JTP 0 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 From the Daily Mail (via FF) No wonder here, as Mariappa has some 60 days of the window remaining and sure a few offers to consider. That said, as a freebie he's even more time. That ITK Agent on twitter (no idea if a decent source) has said he is about to do a U-turn and re-sign for Palace. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 When Dundee utd announced they had signed Bell, they took great pride in informing their fans that Utd had beaten off prem clubs to land him. If there was such interest, and I dont for one minute think there wouldnt be given his record, then I dont get why we would let him go for nothing. Even if we get £50K for him, that may help us to pay a signing on fee for an incoming player, or an agents fee or something. Bell knew he wasnt wanted at us, but if he wanted to go and play elsewhere, then those clubs have to pay for him as he was still under contract with us for another year. We also made this mistake last summer when McGregor was given a free while under contract and St Johnstone & Hibs were fighting it out to land him. We are not so well off that we can afford to dismiss relatively small fees, especially when the clubs paying these fees are our rivals, who take great delight in trying to shaft us at every opportunity either through player sales, ticket prices, votes etc. You could have asked for 50K to sell Bell but you aren't going to get it in the real world. It's more likely that we'll have had to pay-up part of his contract. We will be looking to squeeze every penny out of deals but you can't get blood out of a stone or money out of provincial clubs in Scotland in 95% of dealings, especially when the player involved isn't wanted and has a contract that pays appreciably more than he'll get elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfideldo 411 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 There was absolutely zero chance we would have got a fee for either McGregor or Bell. The clubs interested in these players were only interested because they were available for free. Rangers call was to cut their loses, they weren't going to play but would have cost us wages. A termination of contract and the agreed reduction on what would be paid over a season is in effect our "transfer fee". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,744 Posted July 4, 2016 Author Share Posted July 4, 2016 Walsall slap £900k price tag on rumoured Rangers target Tom Bradshaw THE Ibrox club have been heavily linked with the striker but Walsall want nearly £1million for him. MARK WARBURTON could be forced to look elsewhere for a new striker after Walsall placed a £900k price tag on Tom Bradshaw. Wales international Bradshaw has been linked with a move to Ibrox over the summer but so far no move has been made by Warburton. Rangers are on the lookout for a new attacker to help ease the burden on Martyn Waghorn, with just veteran Kenny Miller and youngster Ryan Hardie as back-up to the Englishman. Barnsley made a bid of £250,000 rising to £400,000 but saw it knocked back, and Walsall boss John Whitney has told clubs to stump up serious offers if they want his star man. Whitney said: "There is going to be interest but Tom has got a market value. He is a striker that scores one in two. “You cannot just let him go. Some of the offers are just people fishing. If they are serious they need to come up with a serious offer, because Tom is a Walsall player. “I see him in my squad and I’d love him to stay. I plan to use him in the friendly against Norwich next week.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-transfer-news/walsall-slap-900k-price-tag-8345280 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,406 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 It is not our job to release players to our rivals for free, when in reverse we are overcharged at every opportunity. If these clubs couldnt/wouldnt pay for these players, then they dont get them. There are plenty clubs in England that would have taken a chance on these players for a small fee and small wages. Players want to play, and most will want to take the chance of moving on to play every week than sit in the stands. It is no joy for these guys to have tot urn up at training every day with absolutely no hope of any match time, no matter what they are earning. If we have players that are happy to "do a Bobo" and sit in the stand for a year doing nothing, then it is their careers that they are flushing down the pan. We cannot continually be seen as the easy ride, where you can come for a pay rise, and then get a pay-off at the end if it doesnt work out. We have to have agents working for us to offload players that we dont want that are still sellable assets. It happens everywhere else, why do we never get anything for our unwanted players. Even the scum recouped over £1M a couple of weeks ago on that striker they didnt play or want. We would probably have paid him to leave. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germinal 27 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) It is not our job to release players to our rivals for free, when in reverse we are overcharged at every opportunity. If these clubs couldnt/wouldnt pay for these players, then they dont get them. There are plenty clubs in England that would have taken a chance on these players for a small fee and small wages. Players want to play, and most will want to take the chance of moving on to play every week than sit in the stands. It is no joy for these guys to have tot urn up at training every day with absolutely no hope of any match time, no matter what they are earning. If we have players that are happy to "do a Bobo" and sit in the stand for a year doing nothing, then it is their careers that they are flushing down the pan. We cannot continually be seen as the easy ride, where you can come for a pay rise, and then get a pay-off at the end if it doesnt work out. We have to have agents working for us to offload players that we dont want that are still sellable assets. It happens everywhere else, why do we never get anything for our unwanted players. Even the scum recouped over £1M a couple of weeks ago on that striker they didnt play or want. We would probably have paid him to leave. I doubt anyone disagrees that we have to get maximum value for players we don't need. But for us to get money for Bell, there would have needed to be at least one English club ready to take a chance - to the best of anyone's knowledge no such club was about. There would have had to have been two Scottish clubs willing to pay a fee - 99.9% certain no such club exists. No matter how much you shout about it Cammy Bell, a goalie who had one undistinguished season in the second tier of Scottish football, another season sitting on a bench and who was briefly a squad member of one of Europe's least impressive international sides was not an asset which could be realised for cash: having 'signed by Ally McCoist for Rangers' is not a positive on your c.v. Edited July 4, 2016 by Germinal 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 1,693 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 I understand it's being suggested that because there were a number of clubs vying to sign Cammy Bell that must mean a fee could have been demanded. The thing is the only reason they are vying for him is likely because there is no fee. If there were a fee they would just move on and look for a freebie elsewhere. What we get out of it is freeing up his wages. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) If utd aren't prepared to pay keep him. Certainly don't pay him to go. Edited July 4, 2016 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 When Dundee utd announced they had signed Bell, they took great pride in informing their fans that Utd had beaten off prem clubs to land him. If there was such interest, and I dont for one minute think there wouldnt be given his record, then I dont get why we would let him go for nothing. Even if we get £50K for him, that may help us to pay a signing on fee for an incoming player, or an agents fee or something. Bell knew he wasnt wanted at us, but if he wanted to go and play elsewhere, then those clubs have to pay for him as he was still under contract with us for another year. We also made this mistake last summer when McGregor was given a free while under contract and St Johnstone & Hibs were fighting it out to land him. We are not so well off that we can afford to dismiss relatively small fees, especially when the clubs paying these fees are our rivals, who take great delight in trying to shaft us at every opportunity either through player sales, ticket prices, votes etc. The interest could well have reduced to zero teams had we been demanding a fee though. We simply don't know. Personally, I would have been pleasantly surprised had we got a fee for Cammy Bell. Getting him off the books is as if we sold him for 100k anyway, even if he was only on 2k a week, which I doubt he was... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 If utd aren't prepared to pay keep him. Certainly don't pay him to go. All of which costs us more money than just releasing him. No chance of playing, therefore get him off the books. What you suggest is cutting your financial nose off to spite your face. 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.