Whittaker signs new 5 year deal - Official

[pete 2,499]

Then when you initially sign them you should have them on a 4 yr contract - that way you dont HAVE to sell them, not for at least 2 yrs anyway !!

 

That also has another side to the coin, if the player turns out to be crap you are stuck with them for 4 years. Anyone remember Winston Bogarde at Chelsea. He used to turn up to training in his bath slippers and just sauntered about until the training was finished and then went home. If he did not turn up for training he would have been in breech of contract.

[craig 5,199]

[/i][/b]

 

 

Just like they can always throw their dummies oot the pram and cause trouble , unhappy players always cause trouble

 

Which can happen no matter how long a contract you give them nor what nationality they are. I fail to see what point you are making rbr. What is the solution you propose ? Throw a ton of money at players like Whittaker to keep them to stay just so they dont cause trouble ? We will be well on the road to financial ruin, AGAIN, if we allow average players like Whittaker to determine our financial structure.

 

Jelavic, McGregor, Naismith, Davis - just 4 players who would be more deserving of 20k a week than Whittaker - we let Whittaker get that amount and they will all want parity, justifiably. Any new players will want parity with that kind of money.

 

Yes, unhappy players will throw their dummy out the pram, but is that not what Whittaker is doing ? If not throwing his dummy out the pram he is certainly holding the club to ransom. And is he not causing trouble ?

 

Really what you are saying here is that it doesnt matter who you sign they might want to leave after a year - we can do very little about that - but if you have them on a 4 yr contract and they have performed well after a season you at least should be in a good position to negotiate a decent fee.

[craig 5,199]

That also has another side to the coin, if the player turns out to be crap you are stuck with them for 4 years. Anyone remember Winston Bogarde at Chelsea. He used to turn up to training in his bath slippers and just sauntered about until the training was finished and then went home. If he did not turn up for training he would have been in breech of contract.

 

Absolutely pete. It is quite simple. Damned if you do and damned if you dont. But there is no point in complaining when a player gets to a year till the end of his contract and then says "if the club dont sell me I will sign a pre-contract in January". This works both ways, it can favour the club and it can favour the player. Some you win and some you lose.

 

No point in complaining when it suits the player though.

[rbr 1,270]

Which can happen no matter how long a contract you give them nor what nationality they are. I fail to see what point you are making rbr. What is the solution you propose ? Throw a ton of money at players like Whittaker to keep them to stay just so they dont cause trouble ? We will be well on the road to financial ruin, AGAIN, if we allow average players like Whittaker to determine our financial structure.

 

Jelavic, McGregor, Naismith, Davis - just 4 players who would be more deserving of 20k a week than Whittaker - we let Whittaker get that amount and they will all want parity, justifiably. Any new players will want parity with that kind of money.

 

Yes, unhappy players will throw their dummy out the pram, but is that not what Whittaker is doing ? If not throwing his dummy out the pram he is certainly holding the club to ransom. And is he not causing trouble ?

 

Really what you are saying here is that it doesnt matter who you sign they might want to leave after a year - we can do very little about that - but if you have them on a 4 yr contract and they have performed well after a season you at least should be in a good position to negotiate a decent fee.

 

There is absolutely no point in arguing the toss over the same thing , you either pay a player , any player , the going rate or else let them run their contract down at the agreed contractual wage , problem being they start becoming restless form dips etc etc .

 

problem 2 is that you sell the player for reduced money , sign replacement , having to pay signing on fee , player takes time to settle , eventually does well , hopefully , then start wanting more money because he is a success and other clubs start sniffing round , and then you start again and again .

 

What I am saying is that if a player wants to stay and there is not a great deal of difference money wise in the total package the it makes sense to keep them , the figures getting thrown around just now are no where near the mark , trust me on this , but you also have to accept we are not a "BIG" club anymore though we may like to think we are .

 

It will takes a couple of years to repair the scouting/get a scouting network in place , we have to be realistic , and accept we are planning for one season at a time , it will be a good few years before we get this current mess by Murray sorted out .

[craig 5,199]

There is absolutely no point in arguing the toss over the same thing , you either pay a player , any player , the going rate or else let them run their contract down at the agreed contractual wage , problem being they start becoming restless form dips etc etc .

 

problem 2 is that you sell the player for reduced money , sign replacement , having to pay signing on fee , player takes time to settle , eventually does well , hopefully , then start wanting more money because he is a success and other clubs start sniffing round , and then you start again and again .

 

What I am saying is that if a player wants to stay and there is not a great deal of difference money wise in the total package the it makes sense to keep them , the figures getting thrown around just now are no where near the mark , trust me on this , but you also have to accept we are not a "BIG" club anymore though we may like to think we are .

 

It will takes a couple of years to repair the scouting/get a scouting network in place , we have to be realistic , and accept we are planning for one season at a time , it will be a good few years before we get this current mess by Murray sorted out .

 

Now I am not convinced that we are even in disagreement

 

I dont disagree with any of the above, it is a symptom of football these days that the VAST majority of players will chase the money. So we have to accept it. And in so doing we need to find a way of protecting the club as much as possible.

 

Letting the contracts of players run down to their final year before even starting contract negotiations is very risky indeed. They only need to stay 6 months and can then get a massiv signing on fee elsewhere along with, probably, better wages. When a player has 2 years left we should get them tied down to an extension, if indeed we believe we still want them.

[rbr 1,270]

Now I am not convinced that we are even in disagreement

 

I dont disagree with any of the above, it is a symptom of football these days that the VAST majority of players will chase the money. So we have to accept it. And in so doing we need to find a way of protecting the club as much as possible.

 

Letting the contracts of players run down to their final year before even starting contract negotiations is very risky indeed. They only need to stay 6 months and can then get a massiv signing on fee elsewhere along with, probably, better wages. When a player has 2 years left we should get them tied down to an extension, if indeed we believe we still want them.

 

 

 

And there in lies all the problems we have encountered over the last few seasons with top players , not getting their deals sorted early enough , even 3 years is some thing I would advocate , but this new board will make mistakes and will take time to settle in , hopefully now that Gordon smith is D of F we will see improvements

[craig 5,199]

[/i][/b]

 

 

And there in lies all the problems we have encountered over the last few seasons with top players , not getting their deals sorted early enough , even 3 years is some thing I would advocate , but this new board will make mistakes and will take time to settle in , hopefully now that Gordon smith is D of F we will see improvements

 

We got to where we needed to then

 

Yep, I think much of this philosophy of letting contracts run down was one of the major problems we have seen, and continue to see as a legacy issue, from the previous regime. Whether you believe it was the board or the bank, allowing players contracts run down to the last year is negligent, AT BEST.

 

We lost out on Boyd and Miller and got the sum total of 600k for both of them in total. Boyd we should have got at least 2 mill for even with a year left on his contract and Miller we should also have got at least 2 mill for with how he was playing IF we had tied them to an extension. Yes, we may have lost the league and the CL money - but by not extending their deals we almost guaranteed they would leave for better money. Simply put, we didnt protect our investment.

 

That was grossly negligent by our board and/or the bank.

[Gazza_8 233]

Rangers have confirmed to BBC Scotland that they have made a further offer to versatile defender Steven Whittaker.

 

On Wednesday Whittaker, 27, turned down what his agent had previously described as "a substantially improved deal".

 

Ken Anderson said the most recent offer was "getting closer" to what they are looking for and that he and Whittaker would soon give Rangers their decision.

 

Meanwhile, Bursaspor have had their fourth offer for the Scotland international rejected by Rangers.

 

Their third bid of 750,000 euros had earlier been knocked back by the Scottish Premier League champions.

 

"He'll see out the final year of his contract and we'll talk to other teams in January if Rangers keep rejecting offers," Whittaker's agent said earlier this week.

 

"It's up to Rangers if they want to miss out on a transfer fee."

 

Anderson is looking for Rangers' offer to reflect Whittaker's importance to the club.

 

"They say they consider him to be one of their four main players," he said.

 

Ibrox manager Ally McCoist has already expressed his desire to keep Whittaker.

 

Rangers are keen to tie the defender, who can also play in midfield, to a new long-term deal.

 

The club's owner, Craig Whyte, said on Thursday: "It was a derisory bid from Bursaspor and Steven Whittaker will be at Rangers next season.

 

"I have said no Rangers players are for sale and I expect them to be at Ibrox next season."

 

However, Bursaspor's public interest has alerted clubs in the Premier League in England, who have asked to be kept abreast of his situation.

 

The Turkish outfit signed Kenny Miller from Rangers for about �£400,000 in January with the Scotland striker's contract with the club due to expire in the summer.

[Zappa 0]

I've got a lot of sympathy for Whittaker if it's true that he's been getting paid approx' �£7,000 per week while other players have been getting paid a lot more than him. Almost every player in our squad has had their failings and weak points, but over the past few seasons Whittaker has been a vital member of the squad, playing week in and week out and helping us to win 3IAR as well as win Cups. You have to consider the number of games Whittaker has played for us during this period of success and consider that he's been more relied upon than some of the players still here or who've come and gone that were getting paid significantly more than him. I'm not saying give the guy �£20k p/w, but fair's fair and if it hadn't been for poor judgement he would have been given a pay rise and contract extension before it got to this stage.

[Danny 0]

I've got a lot of sympathy for Whittaker if it's true that he's been getting paid approx' �£7,000 per week while other players have been getting paid a lot more than him. Almost every player in our squad has had their failings and weak points, but over the past few seasons Whittaker has been a vital member of the squad, playing week in and week out and helping us to win 3IAR as well as win Cups. You have to consider the number of games Whittaker has played for us during this period of success and consider that he's been more relied upon than some of the players still here or who've come and gone that were getting paid significantly more than him. I'm not saying give the guy �£20k p/w, but fair's fair and if it hadn't been for poor judgement he would have been given a pay rise and contract extension before it got to this stage.

 

No one knows what he is on currently exactly, and while I have some agreement with what you say, the truth is he is no more important to us than Papac, yet Papac happily accepted what seems a modest wage rise and contract extension, while Whittaker expects to be paid in line with our best players?

 

What exactly justifies Whittaker in holding the club to ransom in the way Papac didn't? Oh, I know, Bursaspor waving filthy lucre in his face, that's what.

 

I wouldn't blame him if some EPL team came in for him and gave him a chance to have a crack at a lucrative league, much in the way Edu may. But to want to leave purely on a money basis and to practically insult and be hostile to Rangers in the process through his agent has left a sour taste in the mouth.

 

I do not understand Ally's loyalty to him, and high opinion of him. Yes, he's versatile, but he's not especially great in any of his positions. He is certainly worth no more than �£10k a week imo.

 

�£20k+ is just a waste of money for what we're getting.