JTP 0 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What's the chances we've inserted a sell on clause? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,743 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) Those fans - and pundits - who lauded the arrival of Mike Ashley because of his billionaire status - how do they feel now when a promising young player is being sold off for a million quid? If Mike Ashley needs Rangers to be successful, why are we letting talent leave for such a modest fee? If you want a pragmatic answer, you can have one: Ashley is not exactly lauded, at least not on here. What he could bring - or might have until the SFA intervened - is stability on the financial part, as he will protect his "investment/loans/shares/property". The CEOs and chairmen thus far could not, as they have proven time and again - simply for the reason that they would have lost their jobs/influence immediately. Selling good players for a profit* is exactly how Ashley ran/run Newcastle, i.e. keeping their running costs away from his own pocket. The less he needs to loan or invest, the better. It does not change anything from the initial statement that having Ashley there provides some sort of stability to the existence of the club as such. however dire, raped and castigated a status it has. It is utterly diabolical of the board that investments on the table are not taken up instead of selling Macleod et al. No argument about that. *Since we reared Macleod from the youths, on the face of it, any pound we get is regarded as a "profit" by the board. Edited December 30, 2014 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 If you want a pragmatic answer, you can have one: Ashley is not exactly lauded, at least not on here. What he could bring - or might have until the SFA intervened - is stability on the financial part, as he will protect his "investment/loans/shares/property". The CEOs and chairmen thus far could not, as they have proven time and again - simply for the reason that they would have lost their jobs/influence immediately. Selling good players for a profit* is exactly how Ashley ran/run Newcastle, i.e. keeping their running costs away from his own pocket. The less he needs to loan or invest, the better. It does not change anything from the initial statement that having Ashley there provides some sort of stability to the existence of the club as such. however dire, raped and castigated a status it has. It is utterly diabolical of the board that investments on the table are not taken up instead of selling Macleod et al. No argument about that. *Since we reared Macleod from the youths, on the face of it, any pound we get is regarded as a "profit" by the board. We would be better off not existing than continuing down the road we're currently on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What's the chances we've inserted a sell on clause? I'd say very little chance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,743 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What's the chances we've inserted a sell on clause? It would need brains to do that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What's the chances we've inserted a sell on clause? That would normally lead to a reduction in the upfront payment. Have a guess. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,750 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 If we're being realistic then £1 million for a 20 year old who has yet to play in the Scottish top flight and had a serious heart condition earlier this year is good business. Scott Arfield left Falkirk for £600,000, Johnny Russell for £750,000 and Ryan Gauld £1,500,000 plus add ons that might take it to £3 mill, so £1 mill seems pretty good, assuming that is what we'll get. I disagree with those who question MacLoed's ability, he might be playing at a lowly level but he's clearly got enough to take him to another level if he can stay clear of injuries. He's acquitted himself well when he played against SPL sides and he wasn't chosen for the last Scotland squad because Strachan and his coaches wanted to do us a favour. In an ideal world we'd have kept MacLoed, built a team around him and sold him in 3 years time or made him captain and gone on to become a club legend. But we've not lived in an ideal world for a long time. Good luck to him, he brought joy where there was otherwise only pain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canary Wharf Bee Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What's the chances we've inserted a sell on clause? I'd say very high. Most of the young signings we make come with sell-on clauses - up to 20% depending on who you believe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Once the agents get their cut and McLeod gets his share (since he didn't submit a written transfer request) - how much of the money will Rangers actually get? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I'd say very high. Most of the young signings we make come with sell-on clauses - up to 20% depending on who you believe. I hope so but something tells me our esteemed board would waive any sell on clause if it meant getting as much money upfront and as quickly as possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.