Defoe's Wages

[Mor3los_1 3,672]

 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Tak3rNo1 said:

 

Aye, but who is his source and why hasn't he named them? 😉😂

[chris182 6,317]

Sunday Post having a punt now. Is on £90k p/w at Bournemouth, we're picking up £35k p/w.

Closer to the truth for me. What's Alfie on, maybe £25k?

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/Rangers-35000-per-week-gamble-on-striker-jermain-defoe/

 

[Davy Vandenbroucke 26,224]

Who gives a fuck?

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, chris182 said:

Sunday Post having a punt now. Is on £90k p/w at Bournemouth, we're picking up £35k p/w.

Closer to the truth for me. What's Alfie on, maybe £25k?

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/Rangers-35000-per-week-gamble-on-striker-jermain-defoe/

 

So that's 65k, 90k, 100k and 135k p/w that he's on so far. 😂

[beararse 6,407]

1 minute ago, chris182 said:

Sunday Post having a punt now. Is on £90k p/w at Bournemouth, we're picking up £35k p/w.

Closer to the truth for me. What's Alfie on, maybe £25k?

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/Rangers-35000-per-week-gamble-on-striker-jermain-defoe/

 

Don’t see what the big deal is to be honest.

football club pays good player an agreed wage it believes it can afford.

[beararse 6,407]

41 minutes ago, KBOO72 said:

Arthur's a strange name for a woman aswell. @beararse, is your mum called Arthur? 

In that case, applying your logic, KB0072 is a strange name .

Unless you are the bastard child of CP30 and R2D2 🙂

[rangersross 6,530]

We can afford it and he’s an exceptional signing so I’m not really fussed.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

24 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Aye, but who is his source and why hasn't he named them? 😉😂

Better watch he doesn't get sacked as apparently that's the risk if he says something he can't substantiate 😂😂😂

[The Dude 20,026]

8 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Better watch he doesn't get sacked as apparently that's the risk if he says something he can't substantiate 😂😂😂

Posting on Twitter isn't covered by IPSO's editorial code. Writing it in a national newspaper is. 😂

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Posting on Twitter isn't covered by IPSO's editorial code. Writing it in a national newspaper is. 😂

Hardly needs a source then eh.. 😁

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Hardly needs a source then eh.. 😁

Unless he's just made it up then aye, he would. Having a source for the information has absolutely no relevance to whether or not it's covered by IPSO's editors code. At least try have the slightest idea what you're talking about. It would do you a big favour.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Unless he's just made it up then aye, he would. Having a source for the information has absolutely no relevance to whether or not it's covered by IPSO's editors code. At least try have the slightest idea what you're talking about. It would do you a big favour.

He doesn't need a source, the guy yesterday doesn't need a source, no one would lose their jobs, any one can fabricate things.

You just stick to defendin the rebel 😂

 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

He doesn't need a source, the guy yesterday doesn't need a source, no one would lose their jobs, any one can fabricate things.

You just stick to defendin the rebel 😂

 

You DO need to have a source and I've never once said the guy yesterday didn't.

If you just pull a story out your arse and publish it in a paper then it leaves you liable to censure by the press watchdog.

If the original author of the Times story didn't have any source for his claims then it's something that could see them pulled up on it. Depending of on the severity of any sanctions it could well see someone binned if they just make any old shite up without it being properly sourced.

What would I know about it though, I only have to stick by it every single day of my working life. 😂

[Dan Deacon 55,514]

Just now, The Dude said:

You DO need to have a source and I've never once said the guy yesterday didn't.

If you just pull a story out your arse and publish it in a paper then it leaves you liable to censure by the press watchdog.

If the original author of the Times story didn't have any source for his claims then it's something that could see them pulled up on it. Depending of on the severity of any sanctions it could well see someone binned if they just make any old shite up without it being properly sourced.

What would I know about it though, I only have to stick by it every single day of my working life. 😂

Cunts must've been on holiday for 10 years

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Dan Deacon said:

Cunts must've been on holiday for 10 years

You ever sent them a complaint over something you've felt breached the editors code re: Rangers?

[Dan Deacon 55,514]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You ever sent them a complaint over something you've felt breached the editors code re: Rangers?

I'm no a grass

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Dan Deacon said:

I'm no a grass

They can't really do fuck all if it isn't raised with them.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You DO need to have a source and I've never once said the guy yesterday didn't.

If you just pull a story out your arse and publish it in a paper then it leaves you liable to censure by the press watchdog.

If the original author of the Times story didn't have any source for his claims then it's something that could see them pulled up on it. Depending of on the severity of any sanctions it could well see someone binned if they just make any old shite up without it being properly sourced.

What would I know about it though, I only have to stick by it every single day of my working life. 😂

Your argument yesterday was that he would have a source as to not could cost him his job. That's a fair leap ignoring the fact a complaint would have to be made, investigated, an apology or retraction would likely resolve it all. This allegation of 65k isn't a job at risk, scandalous libellous comment ffs which is why it could easily have been provided with no valid source.

And my main point was that press folk just regurgitate shite with no indication of any source / truth from the outset. That's wrong.

Press print any shite they want then 6 months later there's an apology for it being inaccurate on page 52 beside obituaries. Shower of pricks, the whole profession 👍

 

[Dan Deacon 55,514]

Just now, The Dude said:

They can't really do fuck all if it isn't raised with them.

So unless someone complains you can write what you want?

@Perth_Campsie_Ger sucked off @Goggsy

[SuperPapac05 3,383]

Obviously a sly way of trying to get the uneducated cunts out there to start asking if we're financial doping. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Your argument yesterday was that he would have a source as to not could cost him his job. That's a fair leap ignoring the fact a complaint would have to be made, investigated, an apology or retraction would likely resolve it all. This allegation if 65k isn't a job at risk, scandalous libellous comment ffs which is why it could easily have been provided with no valid source.

And my main point was that press folk just regurgitate shite with no indication of any source / truth from the outset. That's wrong.

Press print any shite they want then 6 months later there's an apology for it being inaccurate on page 52 beside obituaries. Shower of pricks, the whole profession 👍

 

He would have to have a source for it to be published at all.

Stuff is regurgitated because there's an assumption that everyone meets the same bar for publishing a story and does so within the IPSO guidelines. There's good reason why there's often no indication of who the source is. Journos have an obligation to protect the identity of any sources they have. Legally, they can't be compelled to identify a source. If you simply name your sources then there's no future info off them. It doesn't need to be scandalous or libellous to require a source. The very first clause of the editors code is about the accuracy of a story. There was one upheld just last week involving a flute band becuase their picture was used beside a story and they felt the implication was that it meant they were directly involved. Neither libellous not scandalous but still an upheld complaint by IPSO. I can safely say that NOBODY wants to have an IPSO ruling against there name because it fucks you over if/when you look to move to another outlet.

Any retraction/clarification/apology should generally be published with the same prominence as the original story.

[The Dude 20,026]

12 minutes ago, Dan Deacon said:

So unless someone complains you can write what you want?

@Perth_Campsie_Ger sucked off @Goggsy

Not quite but there certainly can't be steps taken to stop it from happening again and clarifying the original without it being complained about. Bitching and whining on here doesn't do a thing.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He would have to have a source for it to be published at all.

Stuff is regurgitated because there's an assumption that everyone meets the same bar for publishing a story and does so within the IPSO guidelines. There's good reason why there's often no indication of who the source is. Journos have an obligation to protect the identity of any sources they have. Legally, they can't be compelled to identify a source. If you simply name your sources then there's no future info off them. It doesn't need to be scandalous or libellous to require a source. The very first clause of the editors code is about the accuracy of a story. There was one upheld just last week involving a flute band becuase their picture was used beside a story and they felt the implication was that it meant they were directly involved. Neither libellous not scandalous but still an upheld complaint by IPSO. I can safely say that NOBODY wants to have an IPSO ruling against there name because it fucks you over if/when you look to move to another outlet.

Any retraction/clarification/apology should generally be published with the same prominence as the original story.

1. So all articles are verified as having a credible source prior to going to print? There's never articles printed where there's no credible source providing the author with inside info? That's your view?

2. Hardly ever the case in reality.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

1 hour ago, chris182 said:

I don't for a minute believe we are paying anywhere near £65k p/w.

The problem I see if we were paying that would be how much it would unsettle the other players that we have smashed our wage structure to smithereens.

I don’t believe it either but I don’t know how else it’s possible to find out exactly what we are paying him, but even if we are paying that, it’s still a good deal costing us 1m per transfer window, if it works out and he stays 18 month then imo, it’s 3m well spent if it doesn’t work then we terminate his loan and we get rid risk free

as for unsettling players already in the squad, some of them probably never good enough to be on the same park as a player with Defoe’s quality but if they aspire to get to his level and dedicate themselves to their football then that’s the salary you get when you reach the top

i actually hope he is on that dosh, it surely keeps him motivated, playing in scotland on a premiership wage instead of him thinking, fs they are paying me the salary I got when I first started out 

paying £65,000 pw in Scotland is a sure way to bankruptcy but when you look at the figures and facts of the deal it’s not as bad as first thoughts, the fact we can terminate it if we feel we need to is the main bonus