Thomas Buffel Leaves - Official

[bmck 117]

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

 

if my employer wanted to release me from my fix term contract, after they had agreed to it, i would be asking for the whole sum of it. that is precisely the situation here.

 

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.

 

rangers want rid of him - be it by sacking or mutual consent. as such, given that they are the party wanting him out the door, the burden is entirely on them. if they didn't want to pay him X a week for Y years then they shouldn't have signed him.

 

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.

 

personally i dont care one way or the other, but i'm not sure how you can, in any reasonable manner, shift the burden onto him here. if your employer commited to employ you for four years, and wanted to shift you out the door beforehand, you are quite frankly an idiot if you take something less than the sum of your full contract.

 

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.

 

he is owed every penny of his fixed term contract. no grabbing the word "mutual" and, by some sleight of hand, pretending that both parties are dying to part way, is going to change that. rangers want him out the door - he's not willing to go for less than his contract is worth. that's the simple facts - reason from there. all this talk of "mutual" as if the whole thing arose spontaneously, from everyone involved's free will, is just obsfucation. employers who want to end people's fixed contracts early shouldn't be suprised when their employee demands their full worth. there is no other balance of obligation.

 

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.

 

fans sympathies can lie where they will - allowing sympathies either way to start distorting exactly what's going on, though, is just taking up the cause to propoganda.

 

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.

 

it's nothing like this. it's not even remotely like this.

 

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 disagree that it's overly greedy to ask for how much someone had already agreed to give you, but i guess your respect is quite a precarious thing.

 

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.

 

no-one's saying you cant express it for goodness sake.

 

all this is bifurcation any way. it's only you that's turning this into a player versus club situation. nonetheless, your position on its own merits is ridiculous - that someone should, when their paymasters find them expendible, walk away with whatever they are given, is just not something i would expect any sensible person to believe.

[Gribz 847]

One Thomas Buffel!!!! There's only one Thomas Buffel........ :drink: :drink:

[johnnyk 158]

One Thomas Buffel!!!! There's only one Thomas Buffel........ :drink:

 

 

And he's gone thank F**K...........:box:

[Gribz 847]

And he's gone thank F**K...........:box:

 

Aye coz it moves your client one up on the waiting list

[johnnyk 158]

Aye coz it moves your client one up on the waiting list

 

What the top scorer client m8

[calscot 0]

if my employer wanted to release me from my fix term contract, after they had agreed to it, i would be asking for the whole sum of it. that is precisely the situation here.

 

I think you are in the minority. Most people would take less and generally do. The company may as well continue to employ you and get something back for their money as it won't cost them anymore. That's what's happening with Gow as the situation stands.

 

Most redundancy packages depend on how long you have been at the company and legal requirements are not that high.

 

rangers want rid of him - be it by sacking or mutual consent. as such, given that they are the party wanting him out the door, the burden is entirely on them.

 

The only burden on them is to try and negotiate with Gow and come to an agreement. Their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA in negotiation parlance) is to keep him on as a squad player and continue to pay his wages. Gow's BATNA is obviously to stay at Rangers and try and work his way into the team.

 

if they didn't want to pay him X a week for Y years then they shouldn't have signed him.

 

I don't know how you can say that. They obviously signed him because they thought he could do a good job from what they had seen of him. Now he's been employed for a year they no longer rate him in that category. You seem to expect Rangers to be clairvoyant.

 

They signed him, they changed their mind, now they are trying to find an acceptable solution that benefits both parties.

 

 

personally i dont care one way or the other, but i'm not sure how you can, in any reasonable manner, shift the burden onto him here.

 

It is an interpretation and opinion of how equitable you think both sides are being during an impasse. I think Gow's have been too high - obviously so do Rangers. You obviously disagree.

 

Rangers are in no way obligated in the way you suggest, which is why Gow has not been paid off with the amount he demanded and why he is still employed by Rangers with his wage being paid as usual.

 

The rules you imply simply do not exist because Gow has not been sacked and his contract has not been terminated.

 

if your employer commited to employ you for four years, and wanted to shift you out the door beforehand, you are quite frankly an idiot if you take something less than the sum of your full contract.

 

I'm really disappointed in your wording here as to me you are calling most people an idiot. Most people will negotiate a settlement that is less than their contract otherwise the company is likely to keep them on. It's obvious to me they would usually compromise and a settlement eventually reached.

 

 

he is owed every penny of his fixed term contract.

 

He is not "owed" one penny. He will only be owed money for services he provides - ie he is due his salary at the end of every month (or whenever) as stated in his contract if he abides by his part of the deal.

 

no grabbing the word "mutual" and, by some sleight of hand,

pretending that both parties are dying to part way. rangers want him out the door - he's not willing to go for less than his contract is worth. that's the simple facts - reason from there. all this talk of "mutual" as if the whole thing arose spontaneously, from everyone involved's free will, is just obsfucation. if you think employers who want to end people's fixed contracts early are right to demand less than their full worth, then that's fine, but don't pretend that some other balance of responsibility exists.

 

Gow may not really wish to leave, but the only way Rangers can move him on is by "mutual" consent. I'm using this LITERALLY and without sleight of hand. If Rangers want him to go without mutual consent THEN you will become correct and he will be due the remainder of his contract. All agreements in negotiations are by definition, "mutual". If my company offered me a couple of hundred grand to leave I think we'd have a mutual agreement, that doesn't mean I'm dying to leave.

 

Rangers have therefore tried to negotiate with him to make him an offer that will make him prefer to leave but have failed to do so. Gow would obviously want to leave if he is paid a big enough golden handshake.

 

I don't know where you are getting this balance of responsibility, it doesn't exist in this case. The only responsibility each side have is to fulfill their side of the contract. It seems obvious to me that Rangers would prefer to no longer employ him but are also not willing to pay the rest of his contract up front. Rangers would instead prefer to spend the exact same amount of money and have the player in the squad.

 

If I contracted a lease car for two years and asked to be released from the contract after a year and they wanted the second years money up front. I would just keep the car for another year. Even if I had bought a replacement.

 

fans sympathies can lie where they will - allowing sympathies either way to start distorting exactly what's going on, though, is just taking up the cause to propoganda.

 

I don't think I'm the one distorting what is going on...

 

It is a negotiation between two parties to try and come to a mutual conclusion.

 

it's nothing like this. it's not even remotely like this.

 

Maybe you just can't see it. I think it's strange to glibly say to pay out money willy nilly while complaining that there is not have enough to spend - although I'm not saying you said that. In my experience, football fans do that a lot - as do tax payers.

 

i disagree that it's overly greedy to ask for how much someone had already agreed to give you, but i guess your respect is quite a precarious thing.

 

Are you twisting my words? You don't think it's greedy, I do; when I think someone is greedy, my respect for them diminishes. If that is precarious then so be it.

 

all this is bifurcation any way. it's only you that's turning this into a player versus club situation. nonetheless, your position on its own merits is ridiculous - that someone should, when their paymasters find them expendible, walk away with whatever they are given, is just not something i would expect any sensible person to believe.

 

I never said he should agree like a nodding dog. I said I thought he was demanding too much. The interpretation of too much is up to each individual. Rangers obviously agree somewhat with my evaluation. They obviously don't agree with yours. Not even close - in fact you are so far away that to me you look very naive to think Rangers would pay it instead of doing the obvious of just keeping the guy on the books - in fact it would be cheaper due to interest and cash-flow. They have no obligation whatsoever, to allow Gow to collect two wages.

 

Even Gow is not silly enough to demand what you suggest and is asking for a lesser amount. But then you have implied he must be an idiot for his stance.

 

Like I keep trying to explain - there are two parties here with a contract between them. One wants to end the contract early by offering the player another employer, the second in addition wants a large pay off to terminate the contract as he has been offered a lower wage. The first party don't agree with the valuation of the payoff and offer less. The second party does not agree with that valuation and they obviously both refuse to find a compromise. In conclusion they obviously didn't reach an agreement and therefore the contract is still in effect.

 

I can't see how that is a bifurcation - it's a simple synopsis of the situation.

 

The opposite would be the case if Gow wanted to terminate the contract - then Rangers would want to be paid off with �£250k.

 

At this stage the evaluation of what is a fair payoff is purely a matter of opinion. As long as the contract is not broken, the law nor any rules come into it. Gow could ask for a billion pounds if he likes or Rangers could offer him nothing. They cannot be punished for this or be forced to agree.

 

Gow was asking too high for Rangers liking, and Rangers were offering too low for Gow's liking.

 

Now as a football fan, although I can see Gow's point; however, I am more worried about Rangers finances than his and I am entitled to judge what I think is a fair amount. I like to think it's more than about money but with the huge wages even bit part players get, I'm a bit sick of the money first attitude of so many of them. To me, there is far too much greed in the game and when I consider who stumps up the money, I personally find it distasteful.

 

In the end I think Rangers, due to who they are, pay many players more than they are worth, which is why when they don't make the grade they are difficult to move on except at considerable expense.

 

To me a solution would be performance related pay but the difficulty is getting the players to agree to the contract in a climate where they expect a lot of money for just turning up.

 

I don't think I have said one word that is stupid or unreasonable, everything has been based on the facts centered round a negotiation. The ONLY thing I see that can be argued about is my opinion of the demands of each side and whatever conclusion I come to about the character of either party.

 

You cannot say my opinion is wrong but you can try and explain to me how I may come to a different conclusion. However, I don't see how you can do that without shifting to the negotiation paradigm as my opinions have nothing to do with a virtual sacking which has not happened.

 

Both sides will probably put all opinions like mine aside and keep it strictly business - that what business does. But in the end the negotiations failed so it's back to their BATNAs and business as usual.

[bmck 117]

that's just too much to respond to.

 

ultimately, the people changing the status quo are the ones with burden. that's just it. i dont blame rangers for trying to get him out for less than his total contract worth, thats their perogative - but as the ones instigating the process, the responsibility is theirs. if he doesn't want to go for less than his contract is worth, and stick it all out, that's upto him.

 

if he wants to leave, then it's probably best he settles for a reasonable payout - but given that he's stated through his agent that he wants to stay, then there's nothing that makes him an arse for seeing out his contract, and not taking less than its full worth.

[calscot 0]

I see what you are saying but to me while Rangers are still prepared to keep Gow, there is no burden. They made an offer it was turned down end of story.

 

Gow can stay if he likes but as he's unlikely to get in the first team much, it seems to me that it's for money reasons only. That maybe doesn't make him an arse but nor does it make him a well rounded and likable person worthy of any sympathy.

 

I'm not a money oriented person (I'm not averse to it but I believe there are many other values to pursue) and so do not sympathise with those who are - especially when to me they are more than adequately recompensed.

 

Lot's of fans DO sympathise with him, I find it strange and I'm trying point out why I don't think he deserves it. Maybe "greedy" was harsh but it's how it looks from my point of view.

[pete 2,499]

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)

 

Belgisch international Thomas Buffel, jeugdproduct van Cercle Brugge, speelt de komende 2 seizoenen opnieuw voor Groen en Zwart.

 

He signed a two year deal according to the Cergle website. He is taking a gamble that a bigger club will come in for him

[UCF2008 0]

I think you are in the minority. Most people would take less and generally do. The company may as well continue to employ you and get something back for their money as it won't cost them anymore. That's what's happening with Gow as the situation stands.

 

Most redundancy packages depend on how long you have been at the company and legal requirements are not that high.

 

 

 

The only burden on them is to try and negotiate with Gow and come to an agreement. Their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA in negotiation parlance) is to keep him on as a squad player and continue to pay his wages. Gow's BATNA is obviously to stay at Rangers and try and work his way into the team.

 

 

 

I don't know how you can say that. They obviously signed him because they thought he could do a good job from what they had seen of him. Now he's been employed for a year they no longer rate him in that category. You seem to expect Rangers to be clairvoyant.

 

They signed him, they changed their mind, now they are trying to find an acceptable solution that benefits both parties.

 

 

 

 

It is an interpretation and opinion of how equitable you think both sides are being during an impasse. I think Gow's have been too high - obviously so do Rangers. You obviously disagree.

 

Rangers are in no way obligated in the way you suggest, which is why Gow has not been paid off with the amount he demanded and why he is still employed by Rangers with his wage being paid as usual.

 

The rules you imply simply do not exist because Gow has not been sacked and his contract has not been terminated.

 

 

 

I'm really disappointed in your wording here as to me you are calling most people an idiot. Most people will negotiate a settlement that is less than their contract otherwise the company is likely to keep them on. It's obvious to me they would usually compromise and a settlement eventually reached.

 

 

 

 

He is not "owed" one penny. He will only be owed money for services he provides - ie he is due his salary at the end of every month (or whenever) as stated in his contract if he abides by his part of the deal.

 

 

 

Gow may not really wish to leave, but the only way Rangers can move him on is by "mutual" consent. I'm using this LITERALLY and without sleight of hand. If Rangers want him to go without mutual consent THEN you will become correct and he will be due the remainder of his contract. All agreements in negotiations are by definition, "mutual". If my company offered me a couple of hundred grand to leave I think we'd have a mutual agreement, that doesn't mean I'm dying to leave.

 

Rangers have therefore tried to negotiate with him to make him an offer that will make him prefer to leave but have failed to do so. Gow would obviously want to leave if he is paid a big enough golden handshake.

 

I don't know where you are getting this balance of responsibility, it doesn't exist in this case. The only responsibility each side have is to fulfill their side of the contract. It seems obvious to me that Rangers would prefer to no longer employ him but are also not willing to pay the rest of his contract up front. Rangers would instead prefer to spend the exact same amount of money and have the player in the squad.

 

If I contracted a lease car for two years and asked to be released from the contract after a year and they wanted the second years money up front. I would just keep the car for another year. Even if I had bought a replacement.

 

 

 

I don't think I'm the one distorting what is going on...

 

It is a negotiation between two parties to try and come to a mutual conclusion.

 

 

 

Maybe you just can't see it. I think it's strange to glibly say to pay out money willy nilly while complaining that there is not have enough to spend - although I'm not saying you said that. In my experience, football fans do that a lot - as do tax payers.

 

 

 

Are you twisting my words? You don't think it's greedy, I do; when I think someone is greedy, my respect for them diminishes. If that is precarious then so be it.

 

 

 

I never said he should agree like a nodding dog. I said I thought he was demanding too much. The interpretation of too much is up to each individual. Rangers obviously agree somewhat with my evaluation. They obviously don't agree with yours. Not even close - in fact you are so far away that to me you look very naive to think Rangers would pay it instead of doing the obvious of just keeping the guy on the books - in fact it would be cheaper due to interest and cash-flow. They have no obligation whatsoever, to allow Gow to collect two wages.

 

Even Gow is not silly enough to demand what you suggest and is asking for a lesser amount. But then you have implied he must be an idiot for his stance.

 

Like I keep trying to explain - there are two parties here with a contract between them. One wants to end the contract early by offering the player another employer, the second in addition wants a large pay off to terminate the contract as he has been offered a lower wage. The first party don't agree with the valuation of the payoff and offer less. The second party does not agree with that valuation and they obviously both refuse to find a compromise. In conclusion they obviously didn't reach an agreement and therefore the contract is still in effect.

 

I can't see how that is a bifurcation - it's a simple synopsis of the situation.

 

The opposite would be the case if Gow wanted to terminate the contract - then Rangers would want to be paid off with �£250k.

 

At this stage the evaluation of what is a fair payoff is purely a matter of opinion. As long as the contract is not broken, the law nor any rules come into it. Gow could ask for a billion pounds if he likes or Rangers could offer him nothing. They cannot be punished for this or be forced to agree.

 

Gow was asking too high for Rangers liking, and Rangers were offering too low for Gow's liking.

 

Now as a football fan, although I can see Gow's point; however, I am more worried about Rangers finances than his and I am entitled to judge what I think is a fair amount. I like to think it's more than about money but with the huge wages even bit part players get, I'm a bit sick of the money first attitude of so many of them. To me, there is far too much greed in the game and when I consider who stumps up the money, I personally find it distasteful.

 

In the end I think Rangers, due to who they are, pay many players more than they are worth, which is why when they don't make the grade they are difficult to move on except at considerable expense.

 

To me a solution would be performance related pay but the difficulty is getting the players to agree to the contract in a climate where they expect a lot of money for just turning up.

 

I don't think I have said one word that is stupid or unreasonable, everything has been based on the facts centered round a negotiation. The ONLY thing I see that can be argued about is my opinion of the demands of each side and whatever conclusion I come to about the character of either party.

 

You cannot say my opinion is wrong but you can try and explain to me how I may come to a different conclusion. However, I don't see how you can do that without shifting to the negotiation paradigm as my opinions have nothing to do with a virtual sacking which has not happened.

 

Both sides will probably put all opinions like mine aside and keep it strictly business - that what business does. But in the end the negotiations failed so it's back to their BATNAs and business as usual.