Whittaker signs new 5 year deal - Official

[calscot 0]

PS Oil companies are just trying to get the best deal for themselves...

[craig 5,199]

PS Oil companies are just trying to get the best deal for themselves...

 

As are the customers.

 

Supply and demand. And that is what is happening in football too. Clubs look for their best deal, players look for theirs. Supply and demand. Frankie had a decent synopsis on McGregor - a replacement for him at 4 mill would still have cost the same as retaining McGregor on 26k a week. The club also protect their interests.

[Bears 0]

I don't think I'm late and if I am, I can't see how that matters. Maybe I was a bit late for my enthusiasm for recycling and composting, but I don't see why that should stop me now.

 

But I don't think your comparison stands up. Players wages were far lower then and that was for some of the best players in the UK. We could also afford those wages, without huge increases in tickets to a level where fans feel priced out the game, and at a time of economic boom. Rangers' finances were healthy and in the black, so the wages were not causing us to limp along and worrying about damaging losses or administration.

 

We are now crippling the club to pay much higher wages to mediocre players while losing targets to England's second division while many of our fans are being made unemployed or suffering from a reduced disposable income and personal wealth.

 

I fail to see how you can compare the two scenarios in this way.

 

It was not a great position before but you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the line is now so far away, the Hubble telescope would have trouble resolving it.

 

 

 

I personally recall Trevor becoming the UK's highest paid player on 10k a week. That also reflected his reputation as the UK's best player who would have befitted any top CL team. We're now talking about 20k for players who are targets for the likes of Cardiff City and Bursaspor.

 

Even now, I'd bet the wage bill is around double that of the Souness era. If nothing else I'm sure it is still now higher but with about half the playing staff. Would you care to compare the standard of player?

 

To me it's a bit like saying you're happy with the price of a tank of petrol compared to 20 years ago and would still be if the quality was dramatically reduced and the size of the tank halved.

 

Tell you something, I'm not happy with it. Doesn't mean I can do much about it but people trying to justify it doesn't make me feel any better about it either.

 

 

he was on �£27K mate

[calscot 0]

As are the customers.

 

Supply and demand. And that is what is happening in football too. Clubs look for their best deal, players look for theirs. Supply and demand. Frankie had a decent synopsis on McGregor - a replacement for him at 4 mill would still have cost the same as retaining McGregor on 26k a week. The club also protect their interests.

 

And the parallel is that the "customers" are being shafted in both scenarios. Supplies are also artificially limited in both examples.

 

What you are saying may the truth but it doesn't mean either industry is morally justified or acceptable. Pure capitalism is a very unhealthy and destructive philosophy that eternally needs to be morally regulated even for it's own survival. In a true dog eat dog world, all you are left with is one very large dog which then dies of starvation.

[calscot 0]

he was on �£27K mate

 

Fair enough but do you have a citation for that?

 

But we're quibbling over one wage of the equivalent of Frank Lampard at a time when we could not only afford it, we could afford a squad of over 30 AND break records in transfer fees, all without going into horrendous debt, or overpricing the fans.

[Bears 0]

Fair enough but do you have a citation for that?

 

But we're quibbling over one wage of the equivalent of Frank Lampard at a time when we could not only afford it, we could afford a squad of over 30 AND break records in transfer fees, all without going into horrendous debt, or overpricing the fans.

 

But we can afford it for these players mate or else we would not have given them the deals we have.

[craig 5,199]

And the parallel is that the "customers" are being shafted in both scenarios. Supplies are also artificially limited in both examples.

 

What you are saying may the truth but it doesn't mean either industry is morally justified or acceptable. Pure capitalism is a very unhealthy and destructive philosophy that eternally needs to be morally regulated even for it's own survival. In a true dog eat dog world, all you are left with is one very large dog which then dies of starvation.

 

I wasnt making any statement on capitalism cal. I was stating how these things are working. We can like, or dislike, capitalism as much as we like but, rightly or wrongly, it is an integral element of Western society these days.

 

I can completely understand your perspective on the regular supporter being the ones "shafted" as they struggle to make ends meet whilst these players earn exorbitant amounts of money. But, serious question for you, why is it that you are suggesting that the players are the ones doing the shafting ? How about the management team (Board et al) who are the custodians of the supporters cash investment ?

 

Surely the onus of fiscal prudence is on the shoulders of those entrusted with that responsibility ? So they should be assessing if these wages constitute fiscal prudence and managing the "investors" money appropriately.

 

The players are, again rightly or wrongly, nothing more than self-employed consultants these days. Player employment contracts are barely worth the paper they are printed on.

 

Given the change in contract relationship it is a difficult situation for the Board to work through. Whilst players can indeed hold clubs to ransom - but, again, it all comes down to supply and demand. If Bursa were offering Whittaker 50k a week and he tells Rangers that he wants to stay but they need to make a better offer then some would say it isnt holding the club to ransom but giving them the opportunity to at lease close the financial gap between what he is on and what he can make elsewhere. That happens in all walks of life. If he was offered, say, 50k per week by Bursa and Rangers have offered him 15k per week which he has signed on at, is he really holding the club to ransom or is he showing loyalty by rejecting a MASSIVE pay increase ? Genuine question to which I dont think there is a right or wrong answer. Just one which which has different shades of grey depending on your own perspective and, to an extent, moral fortitude.