bmck

thanks man! :D

are there highlights of the friendly anywhere that anyone knows of?

Highlights here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLNlXZf3-i4

walter smith has been extremely testy with the fans since he's came back; i think he has his own agenda with all that. i wouldn't be suprised if the miller deal was put to murray in terms of being an a) decent signing, and b) something that would set a precedent for players moving between clubs and it's not being a big deal.

FIne for me today

bloody hell! some servery person must flick a switch:

slow where gribz is/slow where everyone else is.

it cant be both at the same time

i'll have a look into it. the main page side doesn't seem to be running slowly, so i think it's just the forum.

many thanks scooter - these are outstanding.

im quite sure walter smith all but promised a creative midfielder at the end of last season, as it was so apparent it was needed. but now everyone's started talking about our new first 11 - do we think that we're going to go with pretty much what we have?

are there creative midfielders in mind that perhaps we dont know about yet?

you cant steal from something you own. how can this be taken seriously?

I'm not a money oriented person (I'm not averse to it but I believe there are many other values to pursue) and so do not sympathise with those who are - especially when to me they are more than adequately recompensed.

i do see what you're saying. i hate money too, but for every second that the worker isn't interested in their wage, they hand their will over to people who profit directly from that lack of interest. i've seen too many businesses arse people over when they're pregnant/ill etc. a worker doesn't get a share of the company's profits - they are worth their wage and nothing more, so i can absolutely sympathise when they want the sum of it.

but, in the end, it's upto them: they can fight it out between themselves

that's just too much to respond to.

ultimately, the people changing the status quo are the ones with burden. that's just it. i dont blame rangers for trying to get him out for less than his total contract worth, thats their perogative - but as the ones instigating the process, the responsibility is theirs. if he doesn't want to go for less than his contract is worth, and stick it all out, that's upto him.

if he wants to leave, then it's probably best he settles for a reasonable payout - but given that he's stated through his agent that he wants to stay, then there's nothing that makes him an arse for seeing out his contract, and not taking less than its full worth.

fine here too m8. phone those bassas!

^ i tend to trust ws. he's a relatively fair guy. not big on using untested players, but since he went out of his way to get him, something must have happened. who knows what though.

Sorry, that's obviously different. How about you asking for your NEXT YEAR'S wages while being set up with another job?

if my employer wanted to release me from my fix term contract, after they had agreed to it, i would be asking for the whole sum of it. that is precisely the situation here.

It's not about legal entitlement as there is no legal entitlement in this case. He has not been sacked and will be continued to be paid till the end of his contract unless it is mutually terminated.

rangers want rid of him - be it by sacking or mutual consent. as such, given that they are the party wanting him out the door, the burden is entirely on them. if they didn't want to pay him X a week for Y years then they shouldn't have signed him.

Maybe that's why you missed the point... This is more a debate about feelings about the player. I don't like what he's doing while others don't like what Rangers are doing.

personally i dont care one way or the other, but i'm not sure how you can, in any reasonable manner, shift the burden onto him here. if your employer commited to employ you for four years, and wanted to shift you out the door beforehand, you are quite frankly an idiot if you take something less than the sum of your full contract.

As I've explained, Gow isn't owed a single penny (unless his wage has not been paid of which there is no evidence). It's a negotiation to mutually end his contract, he can take it or leave it. Rangers thought his demands were over the top (and I agree) and so the deal fell through.

he is owed every penny of his fixed term contract. no grabbing the word "mutual" and, by some sleight of hand, pretending that both parties are dying to part way, is going to change that. rangers want him out the door - he's not willing to go for less than his contract is worth. that's the simple facts - reason from there. all this talk of "mutual" as if the whole thing arose spontaneously, from everyone involved's free will, is just obsfucation. employers who want to end people's fixed contracts early shouldn't be suprised when their employee demands their full worth. there is no other balance of obligation.

Also, I didn't talk about my money personally, it was fans generally. I'm pointing it out as it seems many people forget this aspect when their sympathies side with a player demanding a lot of money to leave to another club.

fans sympathies can lie where they will - allowing sympathies either way to start distorting exactly what's going on, though, is just taking up the cause to propoganda.

To me it's the same kind of thinking when people complain about high taxes at the same time as complaining why the government doesn't spend more on something.

it's nothing like this. it's not even remotely like this.

Again, he's not entitled to a penny, he however, entitled to turn the offer down - which he did. My beef is that in my opinion his demands were overly greedy. That's my opinion. He's perfectly entitled to ask for the remainder of his contract by that doesn't mean I have to respect him for it.

i disagree that it's overly greedy to ask for how much someone had already agreed to give you, but i guess your respect is quite a precarious thing.

I think I'm entitled to form an opinion of him as greedy and express that on this forum. Like I said it's all about your viewpoint. If you choose to see from the player's POV then you might not see Rangers in a good light.

no-one's saying you cant express it for goodness sake.

all this is bifurcation any way. it's only you that's turning this into a player versus club situation. nonetheless, your position on its own merits is ridiculous - that someone should, when their paymasters find them expendible, walk away with whatever they are given, is just not something i would expect any sensible person to believe.

^ Who says it has to be so objective? If someone tries to make more more money out of me than I'd like to pay, just because he's morally entitled to it, doesn't mean I have to like it - or like him.

i never said it had to be objective. he isn't trying to make more money out of you, or anyone. it would be like saying that if i got sacked today, and tried to claim for what i've worked this month, i would be asking for *more*. asking for what you are legally entitled to is necessarily not asking for more.

i also dont care whether you like him or not.

Please explain how is that ridiculous?

its ridiculous to say that a person who demands what they are owed is taking more off anyone, much less you personally.

Celtic were perfectly entitled to request a postponement for a game and the SPL were under no obligation to extend the league, yet they have been castigated here - which I think is fair.

they were under attack for the hypocrisy in asking for an extension at one stage, and then denying it at another. there's no hypocricy in taking the wage you are entitled to, otherwise companies would get to not pay people at will. again - it's ridiculous.

And also please explain why it's ok for a player to fight for more money while it seems a crime if Rangers try to save money?

i never said anything about the latter, so your question must be for someone else.

^ i totally disagree. it's not his fault he was signed and given a good contract; he's under no obligation to give up what he is owed contractually because of some vague notion of it not being nice for the fans. thats ridiculous. it would have been better for the fans if ws had tried to get any use out of the money he spent on him.

You're right - there IS always some miserable git on the sofa at ALL parties...

 

Ha, if we were stoned that revelation would keep us going for hours...

it does seem to me to be a worthy subject......

Getting rid of Scott Booth would be a start.

or even if they trained him to have more than one tone of voice

There have been reports of the 2 owners singing pro-IRA songs, I believe, although the alleged incident took place prior to them setting up Setanta.

if that's the case then the term "ira tv" is misleading and just a bit bitter. it implies paying setanta is akin to supporting the ira. their coverage is shite, undoubtedly, but i'd still like to see rangers away games - the actions of their board members doesn't interest me, as a consumer, so much as their prices and product.

sky's a fortune, but their coverage is better. i would prefer they had the rights as you might finally stumble upon someone who knows what they're talking about - but i just want to see the fitbaw.

cheers man. all the signs leading up to it are not good - that meeting with murray and the bullshit bingo statement that followed, and then this. not the greatest. it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

why do you call setanta "ira tv"? they're irish, certainly, but what's the link with the ira?

how did the sgm go? or is it still to come?

yup, lovety lovety. i really thought it would have worn off by now, but, no, love abounds.

now, you and craig get back to your boyd bantering.

In a non-gay way I hope Barry...

i never realised you had hopes either way for my sexuality but, yes, i [would] like him [to stay at rangers]. :uzi:

honestly, i think dj, legend though he is, knows heehaw about football other than how he, himself, plays it. i've just never found him making any sort of sensible point, and this article is no different.

i hope boyd stays. i like him.

partick would be a good move. if it did happen i wouldnt mind nicking along now and again to see how they got on.