Gow Rejects Move

[craig 5,199]

If Gow is not entitled to a pay off unless Rangers break his contract (which you are correct, he isnt) then I dont think we can complain too heavily when said player says "fine, I will stay on the contract I am on". After all, BOTH parties agreed to it and are obligated by it.

 

He IS entitled to his wages under that contract so regardless of whether it is thought he lacks ambition etc etc he is entitled to stay at Rangers and pick up his wages for doing nothing.

 

A contract is a two way street - not one (on both player and club's side).

 

Cal, Gow is NOT in the wrong - he has the same entitlement as the club (i.e. obligate his contract) so irrespective of if you want to paint it different shades of grey both parties are in the right.

[UCF2008 0]

If as now is slowly seeping through that McCoist and Walter are starting to disagree...

 

I think it would be more worrying if they never disagreed. You can be sure that McCoist has a huge amount of repect for Walter. More than enough to know his place, but you can also be sure that Walter didn't bring him in as his assistant to be a 'yes' man. Walter even said as much himself and the same with regards to McDowall.

[calscot 0]

If Gow is not entitled to a pay off unless Rangers break his contract (which you are correct, he isnt) then I dont think we can complain too heavily when said player says "fine, I will stay on the contract I am on". After all, BOTH parties agreed to it and are obligated by it.

 

He IS entitled to his wages under that contract so regardless of whether it is thought he lacks ambition etc etc he is entitled to stay at Rangers and pick up his wages for doing nothing.

 

A contract is a two way street - not one (on both player and club's side).

 

Cal, Gow is NOT in the wrong - he has the same entitlement as the club (i.e. obligate his contract) so irrespective of if you want to paint it different shades of grey both parties are in the right.

 

Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word.

 

My point is that people have loads of entitlements but it doesn't mean that I agree with them exercising them to the extreme as "ethically admirable".

 

I am entitled to state that you are wrong without giving a reason but that wouldn't be very admirable either and I don't think you would think much of me for it.

 

I'm struggling to put this more plainly.

 

We are all entitled to be complete selfish arses basically in many human dealings but when you act like a selfish arse you shouldn't expect any sympathy.

 

There is a difference to asking for full entitlements and acting with honour.

 

To me Rangers have acted honourably in that they have tried to propose a win-win situation where Gow would have been better off financially as well as professionally - while Rangers would have financial benefits too.

 

Gow to me, is less honourable as he has only been thinking short term for his own bank balance and in fact comes across to me, as trying to take Rangers for as much as he could get.

 

Transfers are all part and parcel of the footballing world and so cannot be so directly compared to other careers. Rangers were just doing what has been done since football began. Gow if of a new breed of player who likes to rock the boat to leverage as much money as he can.

 

Entitlement? Yes. Honourable? Dubious to me.

 

Like I say, Rangers are entitled to make him train on his own and never play him. But that would be dishonourable too.

 

The long term result will end up being that the likes of Gow will never get a transfer to the likes of Rangers in future without terms or clauses that suit the club.

[calscot 0]

PS In what way has Gow's actions improved things for himself or for anyone else? None that I can see.

[craig 5,199]

I understand your chain of thought calscot, thanks for clarifying. And I see the validity of it.

 

Couple of questions though

 

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

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 ?

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.

 

Do I think Rangers were wrong ? NO.

Do I think Gow was wrong ? NO.

 

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.

 

The lad got a lucrative contract from Rangers, they have now seen that he won't cut it (in their eyes and for whatever reason only they know), they tried to offload him (makes sense), he wanted additional cash (makes sense from his point of view) and now he is, eventually, gone - which is good for all concerned.

 

I just think we should simply draw a line under the whole Gow episode until such time as he comes back from loan and we will then have the debate on whether he is good enough to break into the Gers team, dependent upon performances with Blackpool.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[alexscottislegend 2,306]

I understand your chain of thought calscot, thanks for clarifying. And I see the validity of it.

 

Couple of questions though

 

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

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 ?

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.

 

Do I think Rangers were wrong ? NO.

Do I think Gow was wrong ? NO.

 

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.

 

The lad got a lucrative contract from Rangers, they have now seen that he won't cut it (in their eyes and for whatever reason only they know), they tried to offload him (makes sense), he wanted additional cash (makes sense from his point of view) and now he is, eventually, gone - which is good for all concerned.

 

I just think we should simply draw a line under the whole Gow episode until such time as he comes back from loan and we will then have the debate on whether he is good enough to break into the Gers team, dependent upon performances with Blackpool.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

Don't worry about long post. You've elucidated things very well. Let me just introduce another tack which relates to the lack of clarity from the club over the Cuellar scenario. If the government sacked a minister without explanation we'd all want to know why - and we would be told, eventually. So why, when a club 'sacks' a player, does it not explain to the the fans - who are if you like shareholders in the club (sometimes literally) the reason for the actions of the management? It's about accountability. I know Maineflyer (amongst others) will snarl back at me that SDM doesn't do accountability, but all I'm saying is if we had a little more transparence then there wouldn't be this amount of speculation, which is all we've got to go on. And we'd probably accept much more of what they do or don't do.

[Bluedell 5,614]

Craig,

 

1. Yes, he asked Rangers for a pay-off.

 

2. Certainly no harm in asking. I'm not sure how it was asked but it certainly scuppered his move to Burnley as part of the Lafferty deal, so I presume it was in the manner of "give me a pay-off or I'm not moving." Perhaps JMS can shed more light on that.

 

It's obviously his choice, and a risk he was willing to take, but he's ended up with arguably a worse move than he would have had if he had gone to Burnley.

[Bluedell 5,614]

Don't worry about long post. You've elucidated things very well. Let me just introduce another tack which relates to the lack of clarity from the club over the Cuellar scenario. If the government sacked a minister without explanation we'd all want to know why - and we would be told, eventually. So why, when a club 'sacks' a player, does it not explain to the the fans - who are if you like shareholders in the club (sometimes literally) the reason for the actions of the management? It's about accountability. I know Maineflyer (amongst others) will snarl back at me that SDM doesn't do accountability, but all I'm saying is if we had a little more transparence then there wouldn't be this amount of speculation, which is all we've got to go on. And we'd probably accept much more of what they do or don't do.

I think it's wrong to expect that the internal workings of a club to be publicised. There are some things which should remain internal.

 

Firstly if the club comes out and says we are getting rid of him because he's crap then it's going to mean we will get less for him if we sell him. It may also put off players coming to the club because they would see a club that highlight their player's deficiencies, or highlight internal problems.

 

It wouldn't do much good for Rangers to have come out and said Gazza didn't play today because he could hardly walk at 12pm. It doesn't do the club or the player any good.

 

I'm not sure about the legality of it in a number of cases anyway. That's why a lot of companies refuse to give references these days. Whatever they say can get used against them in the future.

 

I don't believe that we would always get told of why a minister would be mved from a job. They aren't going to come out and out and say that Darling is being sacked for doing virtually everything wrong over the past 6 months. It may get speculated upon in the press, but theofficial line won't say that.

[alexscottislegend 2,306]

Bluedell - take your points totally about confidentiality and so forth, and the legal complexities. But there are ways of communicating - "things did not work out for personal reasons," "..in the best interests of the club etc.." Strachan said recently Gravesen didn't play because he couldn't fit in to their system. You can disbelieve that if you wish, but in the Gow case we have nothing, not even a smokescreen.

[ascender 352]

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?