CanadianGer 1 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. Agreed. The appearances fee is a good idea if it keeps wages down, but to then account for it in determining his pay-out is nuts. What next: averaging out the number of wins the player has taken part in and then pay them win bonuses for future games they might have played in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's the ultimate insult isn't it ... being payed to leave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueshorts 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 My mate has informed me that we have actually sold a player for MINUS £150000...in other words, we sold a player and actually paid the player/club that was buying him? A player who was on £14000 a week??? No offense Murray/Bain...but the pair of you are something else..you really are the most braindead bunch of total tw@ts on the face of the earth! It's time to take direct action action these parasites. Forget about celtic fans throwing Mars Bars at their owners..it's time we started throwing f@cking bricks at these two before it's too late! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart_RFC 41 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk//index.php?showtopic=95565 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueshorts 0 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk//index.php?showtopic=95565 Jesus Christ...it is true...honestly, this is bloody unreal..truly unreal! What the f@ck is happening?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyCR1 1,517 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledWeegie123 1,269 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 and we are in desperate need of cash? or so murray would tell us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It wasn't Smith that gave Burke his last contract was it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 This talk of offering smaller salaries for playing with appearance bonuses is all good and well but it does rather miss out one very important point; reality. Almost every club in the English Championship can compete with us on salary and the Premier League are in another field altogether. If we want to attract players of the calibre of Mendes to Ibrox we have to pay comparable wages, why else would they come? If we try and alter our wage structure the reality is we will not be able to sign or keep the calibre of player we would like. We'll probably have 5 or 6 high earners and the rest will be on Championship/League 1 salaries, and both they and their agents will know it. Very few professional players will turn down a better basic salary to gamble that they'll earn more through appearance money and other add ons. Paying big money to ordinary players is just a matter of fact in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianGer 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 This talk of offering smaller salaries for playing with appearance bonuses is all good and well but it does rather miss out one very important point; reality. Almost every club in the English Championship can compete with us on salary and the Premier League are in another field altogether. If we want to attract players of the calibre of Mendes to Ibrox we have to pay comparable wages, why else would they come? If we try and alter our wage structure the reality is we will not be able to sign or keep the calibre of player we would like. We'll probably have 5 or 6 high earners and the rest will be on Championship/League 1 salaries, and both they and their agents will know it. Very few professional players will turn down a better basic salary to gamble that they'll earn more through appearance money and other add ons. Paying big money to ordinary players is just a matter of fact in football. I don't doubt we would end up with a small core group of players on a large salary and the majority of the squad on fairly small salaries. However, I'd still argue that players would agree to arrive on that basis. For one thing, I don't believe the likes of Burke would be picked out by the Derby scouting system at age 18 to play on a large salary - they are probably doing something similar in paying a small salary until the player proves his worth. Coming to Rangers as an 18 yr old Scot for GBP7500 beats going to the Championship for GBP10000. Consistent good displays for Rangers will be picked up pretty quickly by the press, especially if you can do it against European opposition. Although people are cynical about the SPL, getting into Rangers first team should at least guarantee you a final or two and a few games in Europe. At that point, if the player starts to show real ability we can either cash in and sell him or renew him on a larger contract reflecting his worth to the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 All true, but isn't that exactly what we do just now? I mean Burke isn't a boy he is 25, he should be approaching the peak of his career, and his highest earning potential. His last Rangers contract reflected that. Had we offered him something far less we surely ran the risk of losing him then? I remember clearly when John McLelland, the captain at the time, left us for Watford. Now Watford were a decent team however they shouldn't have been able to poach the captain of Rangers particularly when he didn't even want to leave. I think what you are suggesting may bring about those days again, although to be fair to you that might happen anyway through sheer force of economics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 How many times has this happened? We shouldn't give ANYONE that's either injury prone or over 30 a contract for more than a year. Do what Wenger does. It might piss off Robert Pires, but it certainly makes sound business sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 How many times have Arsenal won the league since Robert Pires left? Do you really think the club thought Burke would spend his contract on the treatment table, I mean do you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 How many times have Arsenal won the league since Robert Pires left? Do you really think the club thought Burke would spend his contract on the treatment table, I mean do you? He'd been hampered with injury all the way through his youth career with Rangers, it was a safe bet to assume that it wasn't going to get any better. In such case, the length of deal was simply ridiculous. And it doesn't matter what Arsenal have won, their system of producing youngsters is superb. It's not their fault Chelsea and Man Utd spent about £300m on their squads, but how many times do you see Arsenal paying players to leave or struggling to get players off the books? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I disagree, with hindsight we all look clever but at the time there was a real clamour for Burke to sign a new contract, had he left then, for next to nothing most fans would have been up in arms. Every team has players on good contracts who seem to sit in the stand for most of them, we just notice our own. I have no idea how many players Arsenal release each season but it is a lot, they don't all become Henry. If and when Arsenal are faced with a tightening of budgets then yes they too will pay players off, it isn't unusual in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I disagree, with hindsight we all look clever but at the time there was a real clamour for Burke to sign a new contract, had he left then, for next to nothing most fans would have been up in arms. Every team has players on good contracts who seem to sit in the stand for most of them, we just notice our own. I have no idea how many players Arsenal release each season but it is a lot, they don't all become Henry. If and when Arsenal are faced with a tightening of budgets then yes they too will pay players off, it isn't unusual in football. I liked Burke and I wanted him to get a new contract, but three years was a ridiculous length for someone of his injury plight. The guy can't stand the heat in Aber-fuking-deen! Nonetheless, hindsight is a wonderful thing, I agree. Very rarely do Arsenal release their youth players from the U-18's up. Of course not all make it, but they consistently earn moves to other clubs that don't cost Arsenal a thing, often with them getting compensation from the English FA for training the player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy2212 151 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 comparing our setup to Arsenals is ripping the piss Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 comparing our setup to Arsenals is ripping the piss I'm not comparing. I'm saying we shouldn't offer injury prone players or players over 30 more than a one year deal. Why is that so hard to agree with? We'd certainly be a lot better off if we'd been doing it for a few years now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1690 Posts 71 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Is there a link to this in the meedia? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianGer 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I disagree, with hindsight we all look clever but at the time there was a real clamour for Burke to sign a new contract, had he left then, for next to nothing most fans would have been up in arms. Every team has players on good contracts who seem to sit in the stand for most of them, we just notice our own. I have no idea how many players Arsenal release each season but it is a lot, they don't all become Henry. If and when Arsenal are faced with a tightening of budgets then yes they too will pay players off, it isn't unusual in football. I get the advantage of saying "I told you so" on this deal tbh. I was definitely not one of those saying Burke should get a new contract. He was obviously injury prone and in my view he was a long way from being a player that belonged long term in a Rangers side. He is inconsistent and especially at the time Smith gave him the new deal he would all too often do something tricky, make no real progress to goal, lose the ball and fall down. John McLelland is an interesting example but not exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm talking about players who are newly arrived or who are breaking through into the first team, rather than the club captain. Should the likes of Gow really be offered long term contracts before we know if they will settle? Or if Burke is struggling to find fitness and is inconsistent, shouldn't the contract reflect that? Quite honestly, I don't believe clubs south of the border are clamouring for young prospects or marginal squad players. If they are and we are uncertain, let the other club take the gamble. When you have a squad of 28 players, you shouldn't continue to pick up 'maybes'. Fergus McCann was slated for it, but did well bringing in the likes of DiCanio and Cadete on low initial salaries. If we could trim even 1,500 per squad player in wages and accept that at least half of our current squad of 28 are unproven at least at Rangers, then that turns into 1500 x 14 = 21,000 per week to put towards 3 or 4 players of real quality. When Celtic pick up a couple of highly paid key players, people were saying "Oh, they'll be in real trouble, let them waste 30,000 a week on JVOH." But really, is that a waste when we are paying Gow, Burke, etc a third of that to sit on the bench and make fleeting appearances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yes, the heat in Aberdeen thing may indeed have been a sign we should have taken more notice of! Are you sure about Arsenal? You might be surprised at how many players like Anthony Stokes and Justin Hoyte there are out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Yes, the heat in Aberdeen thing may indeed have been a sign we should have taken more notice of! Are you sure about Arsenal? You might be surprised at how many players like Anthony Stokes and Justin Hoyte there are out there. If only mate. Arsenal raked in £5m for the sales of Hoyte and Stokes - if we could get £5000 for some of our fringe players I'd be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
easterhouse64 1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Hate to think what we'll pay Charlie Adam if HE leaves! cheese burgers me thinks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Hate to think what we'll pay Charlie Adam if HE leaves! cheese burgers me thinks Luncheon vouchers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You make a plausible economic argument I'm just not convinced it is as straightforward as that though. The Celtc example you give is a good one however it overlooks the utter chaos Cadette, Di Canio and Big Pierre created in the dressing room and the lack of trophies they won. Each of those players was a gamble, arguably one worked out financially, one washed its face and the another lost them money. Now we have gambled similarly in recent seasons, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Burke wasn't a gamble in the sense that he wasn't an unknown quantity, the managers knew him as a player and a person, that it didn't work out is bad luck rather than bad judgement (btw are you sure it was Smith that gave him his last contract?). Young Scottish players may be an option for your idea but players coming in from other teams, particularly ones with no association with the club won't go for it. All that'll happen is the standard of player we attract will get poorer. That may happen anyway of course. What Smith knows and what most of us are over-looking in all of this is that team spirit can overcome most things. We have a problem with this at the club just now, Smith, a normally guarded man, has admitted as much, he needs to let some players go so that squad morale can improve. I'm not sure the overhaul of the wage structure you are suggesting will improve this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts