We_are_the_Hearts Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I've heard it was ?8million to Newco......................decision made by Dungcaster and Ronald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 hmmm What is your thinking behind this? Are they looking for any excuse to give Rangers money maybe? I suspect if it went "against" United, they'd happily go public. Therefore, I reckon it was ruled in their favour and the Hun don't want to publicly admit they are what we all know they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 hmmm What is your thinking behind this? Are they looking for any excuse to give Rangers money maybe? You can accuse the football authorities of many things , but bravery is not one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I've heard it was ?8million to Newco......................decision made by Dungcaster and Ronald. Don't joke - that sort of thing could happen knowing the clowns in charge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 You can accuse the football authorities of many things , but bravery is not one of them Would it be braver though to award it in Rangers' favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) The Rangers have been awarded ?10M and Jackie McNamara as compensation ... EDIT: In all seriousness the chat is it's ?170k DOUBLE EDIT: United are said to be 'furious' Edited December 9, 2014 by Sir Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Surely whatever they get is chicken feed compared to what they need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Surely whatever they get is chicken feed compared to what they need? United have already paid 60k to The The Rangers IIRC . So if its the 170k (sounds about right) Its not even making a dent in the situation. Shame that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Would it be braver though to award it in Rangers' favour? Would save them from getting their windaes pit in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The should offer to pay it at ?1 per week. They should take it to court, after all this is a decision about whether or not you should pay money to a company that no longer exists A court would laugh it out the door I would however love Utd to go- "OK we have given Rangers (new) ?60k- the other ?100 K will go to the old co creditors pot- TAH-DAH!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 OK, Devil's Advocate time. When there is a buying club and a selling club with different valuations, it's not unusual for the real value to be between the two WITHOUT BEING SLAP BANG IN THE MIDDLE. Who's to say that Rangers weren't more right than United in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/302861-dundee-united-ordered-to-pay-rangers-170000-for-charlie-telfer-move/ ?170k for a kid who came on once as a sub in a 3rd tier game?. With Doncaster heading this tribunal it was only ever going to go one way tbh. Can Utd appeal this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Could turn out to be good business for United........they could prob get more than that if they sold him in January 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 They should take it to court, after all this is a decision about whether or not you should pay money to a company that no longer exists A court would laugh it out the door I would however love Utd to go- "OK we have given Rangers (new) ?60k- the other ?100 K will go to the old co creditors pot- TAH-DAH!" What this does demonstrate is that in the SPFL's thinking there is a distinct link between Newco and Oldco and as such any insolvency event on behalf of Newco would be considered as a second event (in line with SPFL rule E5) and accordingly a 25 pts deduction would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 4 Ever Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Will pay Ally's wages for a few months then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewB Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Could turn out to be good business for United........they could prob get more than that if they sold him in January 2015. ...to Sevco to supply the balls to Ings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.K Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Looking forward to Thomson's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunoatemyhamster Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 So surely now if it goes Nuclear at ?1Brox , The Precedence has been set. They are treated as Oldco here What this does demonstrate is that in the SPFL's thinking there is a distinct link between Newco and Oldco and as such any insolvency event on behalf of Newco would be considered as a second event (in line with SPFL rule E5) and accordingly a 25 pts deduction would apply. Yup. Got to be seen as that now. Can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Is it Thompson Junior still that rules the roost at United? He wont be quiet about this I am guessing if he is miffed. Edited December 9, 2014 by Jammy T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts007 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 they will just pay Sevco in instalments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/302861-dundee-united-ordered-to-pay-rangers-170000-for-charlie-telfer-move/ ?170k for a kid who came on once as a sub in a 3rd tier game?. With Doncaster heading this tribunal it was only ever going to go one way tbh. I will go against the grain and say that this is a fair price for him. Even if he only played one game, he is a talented player who has won young player of the month already in the top tier. United should move on, in fact they are no saints when it comes to this, Queens Park got no money from United for Robertson and Connolly, Aberdeen at least gave them a token amount when they signed Shankland. United should move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 they will just pay Sevco in instalments They can't, Utd have 28 days to pay in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts007 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 They can't, Utd have 28 days to pay in full. Ah right.. and if they aint got that kinda money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The Rangers have been awarded ?10M and Jackie McNamara as compensation ... EDIT: In all seriousness the chat is it's ?170k DOUBLE EDIT: United are said to be 'furious' ?170k, plus ?34,000 VAT, according to this article. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/302861-dundee-united-ordered-to-pay-rangers-170000-for-charlie-telfer-move/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Is this old or new Rangers we are talking about here? Edited December 9, 2014 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 United will still make a ton of money on this guy. Excited for United's take, one of the least toadying, OF bashing clubs out there. Hope they come out punching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts007 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 If Telfer the 3rd tier player is only worth ?170k+Vat, what's Sevco's McLeod the 2nd tier player worth?. nowhere near 1.5 mill that's for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol1874 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Dundee United Chairman Stephen Thompson today issued a warning to parents of all young Scottish players to ?choose their clubs very, very carefully?. Thompson was reacting to the decision by an SPFL Tribunal that compensation of ?204,000 was due to Rangers Football Club following Charlie Telfer?s decision to leave the Ibrox club for Dundee United in the summer. His decision was influenced by the fact that he had made only one substitute appearance for Rangers in a competitive match; lasting only 20 minutes in League One when victory was already assured. However, with guidance and development received at Dundee United the player has broken through into the first team and was awarded the SPFL Young Player of the Month in a more senior league. The Dundee United Chairman said: ?This judgement in our opinion will have a serious impact on the freedom of movement of some young players through no fault of their own. ?Today?s decision protects clubs even in the event that those clubs are responsible for players? careers being stifled at a critical stage in their development. ?It will restrict the opportunities for some of our most promising young players to gain regular first team football and act as a deterrent to any Scottish football club which wishes to take such players on. Today?s decision is completely at odds with the stated aims of our football authorities in respect of encouraging our most promising young players to play first team football at the highest level. ?It highlights the need for parents and young players to choose their clubs very, very carefully. Today?s judgement now sets a dangerous precedent that means some of our most promising young players will be deprived of the opportunity to secure a contract at a club where they have been offered a genuine first team opportunity and to improve their earnings purely because the compensation has been set at a ridiculously prohibitive level. The sum awarded to Rangers is almost seven times the amount offered to the player under the terms of his new contract with the Glasgow club. ? In recent years Dundee United has successfully developed the careers of players such as Andy Robertson, Ryan Gauld, Stuart Armstrong, Gary Mackay-Steven, Craig Conway, Paul Dixon, Johnny Russell and David Goodwillie, all of whom benefitted from regular professional coaching and first team football at Dundee United and went on to play at full international or Under 21 level for Scotland. I think we all know what the outcome would have been had the shoe been on the other foot. Edited December 9, 2014 by Pistol1874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) As this whole Rangers/Sevco saga is about perception anyway, it's wonderful to see Rangers treating this like a victory. Dundee Utd, wee Dundee Utd, have basically just been told they aren't allowed to utterly bitch slap the team who used to lord it over them. Edited December 9, 2014 by Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 United will still make a ton of money on this guy. Excited for United's take, one of the least toadying, OF bashing clubs out there. Hope they come out punching. The panel consisted of Doncaster, Rod MacKenzie of Harper McLeod, the SPFL legal representatives and one as un-named SPFL board member. I'd imagine Stephen Thomson started working on his repsonse to the tribunal result before the formal introductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 If Telfer the 3rd tier player is only worth ?170k+Vat, what's Sevco's McLeod the 2nd tier player worth?. But your looking at the level he played in, not the player himself and the contract he was on. I do agree with some of what Steven Thompson says, that there is an issue where a player can sit on the bench and not get played and it can feel like the club he wants to go to gets penalised because they will actually play them. But in terms of this it is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That's a lot for such an unproven player to be transferred within Scotland. Nothing at all to do with Doncaster and Rangers financial difficulties.... It's about the same as we got for Adam King isn't it but the fact that he went to an EPL club suggests he has far more potential, so the Telfer price seems inflated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The panel consisted of Doncaster, Rod MacKenzie of Harper McLeod, the SPFL legal representatives and one as un-named SPFL board member. I'd imagine Stephen Thomson started working on his repsonse to the tribunal result before the formal introductions. No doubt. Would have been better to see that insinuated in the statement. Oh well, they've still basically stolen a very good player - one that had already demonstrated McCoist's haplessness and could have given the Gers a healthy transfer fee. Their team should have been built around guys like Telfer and all of their fans know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Wont happen but it would be funny if Thomson split the fee and gave Rangers2012 a chunk and offered the rest to BDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 But your looking at the level he played in, not the player himself and the contract he was on. I do agree with some of what Steven Thompson says, that there is an issue where a player can sit on the bench and not get played and it can feel like the club he wants to go to gets penalised because they will actually play them. But in terms of this it is right. I have some sympathy with Thompson, but were this the other way around (and rangers been forced to pay a small fee) he'd be describing it as a decision that allows big clubs to cherry pick youth players, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldar Hadzimehmedovic Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I have some sympathy with Thompson, but were this the other way around (and rangers been forced to pay a small fee) he'd be describing it as a decision that allows big clubs to cherry pick youth players, etc. Isn't that exactly what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I have some sympathy with Thompson, but were this the other way around (and rangers been forced to pay a small fee) he'd be describing it as a decision that allows big clubs to cherry pick youth players, etc. Yup, I think people can be a bit blinded to the rights and wrongs of this decision to it as it involves Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durham Jambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I wouldn't exactly be happy if I was a creditor of old Rangers. New Ranger are effectively being paid for developing a player before Old Rangers went into liquidation. They get the benefit but other creditors who provided work/services to the Old Rangers won't see any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 That's a lot for such an unproven player to be transferred within Scotland. Nothing at all to do with Doncaster and Rangers financial difficulties.... It's about the same as we got for Adam King isn't it but the fact that he went to an EPL club suggests he has far more potential, so the Telfer price seems inflated. I know it's cross border, but we only received ?100k for Novikovas, a first team SPL regular and internationalist who performed well at White Hart Lane and Anfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The contract he's on (wages) has nothing to do with his market value, for McLeod to be quoted in papers at the value he is when he's only playing against PartTime teams mainly only 1 league above just doesn't equate when you consider the panels verdict on Telfer, yes McLeod's prob more but would the same panel say it was ?1.5 million tomorrow.. er, market value is influenced by wages. The selling club will always look sell for at least contract value, hence clubs put players on larger wages to push up the price for a player (we did this Craig Gordon.) The market value should be for an equivalent for a youth international, with x wage and talent. To suggest that it should be just that he was at a club in the third division is like saying that Porche 911 and a Ford Fiesta should have the same market value because they both are kept on the same street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Looking forward to Thomson's statement. Indeed. Both barrels being loaded, I suspect ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Rangers valued the player at ?30,000 per year in their new contract offer.........hardly putting much faith in the player. Getting nearly 7 times that in compensation is simply too much and had it been any other club rather than Rangers would the fee have been that high ?........they have now set a precedent for future valuations. Edited December 9, 2014 by CJGJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Rangers valued the player at ?30,000 per year in their new contract offer.........hardly putting much faith in the player. Getting nearly 7 times that in compensation is simply too much and had it been any other club rather than Rangers would the fee have been that high ?........they have now set a precedent for future valuations. This for me its a huge blow to the future devolpment of young players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The ?9m we got for Gordon had practically nothing to do with his wages tbh but everything to do with his talent, 1st team appearances, league/level he was competing in & international appearance etc. but the biggest factor is a player is only worth what the buying club are willing to pay depending on how desperate they are to secure his services. The seller has a value he'd like to get the player for & the buyer has a value he'd like to pay & they weigh everything up & usually come to an agreed value then do the deal. Craig Gordon was also in contract..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 RidicuLous decision. Hope Utd dont take it lying down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Excellent statement from Rangers actually. They deserved some money for Charlie Telfer. United getting a promising youngster for nout is nice but I'd be raging if a similar club started nicking all our youngsters for free. A few folk not understanding that value is based on wages of contract. Edited December 9, 2014 by scott_jambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The thing that needs to be remembered is that Rangers are desperate for money, the panel deciding the value of Telfer would know this and make sure that Rangers get as much as they possibly could. After all, the governing bodies sole duty is to ensure that the so called Old Firm clubs are protected as much as they possibly can be. If it was up to these people, the new club called Rangers would have been rewarded with a place in Scotland's top division as soon as they were created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Has Charlie Telfer ever been paid ?30 per week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Has Charlie Telfer ever been paid ?30 per week? I know he is young but ?30 a week is pretty low. Almost get more doing a paper round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I know he is young but ?30 a week is pretty low. Almost get more doing a paper round. [emoji1] ?30k what's a K between friends unless of course your the Rangers. Did he actually ever get ?30K a week? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts