Gow Rejects Move

[calscot 0]

1. Do we know for sure that Gow sought compensation to leave Gers by way of a pay-off ?

 

It seems well quoted as such and we can only talk about the information we have. All my opinions are based on the scenario that presents itself. If different information comes out my opinion could probably change.

 

2. Given Rangers have set precedent for this in the past he obviously thought that he may get something. Why not when others no more deserving got big payouts ?

 

Perhaps but that was players whom we just couldn't get rid of even for free as their wages were so high and no club would match that salary. Other clubs seem to be willing to match Gow's wage so, he will not suffer any loss of earnings. Therefore Rangers don't see a need to pay him. If we had to pay every player we sold we would hardly make a bean on the transfer fees.

 

Also importantly, Murray and Walter publicly stated that they would no longer pay off players as it encouraged such actions. They would rather just let the players see out the contracts. I can see why.

 

3. I don't think his actions have improved things for himself but Rangers actions could be deemed to have improved only THEIR position (hear me out..... Rangers simply wanted him off the books - agreed ? They have not one care as to what wages he could get elsewhere so just because he could have got the same wages is nothing to do with Rangers but more to do with him and his agent). Sorry but I just can't see why Rangers would look to offload a player and then look out for the best interests of the player. Rangers are a business, and rightly so, so why would they care what happens to the player after leaving ? They wouldn't in my opinion. So both parties look out for their best interests, not just one.

 

I think you have missed an important part of business - it is good business to try keep other interested parties happy. In this case it is obvious that Rangers want to look after the player's interests as if they can find a club that will both give Rangers a fee and Gow the same salary plus a signing on fee, then it's a reasonably enticing move for Gow and he's more likely to leave.

 

Conversely, if they just try to flog him with that consideration, then it will always fall through in the negotiations for personal terms. IE business will not be done. Therefore the wages ARE important to Rangers.

 

I think the big sticking point is that most transfers of younger players are usually upwards with offers of MORE money. Gow is in a weak position as he's not hot property, but then Rangers are in a weak position too, because the player is not really good enough to command a greater salary elsewhere.

 

That's where Gow seems to be in denial. I think he thinks he's better than he is. However, he has to prove it first - and Burnley would have been a good place to do so.

 

It's the same scenario which prompted Souness to ignore Scottish based players and buy from England. If it didn't turn out we could sell them back down south - sometimes for a profit. If we bought from the SPL and it didn't turn out well, then we were stuck.

 

Souness knew it then and that's 20 years ago. If players like Gow continue to refuse moves, then I can see Rangers again, ignoring SPL players. So not only is Gow NOT working in his best interests, he's not even working in the best interests of his peers.

 

 

Do I think Rangers were wrong ? NO.

Do I think Gow was wrong ? NO.

 

Like I said maybe wrong is the wrong word. Maybe even "reasonable" is the right word.

 

You can be not really in the wrong but unreasonable at the same time. A pub is entitled to chuck you out for say making too much noise, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask you to keep it down first?

 

Like I said, I think this is so obvious that I'm struggling to make it plainer. You can do what you like in your entitlements but the world is a better place when people compromise and act more reasonably. That's true for business, work, mates and pretty much everything.

 

I think that in simplistic terms Gow simply wanted more cash to leave and there is absolutely no harm in trying to get that - you don't get if you don't ask. He was told no by the powers that be and that is their entitlement too.

 

I agree, but it sounds like he was being unreasonable to me, while Rangers sounded reasonable.

[craig 5,199]

Rather than go back and forth.... to your point about keeping the other side happy - it is interesting to note that Gow's agent (agents aren't the most truthful but you never know) stated that Hearts were interested but RANGERS were more interested in the Blackpool option.

 

If that is the case then I fail to see how that would be doing so - they don't want Gow playing against them so, it APPEARS, they vetoed a move which it would seem the player would have preferred (to caveat - this is according to his agent).

 

I am not sure that he thinks he is better than he is - you are surmising as much of this is on both sides of the debate - I would surmise that he simply doesn't want to leave for lesser money and so is happy to bide his time. We don't have proof that he was offered the same wages elsewhere, do we ? If so I retract the statement.

 

If it is the same scenario as with Souness then surely that becomes the clubs fault that they took Gow on given they knew he was in the SPL and they could get "stuck" with him ? Not the player's fault for sure. Even if as you suggest he is being detrimental to his peers, why should he move to appease others ? I don't see the validity in that to be honest. It isnt his concern is Rangers ignore SPL players. They have ignored him already so why should he care ?

 

I get what you are saying Cal and on the whole don't disagree - I just don't believe that it is as black and white as Gow being unreasonable whilst Rangers aren't.

 

I can see why you think Gow is being unreasonable but is it any less unreasonable for him to say "you know what ? I love this club, have dreamt of playing for this club, WANT to play for this club and believe I am good enough to play for this club and therefore am going to stay and try as hard as I can to prove it to you" ?? See, that surely has as much validity and for one person that is not unreasonable whilst for another could be portrayed as being unreasonable. My point being he could very well have those thoughts so by not moving it may not be him being unreasonable but, as someone else says, he wants the chance to prove himself and fight for a place. It could be stubborn or in denial if you like but not necessarily unreasonable.

 

Equally, it could be suggested that if his agents words are true (again, who knows ?) and if he wanted to stay close to home then it could be construed that Rangers were being unreasonable by not allowing him to move to Hearts.

 

Again my point merely is that it doesnt come across as being as black and white to me as it does to you.

 

He hasn't been given a chance at Rangers (rightly OR wrongly I don't know because I dont know what happens at training, games, private life etc) - but he hasn't been given a chance. Who knows why ? Not me.

 

All that said though - he is now gone for a few months so I think we should all be getting on with who we DO have at the club and getting behind them, whilst keeping a watchful eye on those who are not at the club, but still contracted, to see how they get on.

[pete 2,499]

I don't see the problem in him sitting out his contract in practice, or even asking for a pay-off/compensation to go, if its true that he feels he's never been given a fair crack of the whip here.

 

But I do think it shows a serious lack of ambition on his part.

 

The problem is, I don't know what's gone on behind the scenes. I thought the lad's attitude from the start has been first rate, keen to sign for us and the few times I've seen him play in the first team he's looked good. That's all I can ultimately go on which is why its baffling he's never been given a chance to show what he can do in the SPL.

 

The other side of the coin is the numerous rumours about him since he signed and whether you believe some of them or not. The problem with rumours and particularly "sources" is that on other Gers forums there's so many sources that its hard to take them seriously any more when only a small percentage turn out to be legit. But I have no doubt some of them are, particularly in a small country like ours.

 

Bottom line for me is that the guy is obviously well down the pecking order and I'd have thought he'd be busting for regular football which surely means he'd have to move on? There's a lot of money in the English game, so unless there's family reasons for staying in Scotland, surely it wouldn't be a bad move for him?

 

Half the people in Blackpool are Scottish anyway, so he will feel right at home.

[Guest ecosse1]

Bluedell & Calscot

 

My apologies for not replying sooner, I have not been online long enough to reply, despite the debate moving on somewhat since my last post I thought it discourteous not to reply to your questions

 

Bluedell

I accept on reflection I am being over hard on SDM and probably letting my dislike of him prejudice my opinion. I confess to at the time looking forward to PLG�s tenure and was as disappointed as everyone that he never made it at Rangers, he did however have us playing at our best in Europe, if those performances worked in the SPL he would still probably be here.

 

Calscot, Am I more of a Gow fan that a Rangers fan you ask. Methinks you are being a little facetious.

 

But in replying let me say this, I have for a fair chunk of my life looked after the interests of those that have been exploited, used, abused and or treated unfairly by their employer. I detest injustice, now you may say what�s all this got to do with Gow?

 

To me it�s simple, Gow wasn�t given a fair crack of the whip, this of course can be disputed, and I have nothing fresh to add to some of the excellent points already made on the subject. It is and will remain a point of contention until the facts come out.

 

The point I was making when I said, ââ?¬Å? I pray he is a success at Blackpoolââ?¬Â believing that he wasnââ?¬â?¢t treated fairly at Rangers he would be able to prove the assertion that those of us make when we say he wasnt given a decent chance.

 

Hey who knows he may play for Scotland one day or then again sink into oblivion !!!

 

! :cheers:

 

My apologies again for being lax in replying.

[calscot 0]

Craig, I agree it's not black and white and the sentiments behind my arguments are such - there are infinite degrees of unreasonableness. However, I must admit to seeing things more from a Rangers point of view.

 

The scenariio to me was Rangers don't want him, are trying to get rid and maybe cash in some value for him which is reasonable enough in the field of football, but Gow has dug his heels in and refusing to budge because he wants a big payoff that if it is the whole amount of his contract, is just naive and in my opinion a bit greedy seeing as Rangers found him another club with reputedly a similar wage.

 

Rangers have been burned in the past and are not willing to pay off contracts anymore so Gow is on a hiding to nothing.

 

He may want to prove himself to Rangers and work his way into the team, but for me you then just need to substitute "unreasonable" for "naive". A stubborn player that Rangers see as worth �£250k and not good enough and want rid of, has very little chance of doing anything more than playing in the reserves and maybe getting a place on the bench in an injury crisis.

 

To me it's hard to really understand what Gow thinks he can achieve by hanging around as most of it doesn't make much sense - apart from the money angle.

 

To change my mind on that, I would need more information.

 

But the conclusion of my whole point, is that I don't see why we should worry about him or be angry at Rangers treatment of him.

 

Football is a cut-throat, 100% competititve business for clubs and they pay highly. You can't just play players out of sentiment - every "chance" is a big risk to the result. Managers assess their players and then choose the team accordingly.

 

On the other hand, away from the pitch, Rangers have a good reputation for how they treat players, and Gow has been well paid and looked after - and he must have benefited from a higher standard of training. However, he's obviously not considered to be of benefit to the Rangers squad and so they've tried to get him a decent move that would be advantageous to both parties.

 

There is plenty of other stuff behind the scenes and obviously both parties are trying to look out for themselves.

 

However, from what we know, it seems to me that Gow is looking more for short term monetary gain, rather than the long term future of his career. That smacks of lack of ambition and possibly narrow minded greed. However, I could be completely wrong.

 

In the end I'm worried about Rangers finances and find a player wanting to extract more money from the club or just taking a wage without being part of the team, and blocking a transfer fee as irritating and frustrating.

[craig 5,199]

Cal,

 

I am certainly not angry at Rangers treatment of Gow, simlpy because I don't know what has happened to tarnish a relationship which, if we remember, started with him performing admirably after losing one of his family. So admirably, in fact, that it had Durrant and Smith singing his praises to the hilt. From there though I have no idea what has happened so I am angry at neither party.

 

I understand that you see things from Rangers point of view and rightly so. However, that also has the potential for judgement to be clouded as you no longer are impartial (not saying you are but there is the possibility for it to happen).

 

I disagree that Gow refusing to move lacks ambition when looked at from a different angle. IF he wants to stay to try to prove himself then I would think that it shows the polar opposite of lack of ambition. Wanting to stay at a massive club like Rangers to prove yourself is far more ambitious in my opinion than going to a second rate team like Blackpool, especially given the players he would be fighting against to get a start. I happen to think that is VERY ambitious. You could call it stubborn or naive and with justification - but those same set of circumstances could just as easily be justified as being the complete opposite.

 

I guess the point I am making is that we don't have all the facts and whilst we don't then we are speculating at almost every juncture.

 

I worry about Rangers finances too and I prefer to see them as lean as possible - it is after all a BUSINESS - so I don't want to see us making these huge payouts to get rid of players. But then, I just prefer we don't sign the deadwood in the first place.

 

But, again, you suggesting that Gow taking a wage without being part of the team is too simplistic for me. I would be quite sure he WANTS to be part of the team - the decision for him to be part of that team isnt his though - and if we are talking in these terms then there are plenty of others at Ibrox who aren't part of the team but getting a wage for it.

 

I understand any player blocking a transfer fee is irritating and frustrating - however, if your employer wanted rid of you and was asking you to move 200+ miles (guessing.....) just so they got rid of you and it was somewhere that you didn't want to go, would you do it ? I know for sure I wouldn't, especially if I was on a contract that I was quite happy with.

[Bluedell 5,516]

I understand any player blocking a transfer fee is irritating and frustrating - however, if your employer wanted rid of you and was asking you to move 200+ miles (guessing.....) just so they got rid of you and it was somewhere that you didn't want to go, would you do it ? I know for sure I wouldn't, especially if I was on a contract that I was quite happy with.

A footballer isn't a normal profession, and there are only limited places that you can ply your trade and with a limited period that you can earn your money.

 

Footballers therefore should expect to have to move around and if they don't they shouldn't be in the game.

[bmck 117]

man, footballers dont have to move anywhere. i wouldnt move to blackpool. its horrible.

 

that said, more generally gow can gtf. there really must have been something behind the scenes. he went from flavour of the month to outcast very quickly. tend to trust walt etc with these things.

[Bluedell 5,516]

man, footballers dont have to move anywhere. i wouldnt move to blackpool. its horrible.

St Annes is nice.....

[calscot 0]

I agree that in football careers moves are inherent and the kind of money Gow earns can make any place quite livable as well as the kind of work he has to do and the instant social life he can have.

 

I'm in academia and have moved from Edinburgh to Newcastle to Kent to Aberdeen to Milton Keynes - and mostly without much money to soften the blow or the kind of instant social life that comes with football and the ease of making friends when you're somewhat famous.

 

Gow won't have to live in a shit bedsit or crappy student halls without even a telly while he sorts himself out. He won't have to work 8 hour days and then try and make a life for himself in the evenings. He'll even have someone looking after him and making sure he settles in.

 

He can afford a decent house in a decent area. Fill it with nice stuff and things to keep him amused.

 

He can easily afford any top golf club fee and play as often as he likes with his celebrity status bringing him an instant social circle.

 

I'd have loved it if my life had been that easy every time I moved.

 

Why is there so much sympathy for highly paid footballers for having to do things that ordinary people have to do, but in luxury and 100 times easier?

 

It's like feeling sorry for a rich person having to "slum" it in four star hotel on holiday.

 

I'd love to have Gow's problems...