contacts 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Chris Burke was paid 75% of the remainder of his contract to move to Cardiff City last week. Chris earned £8k per week at Ibrox with a £5k per game bonus. With only 6 months remaining on his contract Burke decided to move on but surely Rangers should have been looking for a fee of £200k rather than having to give him £150k to leave. The end result is that Burke leaving does not really save Rangers a lot of money although it does have to be said that at least it moves on another unhappy aquad player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdzKyle 7,920 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Only at Rangers!! Cardiff must be offering less money because there is no way we should pay players to leave if a club is coming in with a decent offer. What a money grabbing little fu**er!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Stars Bearette 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Only at Rangers!! Cardiff must be offering less money because there is no way we should pay players to leave if a club is coming in with a decent offer. What a money grabbing little fu**er!! well in the same situation wouldn't most of us take the money and run Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edranger 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Disappointing to hear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I can sympathise with the club to an extent here. Burke is a decent player but has suffered from injury after injury. Add in his expiring contract then we were never going to to be able to attract a fee for his services . As such, as long as we save money in the long run I don't mind a pay-off. Unfortunately, this example is just another lesson of our inability to move on fringe players quickly enough during their contracts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdzKyle 7,920 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Only at Rangers!! Cardiff must be offering less money because there is no way we should pay players to leave if a club is coming in with a decent offer. What a money grabbing little fu**er!! well in the same situation wouldn't most of us take the money and run My point is normally when a player moves from a club, said club no longer pays wages to that player, but it seems to happen to us a lot. Why should we pay him 75% of his wages until the end of the season if he is no longer playing for us?! Crazy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvey 5 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 another crazy move by the managment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnyLoyal 1,136 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 We must be the only club that never makes money from a player leaving! The tattie howkers from across the city always seem to get a good deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 364 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Contacts the info I had was Rangers recieved that from Cardiff , though technically we paid him off it didn't actually cost us anything. Still shows a lack of business accumen when we are touting our top players about for washers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,037 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The probem we have here is that Bain never manages to make money on players within this category, his counterpart for the scum ALWAYS gets money in when teams are interested (Big Bobo excepted- lazy big barsteward didnae want to play) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 No suprise there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbm26896 995 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 its normal for players to be paid to leave clubs - especially rangers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarLittle 2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Smith and Bain should never have sanctioned the contract extension in the first place. He hardly played at all since he got it. Another fine mess Bain and his nearly 600k a year salary gets us into Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy2212 151 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 terrible bit of business we seem to do far too many of these sort of deals - so we can get players of the books Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Surely we must manage things much better. How did we ever get ourselves in a position of having a 28 player first team pool anyway and one without a decent fullback, only one decent CB, no right winger, few adequate left midfielders if any and multitudes of poor unwanted players? Walter? We have spent good money and or wages on Whittaker, McCulloch, Lafferty, Edu, Velicka, Daily, Webster, Adam, Beasley, Hemdani, Gow, etc. and none seem anywhere near good enough although I believe Beasley has a chance. Gow never got a chance. That is 11 players we do not play regularly, cannot get reasonable value for or move on it seems. We also never play Aaron. That is an indictment of Walter's signing policy right there. He signed 9 out of the 11 I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I refuse to believe that. We'd pay up most of the remainder of his contract instead of keeping him in the squad as cover ? Nah, not buying that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue87 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 If this is true, then it's another example of how terribly stupid we manage things most of the time. Sort it out Rangers! :angry2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersDude90 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Surely we should have just kept him then? Its not saving us any money, and the fact that he came on against ICT shows he isnt that far out the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Burke cost the club nothing in transfer fees and was unlucky with injuries, he should be cut some slack by our support. When he was given his last contract he was an important member of the squad and much was expected of him, the directors of the club can hardly be blamed because he’s been injured during that time. Almost all players leaving a club during their contract get a pay off from the club they are leaving, that is just how contracts work. It might seem odd to us but it isn’t unusual. I imagine both Boyd and Ferguson will get something if they leave also. It has happened plenty of times to the Tims too. When Harry Kewell left Leeds for Liverpool he was paid £3 million by Leeds to leave and Leeds were in a far worse position financially than Rangers are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 he had time left on his deal, he is well within his rights to get a payment. i feel there are to many jumping at the first opportunity to critisise anyone within our club. its life, if you had a job and was getting the boot you would hope to get some sort of payment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKai 439 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Hate to think what we'll pay Charlie Adam if HE leaves! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy2212 151 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Hate to think what we'll pay Charlie Adam if HE leaves! £1.99 for a happy meal - that'll keep him sweet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianGer 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I can sympathise with the club to an extent here. Burke is a decent player but has suffered from injury after injury. Add in his expiring contract then we were never going to to be able to attract a fee for his services . As such, as long as we save money in the long run I don't mind a pay-off. Unfortunately, this example is just another lesson of our inability to move on fringe players quickly enough during their contracts. Burke was an injury-prone, under-performing player when Smith arrived and handed him a new contract, a decision which I criticized even then. I think a big part of our cash problem as a club is that we sign all sorts of unproven players to long-term contracts. Surely we would do better to institute contracts where either: 1. We pay a low initial wage which is topped up if a player plays in more than 75% of games or 2. We pay an inflated wage with a short term with an option clause that if a player fits into the team, he is offered a longer contract on a predetermined wage. Given we are attracting very mediocre players who can scarcely be described as in hot demand, at least we would be protecting ourselves on these risky signings. Stopping the bleeding on contracts for people who never play would allow us to put more money into signings of real quality who will make a difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayboleLoyal_atb 3,760 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 No chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadaready 9,437 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What is with all of these built in clauses that are terrible. 5,000 an appearance...then pay him to leave...it is unreal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts