 

[TheKingObv 10,646]

9 minutes ago, DBBTB said:

I’d rather we took the hit, paid him off and freed up the money he’s getting for a player can actually contribute.

But we'd be paying off the same amount as the wages? Even worse it would be a lump payment instead of spread across 2 years.

[bluenoz 30,871]

After been kept off a 45 man roster, the club need to come clean on this boy. It's obviously more than a twisted ankle.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

8 minutes ago, gers31 said:

As much as I agree with you mate Rossiter needs to do the right thing if he can't stay fit and rip his own contract up but can't see that happen anytime soon 

The right thing for who? That’s definitely not the right thing for him or his family.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

11 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

Cheers. Nothing for 2 months then, not overly encouraging.

I think there have been the odd update in press conferences but not in the last couple of weeks. 

Seems like its another calf injury, like the last two injuries. Maybe that issue that he had still hasn't gone away.

[TheKingObv 10,646]

Kai has kidnapped him 

[gers31 246]

2 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

The right thing for who? That’s definitely not the right thing for him or his family.

Well not good for the club or him paying a wage to a player who can't play he's had a good wage for two years sitting on his arse 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

1 minute ago, gers31 said:

Well not good for the club or him paying a wage to a player who can't play he's had a good wage for two years sitting on his arse 

He’s been unable to play due to injury. I’m sure nobody would like him to play more than him. If his problems are as bad as some reckon, then his playing career, and ability to earn money, could be over. He’d be a fucking moron to tear up his contract.

[gers31 246]

1 minute ago, Ger_onimo said:

He’s been unable to play due to injury. I’m sure nobody would like him to play more than him. If his problems are as bad as some reckon, then his playing career, and ability to earn money, could be over. He’d be a fucking moron to tear up his contract.

I'm sure all players will be insured for that at an early age maybe not. I do feel sorry for the lad but if he does stay for the full duration and never play again for our club he will only be known as stealing a wage for four years

[Laudrupsleftfoot 10,909]

If he was 32 I could see the argument in "ripping up his contract".

If he had no ability I could see it too.

But for fuck sake at 21 and possibly one of the most talented players in the squad it's a no brainer to support him and do all that can be done to give him the best opportunity to get and keep fully fit.

[Laudrupsleftfoot 10,909]

Some cunts are all for ripping up contracts when it suits us but would moan like fuck if a player wanted to rip his contract up to get a move elsewhere.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

1 minute ago, gers31 said:

I'm sure all players will be insured for that at an early age maybe not. I do feel sorry for the lad but if he does stay for the full duration and never play again for our club he will only be known as stealing a wage for four years

Fair enough mate, that’s honestly not how I’d see it. The club takes that risk any time it signs a player on a long term contract. I assume that pre-existing issues were the reason we managed to sign such a promising youngster from England. If we didn’t do our due diligence, or did do it, and decided it was worth the risk, then that’s our problem.

Presumably the guy is spending every day trying to get fit, the idea that he’s sitting on his arse is nonsense. At the point that a doctor says he’ll never play again then yes, we come to an arrangement, but until then we are legally and morally bound to try and get him fit, and to pay him what we agreed to pay him.

[Supersonic 4,654]

36 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

Has Gerrard actually mentioned him since he took over?

I remember Gerrard saying Rossiter was the standout in the Spanish preseason trip. Spoke very highly of him. 

[Aubie92 1,074]

19 minutes ago, Ger_onimo said:

The right thing for who? That’s definitely not the right thing for him or his family.

That and if he did that and somehow overcame his injury issued, some of our fans would then be annoyed he left for nothing. 

We also don't know whether anything our coaching or medical staff have recommended have done has aggravated his injuries. 

[Mancger86 46]

1 minute ago, Ger_onimo said:

Fair enough mate, that’s honestly not how I’d see it. The club takes that risk any time it signs a player on a long term contract. I assume that pre-existing issues were the reason we managed to sign such a promising youngster from England. If we didn’t do our due diligence, or did do it, and decided it was worth the risk, then that’s our problem.

Presumably the guy is spending every day trying to get fit, the idea that he’s sitting on his arse is nonsense. At the point that a doctor says he’ll never play again then yes, we come to an arrangement, but until then we are legally and morally bound to try and get him fit, and to pay him what we agreed to pay him.

It would be like us turning round and ripping up Murphys contract how’s hes injured. It just can’t and shouldn’t work like that.

My biggest fear with the boy is he will likely end up getting fit and playing a blinder for the last 6 months of his contract and then we will end up losing him for nothing! 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

3 minutes ago, Mancger86 said:

It would be like us turning round and ripping up Murphys contract how’s hes injured. It just can’t and shouldn’t work like that.

My biggest fear with the boy is he will likely end up getting fit and playing a blinder for the last 6 months of his contract and then we will end up losing him for nothing! 

Definitely mate, he’ll  no doubt go on and have a glittering career somewhere else .

But the boy is injured, so nobody else is going to sign him.  You can’t expect him to accept a percentage of what he’s owed, give up the rehab facilities and access to medical team, and head off into certain, indefinite unemployment. It’s a ridiculous idea and I wish people would stop suggesting it.

[CoatbridgeBear 7,113]

This forums home to some of the most retarded Rangers fans man.

[Aubie92 1,074]

10 minutes ago, Mancger86 said:

It would be like us turning round and ripping up Murphys contract how’s hes injured. It just can’t and shouldn’t work like that.

My biggest fear with the boy is he will likely end up getting fit and playing a blinder for the last 6 months of his contract and then we will end up losing him for nothing! 

I think if that happens and Gerrard is still here, he'd probably stay for a season or so.

It reminds me a bit of Michael Ball - highly touted as a future England captain, but got injured early into his Rangers career and never fully recovered. (I know he joined with a minor injury, plus unlike Rossiter he was an established first team player at Everton.) Ball ended up winning a league title and league cup with us, plus a Dutch title with PSV, but never really reached the level he could have. Even setting aside the period where he wasn't appearing for us due to money we'd need to pay Everton.