Thomas Buffel Leaves - Official

[johnnyk 158]

Who is this guy Buffel, never heard of him :uzi:

[calscot 0]

Buffel could have also stayed on his bum for another year and raked in another 900.000 pounds but chose to take a paycut to get first team football.

 

I remember a Dutch guy Winston Bogarde who went from Barcelona to Chelsea played a few games(4 i think) and sat on his arse for the rest of his 4 year contract. In the end up he didn't even train and was heavier than me.

That is a money shark not Buffel imo.

 

Buffel's done it for three years, I think it's feasable that he recognises that he could permanently damage the rest of his career with one more season on the bench. He's got offers and it's a bird in the hand and all that.

 

There is a difference between sacrificing one year of a salary compared to two or three and it's obviously got to the stage where he thinks it's more prudent to move at this juncture.

 

If he'd taken the move to Hannover two years ago his career would probably have been in a far better state, while saving us 1.7M.

 

I think the mistake we make or are forced to make is that we pay some players too much - I think we have to to get them to play in our league. We then get stuck with them when no-one wants to pay them the same wage or a big signing on fee.

[calscot 0]

Outstanding point Pete! I think that closes the argument about him being a money shark and not wanting to get back into first team football. For me, Buffel giving all in reserve midweek games showed that he was wanted back in the first team.

 

Id like to know what he is earning now compared to 17k.

 

For 17 grand a week, I'd play midweek reserve games in Siberia in winter...

[bmck 117]

^ 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.

[pete 2,499]

Outstanding point Pete! I think that closes the argument about him being a money shark and not wanting to get back into first team football. For me, Buffel giving all in reserve midweek games showed that he was wanted back in the first team.

 

Id like to know what he is earning now compared to 17k.

 

I don't know the amount but i read he had taken a massive wage cut,but was to get a large slice of any future transfer money. He believes if he gets match fit the bigger clubs will be knocking on his door again.

[johnnyk 158]

I think the mistake we make or are forced to make is that we pay some players too much - I think we have to to get them to play in our league. We then get stuck with them when no-one wants to pay them the same wage or a big signing on fee.

 

 

We don't seem to be learning from it though!!!

[Gribz 745]

For 17 grand a week, I'd play midweek reserve games in Siberia in winter...

 

Maybe Buffel would aswell. He wasnt asked to play in Siberia though, only cold windy and rainy nights in Scotland which are pretty cold!!!

[craig 5,199]

^ 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.

 

Completely agree. When any of us are asked to leave our jobs what do we all expect..... SEVERANCE.

 

I highly doubt that any of us will simply walk away and say "thanks for the memories, thanks for ditching me, been fun, bye".

 

Now.... if we had another employer ready to step in then perhaps there is mitigation - but when you are unwanted from an employer I would say that MANY people would still expect what they are contractually owed or, at the very least, be left whole.

 

These players are working for a living like the rest of us (how much they earn or how much they work for it is, to a degree, irrelevant). They make commitments re expenses and mortgages too, just like the rest of us. So if the only team offering them a way out is offering them significantly less

wages then I don't see why they should have to just blindly accept it for the moral good when many many people in other walks of life wouldn't.

[craig 5,199]

I don't know the amount but i read he had taken a massive wage cut,but was to get a large slice of any future transfer money. He believes if he gets match fit the bigger clubs will be knocking on his door again.

 

I don't think there would be a transfer fee though Pete - I read that his deal is a one year deal - so he is hoping to prove himself in the team for a year, play well and get himself a deal elsewhere - and with no transfer fee involved he would get a HUGE signing on fee (IF he proves himself)

[calscot 0]

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,

 

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

 

i would be asking for *more*. asking for what you are legally entitled to is necessarily not asking for more.

 

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.

 

i also dont care whether you like him or not.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. They forget where the money comes from. It's all very well to say pay all the players what they want, but it usually comes with complaints about lack of big money transfers as well as high ticket prices.

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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

 

It was a general observation.