"Badly Advised"

[Tommy Wiseau]

Not another *BOKE*Webster*BOKE* thread, but some of the chat about him over the last couple of days has made the question worth posing. Lots of people have been saying let bygones be bygones, the player was "a young laddie" who was "badly advised"/"led on by his agent". I'm wondering who accepts this as fair enough to excuse past misdemeanours and who doesn't.

 

Do players have minds of their own, or are they effectively ruled by their advisors and agents? For those who think it's understandable to be seduced by some bad advice, how far would a player have to go before the "badly advised" line wouldn't wash anymore? How much control do you think players have over their own careers, and how much are they controlled?

 

Please try not to turn this into another Webster thread, we have plenty of those. This is a more general question. Thankyouplease.

[speedbump]

Alan Johnston was another who was badly advised when he left Hearts, didn't really use his loaf when he wanted to leave Sunderland either.

[inspector]

I've always thought he was ill-advised however the tapping-up by the Rangers news still rankles with me. The huns knew what would result from their official 'fanzine' approaching Webster but as usual a blind eye was turned by the authorities

[Peebo]

The phrase "badly-advised" is only surpassed by "not that type of player" in terms of bullshit football-related cliches.

[Victorian]

well...

 

without webster or his agent suddenly 'fessing up' to the whole shenanigans, the theory 'he was badly advised' is merely an indeterminable guess. probably used as a convenient excuse in order to further a particular line of argument or agenda.

 

it is best used when it is set in context of being the personal opinion of the poster, much like any other guess / theory which cannot be determined by examining facts.

 

for me the even worse line of argument - by a long way - is the insistence that webster simply wanted to move away and that all the rumpus thereafter was caused by others. a simplification of convenience. it is used by people who are far better at pulling the wool over their own eyes than they are at pulling it over anyone else's... IMO.

[shaun.lawson]

Not another *BOKE*Webster*BOKE* thread, but some of the chat about him over the last couple of days has made the question worth posing. Lots of people have been saying let bygones be bygones, the player was "a young laddie" who was "badly advised"/"led on by his agent". I'm wondering who accepts this as fair enough to excuse past misdemeanours and who doesn't.

 

Do players have minds of their own, or are they effectively ruled by their advisors and agents? For those who think it's understandable to be seduced by some bad advice, how far would a player have to go before the "badly advised" line wouldn't wash anymore? How much control do you think players have over their own careers, and how much are they controlled?

 

Please try not to turn this into another Webster thread, we have plenty of those. This is a more general question. Thankyouplease.

 

Well, the thing about players and agents is there's a constant conflict of interest. The agent only makes more money if the player moves. And in general, we're talking about young, impressionable guys seduced by more money, a bigger club and so on. Markedly few seem to exercise caution in such circumstances.

 

In my view, if a player errs once, even if it's a big act of treachery, he should be forgiven in time - as long as he's not committed a crime or something. It's if they do it twice that it becomes a pattern, and is much harder to ignore. You might draw a parallel with someone like Steve Bruce: as a manager, if he'd only left one club for a bigger one, it'd have been understandable. But that he became a serial breaker of contracts earned him a reputation he's never shaken off since.

 

And in the end, there really aren't many players who'll turn down more money and a bigger club or stage on which to play. That makes them like most people in employment really. Years ago, I read an interview with Paul Ritchie in which he was remarkably phlegmatic about what happened to him at Rangers. Despite being a Jambo all his life, he clearly felt we weren't likely to go any further under JJ - then looked at Rangers' ambitions to blaze a trail in Europe, and wanted to be a part of it. He got completely burned, but doesn't regret it. It's just a pity he couldn't have handled himself with more dignity in the process - but these are footballers. Not philosophers.

[Le Chat]

He's always seemed a reasonably bright guy and reasonably bright guy's just don't swallow any old shite they're told by someone who's set to take 15% of whatever he's telling you you can make.

 

Badly advised my arse.

[redm]

I'm pretty sure agents must go on reputation as much as anything else and if they advise players badly you'd expect them to lose business accordingly. It has to be in their interests to advise well, but then our idea of what constitutes bad advice and that of a player are probably two very different things...there's the PR element to consider too.

[shaun.lawson]

I'm pretty sure agents must go on reputation as much as anything else and if they advise players badly you'd expect them to lose business accordingly. It has to be in their interests to advise well, but then our idea of what constitutes bad advice and that of a player are probably two very different things...there's the PR element to consider too.

 

And of course, there are certainly players out there who, once they've got their move to their 'dream club', happily sit on the bench or in the reserves counting their money, and must be delighted with their agent's work. Although it's not the same thing exactly, remember Bobo Balde's attitude when Peter Lawwell wanted to move him on?

 

"You are the Chief Executive of Celtic. I am the Chief Executive of Bobo Balde".

[Spellczech]

I just want him to be great for Hearts and get back playing for Scotland so that for once we get the last laugh at Rangers expense.

 

Not interesting in discussing the past - deeds, misdeeds blah blah...

 

I support Hearts not Andy Webster, but Andy Webster is now back at Hearts, so I hope he does well, really well, supremely well. I want our away support to be able to shout "GIRUY Uncle Wattie and David Murray" on their next trip to Ibrox...

[The Rev]

''Badly advised'' is essentially a get out clause. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

And for me it doesn't wash very well.

[Drylaw Hearts]

I don't think for a minute he was badly advised.

 

He did what he could to get out of Hearts and we have to accept that.

 

Anyone who cannot understand why he wanted out needs to lie down in a dark room for a few days.

 

You'll get there eventually.

[bighusref]

As an adult, he cannot blame another for a conscious choice he made.

[Commander Harris]

I've heard from a lot of Rangers fans, some claim to be a bit 'in the know', others definitely not. There was bad blood between AW and Smith and McCoist they reckon.

 

This was on AW's side, and I've no inkling where it came from. But Webster did not want to play for them, from what I heard.

 

As such, he would rarely make himself available for selection when a place in the team became available.

 

When RFC declared interest in 2005, I believe Duddy lost his mind and chased the ????z. There is no doubt in my mind that AW bought into this cash chasing, big time.

 

Bear in mind again, that this is just what I have been told by some unverifiably 'ITK' Gers fans.

 

AW could have gone south to listen to offers. Dundee Utd asked to be kept informed of the situation and bowed out early doors because they couldn't afford him on top of the Dutch lad.

 

He could have gone to hibs. Instead he signed for Hearts and says he wants to be here.

 

That says to me he wants to be here. That he's admitted he's made mistakes.

 

That's a lot of supposition, I know. But it's my best educated guess.

the chat is, and I can't say how accurate it is, that Webster was left to foot the 150k compensation bill for "terminating his contract without due cause" himself having been privately assured that RFC would cover the costs of any compensation.

Sounds plausible to me that a skint Rangers would renege on this agreement leaving AW none to pleased and effectively withholding his labour.

 

 

 

[Peebo]

I don't think for a minute he was badly advised.

 

He did what he could to get out of Hearts and we have to accept that.

 

Anyone who cannot understand why he wanted out needs to lie down in a dark room for a few days.

 

You'll get there eventually.

 

Indeed. If anything, you could perhaps argue he was "well-advised". He ended up at the club that he apparently wanted to play for.

 

The fact that it didn't work out for him there is another issue. Personally, I couldn't give a flying feck about either, now. If JJ and Vlad can get over any issues in the past, then I certainly can.

[Drylaw Hearts]

the chat is, and I can't say how accurate it is, that Webster was left to foot the 150k compensation bill for "terminating his contract without due cause" himself having been privately assured that RFC would cover the costs of any compensation.

Sounds plausible to me that a skint Rangers would renege on this agreement leaving AW none to pleased and effectively withholding his labour.

 

I'm not sure how Rangers could have justified paying the bill/compensation for this when the player signed for Wigan.

[Victorian]

I don't think for a minute he was badly advised.

 

He did what he could to get out of Hearts and we have to accept that.

 

Anyone who cannot understand why he wanted out needs to lie down in a dark room for a few days.

 

You'll get there eventually.

 

ah the archetypal case in point surfaces, flying his flag of convenience.

 

are we to believe that andy webster endured some sort of unique experience while at hearts which led him into a course of action that was in fact unique in itself in world football?

 

do you believe that throughout the world of football with all the various cases of tyrannical ownership, poor management and what not that andy webster's situation was so desperate that he had to undertake his course of action, in complete contrast to every other disaffected / unsettled player who preceded him?

 

show me the fairies in which you believe DH.

[Commander Harris]

I'm not sure how Rangers could have justified paying the bill/compensation for this when the player signed for Wigan.

 

yes, but he signed for Rangers before this compensation bill existed, he may have done so under that understanding. Part of the deal between Rangers and Wigan could have been that Wigan were not responsible for any future compensation payment.

 

 

It's speculation on my part, but I don't think it's out of the question.

 

 

[Spellczech]

I'm not sure how Rangers could have justified paying the bill/compensation for this when the player signed for Wigan.

Hmmmn where is the "strokes chin" smiley when you need one. Rangers got Wigan to buy him through their JJB links just like they got that Norwegian bunch to buy Velicka. Murray's ego could not take it when Vlad came in and said "I'm not selling to the OF". Vlad for his part got his revenge by selling Hartley to Celtic - probably had a wee chuckle to himself about that afterwards!

[Drylaw Hearts]

ah the archetypal case in point surfaces, flying his flag of convenience.

 

are we to believe that andy webster endured some sort of unique experience while at hearts which led him into a course of action that was in fact unique in itself in world football?

 

do you believe that throughout the world of football with all the various cases of tyrannical ownership, poor management and what not that andy webster's situation was so desperate that he had to undertake his course of action, in complete contrast to every other disaffected / unsettled player who preceded him?

 

show me the fairies in which you believe DH.

 

His situation may not have been unique but what he did was bang in imo.

 

Picture yourself as a pro footballer and being threatened with no football for 12 months plus.

 

What would you do ?

 

 

Btw...

 

I actually admire for having the balls to carry the whole thing through.

 

I would have done the same thing myself.

 

 

You just can't let someone have that much control over your future.

[Victorian]

His situation may not have been unique but what he did was bang in imo.

 

Picture yourself as a pro footballer and being threatened with no football for 12 months plus.

 

What would you do ?

 

 

Btw...

 

I actually admire for having the balls to carry the whole thing through.

 

I would have done the same thing myself.

 

 

You just can't let someone have that much control over your future.

 

okay... an initial admission that webster's 'plight' was not unique. well done, admission filed.

 

to tie up the loose ends on this one, tell us why andy webster and his agent became unique in that an obscure clause was invoked in order for him to escape from his ?15,000 per week contract torture hell.

 

have there not been any other players who were enduring such misery that had the balls to follow through on their crusude of enduring righteousness?

[portobellojambo1]

I suppose it depends what you class as badly advised, and what advice he was actually given. If we are talking in terms of knowing the ins and outs of the legislation which surrounded his contract, i.e. did he or would he have read all the small print (how many people on here read the small print in something relatively simple, such as a credit card agreement for example) in relation to his contract I would hesitate a guess that it doesn't matter how intelligent he is he wouldn't have had a scooby about a piece of legislation floating about which gave him the option, based on his age and length of contract, to move on at a certain point.

 

The fact that his agent obviously knew of this piece of existing legislation and suggested it to him could be deemed bad advice, because by utilising it Webster was effectively doing the agent out of his cut of any potential transfer fee. It could also be deemed as either good or bad advice depending on Andy's thoughts at the time. If his feelings were "I don't really want to do it this way" then it could be deemed bad advice, alternatively if his thoughts were "if this saves me sitting about in the stand for months doing feck all, let's go for it" then it was good advice.

 

I think the best way to describe it is he acted on advice, and it is then up to individuals, depending on how the feel about what happened to determine if they feel the advice was good or bad. I would imagine any professional footballer would want to be playing football (your average punter who works in an office, for example, getting told by his employers that he/she could come into the workplace, but wouldn't be expected to work for 12 months, although would receive full pay over that period, would probably be fecking delighted), and if he felt this was the only option available to him you would have to conclude it was good advice rather than bad advice.

[Commander Harris]

oops, my apologies to the OP for my part in turning this into yet another webster thread

[Drylaw Hearts]

Hmmmn where is the "strokes chin" smiley when you need one. Rangers got Wigan to buy him through their JJB links just like they got that Norwegian bunch to buy Velicka. Murray's ego could not take it when Vlad came in and said "I'm not selling to the OF". Vlad for his part got his revenge by selling Hartley to Celtic - probably had a wee chuckle to himself about that afterwards!

 

Hartley was sold to Celtic over a year before Velicka was sold to Viking.

 

That kinda fecks up your theory.

[Drylaw Hearts]

okay... an initial admission that webster's 'plight' was not unique. well done, admission filed.

 

to tie up the loose ends on this one, tell us why andy webster and his agent became unique in that an obscure clause was invoked in order for him to escape from his ?15,000 per week contract torture hell.

 

have there not been any other players who were enduring such misery that had the balls to follow through on their crusude of enduring righteousness?

 

Vic....

 

Firstly...

 

Webster wasn't on ?15k per week.

 

Secondly....

 

And I don't understand why you don't get this.....

 

The guy was issued with a threat and had the balls to deal with it.

 

Goncalves was dealt with the same threat but they wasn't in a position to do anything about it.

 

He just sat in the stand and wasted 6 months of his career.

[portobellojambo1]

okay... an initial admission that webster's 'plight' was not unique. well done, admission filed.

 

to tie up the loose ends on this one, tell us why andy webster and his agent became unique in that an obscure clause was invoked in order for him to escape from his ?15,000 per week contract torture hell.

 

have there not been any other players who were enduring such misery that had the balls to follow through on their crusude of enduring righteousness?

 

Don't take this the wrong way SS, but if you genuinely believe Webster was earning anything close to ?15K at the point of leaving you are bonkers. The much vaunted increase HMFC were offering him, which was to more than double his wages by all accounts, would have meant if he had accepted it he would still have been earning nowhere even remotely close to ?15K a week.

[Victorian]

Vic....

 

Firstly...

 

Webster wasn't on ?15k per week.

 

Secondly....

 

And I don't understand why you don't get this.....

 

The guy was issued with a threat and had the balls to deal with it.

 

Goncalves was dealt with the same threat but they wadsn't in a position to do anything about it.

 

He just sat in the stand and wasted 6 months of his career.

 

yes, so you said. but you have already admitted that webster was not unique in that he had to deal with such things. what makes his response unique? why were there no others who "had the balls" to deal with it?

 

are we to believe that webster and duddy discovered the wisdom of solomon and the courage of a lion, way in advance of any of his peers?

 

i know he wasn't on ?15,000 per week but that was the figure being mentioned for his new contract offer. it may well have been less.

 

Don't take this the wrong way SS, but if you genuinely believe Webster was earning anything close to ?15K at the point of leaving you are bonkers. The much vaunted increase HMFC were offering him, which was to more than double his wages by all accounts, would have meant if he had accepted it he would still have been earning nowhere even remotely close to ?15K a week.

 

as above, i'm citing the figure that was being bandied around. it may well have been exaggerated. if he's been offered more than double his current deal then it will still have been pretty good. also keeping in mind what many of the other players were getting at the same point in time.

[Drylaw Hearts]

yes, so you said. but you have already admitted that webster was not unique in that he had to deal with such things. what makes his response unique? why were there no others who "had the balls" to deal with it?

 

are we to believe that webster and duddy discovered the wisdom of solomon and the courage of a lion, way in advance of any of his peers?

 

i know he wasn't on ?15,000 per week but that was the figure being mentioned for his new contract offer. it may well have been less.

 

 

 

Vic...

 

What would you have done in his situation ?

 

Sat in the stand or got out ?

[redm]

the chat is, and I can't say how accurate it is, that Webster was left to foot the 150k compensation bill for "terminating his contract without due cause" himself having been privately assured that RFC would cover the costs of any compensation.

Sounds plausible to me that a skint Rangers would renege on this agreement leaving AW none to pleased and effectively withholding his labour.

 

 

Whilst I'm aware that this is not a Webster thread, I just had to note that I had serious smugface when I read this. Karma's a bitch.

[Victorian]

Vic...

 

What would you have done in his situation ?

 

Sat in the stand or got out ?

 

neither, i would have 'played the game' being orchestrated by the club owner and signed the contract on offer... after insisting on clauses ensuring my exit at a certain point or at a certain bid.

 

he wasn't in the kind of terrible situation which merited his actions. why was there no mass exodus from tynecastle during this time of oppression?

[portobellojambo1]

the chat is, and I can't say how accurate it is, that Webster was left to foot the 150k compensation bill for "terminating his contract without due cause" himself having been privately assured that RFC would cover the costs of any compensation.

Sounds plausible to me that a skint Rangers would renege on this agreement leaving AW none to pleased and effectively withholding his labour.

 

 

 

 

I think, as per Bothers post as well, CH there are a number of stories going about, where people have been trying to put 1+1 together and come up with the right answer. The story I had heard differs from what you've heard and what Borthers has heard, and again I don't know how accurate it is, but in all of the stories Walter Smith's name seems to keep coming up. What I'd heard was that it didn't actually relate to Rangers, or his attitude at Rangers, but related back to when Smith was manager of Scotland, and all this hooha with Webster's situation was going on. I was told that Smith had picked Webster for a Scotland match and Webster was unable or unwilling to play because of the ongoing situation. Smith felt very let down as a result and basically shunned Webster during his time at Rangers. Again, like you, I have no idea if the story is closer to the moon than the truth.

[Drylaw Hearts]

neither, i would have 'played the game' being orchestrated by the club owner and signed the contract on offer... after insisting on clauses ensuring my exit at a certain point or at a certain bid.

 

he wasn't in the kind of terrible situation which merited his actions. why was there no mass exodus from tynecastle during this time of oppression?

 

I'm disappointed.

 

You had the chance to show me you had balls the size of coconuts and all you pulled out was a couple of peanuts.

 

And as for the non-mass exodus....

 

Skacel left at the same time, only months later we had the Riccarton 3 which led to the departure of Pressley followed soon after by Hartley to Celtic.

 

And then all hell broke loose.

 

Your memory leaves a lot to be desired Vic.

[Victorian]

I'm disappointed.

 

You had the chance to show me you had balls the size of coconuts and all you pulled out was a couple of peanuts.

 

And as for the non-mass exodus....

 

Skacel left at the same time, only months later we had the Riccarton 3 which led to the departure of Pressley followed soon after by Hartley to Celtic.

 

And then all hell broke loose.

 

Your memory leaves a lot to be desired Vic.

 

as does yours it seems because i seem to remember 33% of R3 signing the new contract put before him and subsequently getting a move to the premiership later on.

 

craig gordon and his sensible advisors 'played the game', and played it well.

 

QED.

[Drylaw Hearts]

as does yours it seems because i seem to remember 33% of R3 signing the new contract put before him and subsequently getting a move to the premiership later on.

 

craig gordon and his sensible advisors 'played the game', and played it well.

 

QED.

 

Unless I'm mistaken.......

 

That contract was signed waaay before the Riccarton 3 debacle.

 

Infact..

 

It was.

 

Also...

 

Gordon was a Hearts fan which made a difference imo.

[Victorian]

Unless I'm mistaken.......

 

That contract was signed waaay before the Riccarton 3 debacle.

 

Infact..

 

It was.

 

Also...

 

Gordon was a Hearts fan which made a difference imo.

 

it doesn't matter which event preceded the other, the salient point is that craig gordon played ball and signed the new deal offered to him amidst the crazy times. he bided his time and was well rewarded.

 

being a hearts fan may have made some small difference. you could also simply say that being an honourable person made the difference.

[Drylaw Hearts]

it doesn't matter which event preceded the other, the salient point is that craig gordon played ball and signed the new deal offered to him amidst the crazy times. he bided his time and was well rewarded.

 

being a hearts fan may have made some small difference. you could also simply say that being an honourable person made the difference.

 

Craig Gordon signed his contract pre-really crazy times.

 

It was before the revelation that VR was picking the team over Rix.

 

Maybe if the offer had come after this things would have been different ?!?!

 

He was part of the R3 afterall.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Do players have minds of their own, or are they effectively ruled by their advisors and agents? For those who think it's understandable to be seduced by some bad advice, how far would a player have to go before the "badly advised" line wouldn't wash anymore? How much control do you think players have over their own careers, and how much are they controlled?

A lot of players are not the brightest I have heard that it is not uncommon for some premiership clubs to hold onto the players passports to ensure they get on flights for European games.

[Victorian]

Craig Gordon signed his contract pre-really crazy times.

 

It was before the revelation that VR was picking the team over Rix.

 

Maybe if the offer had come after this things would have been different ?!?!

 

He was part of the R3 afterall.

 

 

ahhh, ok. apologies for not seeing the crucial distinction between crazy time and really crazy time.

 

perhaps these times will be acknowledged in years to come in the same terms as well known geological periods of earth history.

 

when did such and such say that?

 

think it was during the late crazytime period mate. just before the CT-RCT boundary.

 

[Mr Brightside]

yes, but he signed for Rangers before this compensation bill existed, he may have done so under that understanding. Part of the deal between Rangers and Wigan could have been that Wigan were not responsible for any future compensation payment.

 

 

It's speculation on my part, but I don't think it's out of the question.

I always felt that Rangers overpaid for Lee McCulloch which was at the same time as their loan/ transfer of Webster.

[Drylaw Hearts]

ahhh, ok. apologies for not seeing the crucial distinction between crazy time and really crazy time.

 

perhaps these times will be acknowledged in years to come in the same terms as well known geological periods of earth history.

 

when did such and such say that?

 

think it was during the late crazytime period mate. just before the CT-RCT boundary.

 

 

Thats your best response ?

 

You focussed on the word 'really' ?

 

You've had ample opportunities to put over a decent case and you've failed miserabley my old foe.

 

You and your peanut size balls have underachieved this evening.

[Hereward]

My view is that Webster had been well felt up by Rangers, not for his benefit, but for their usual reasons of weakening another team and warehousing/freezing out a young scottish player to help preserve their place at the top (and the Champions League dosh).

 

Badly advised, my arse. Webster wanted out well before things got screaming meemy around here, and others have suggested, probably had plenty of "private" assurances, which may or may not all have been acted upon.

 

There was no daft laddying about it. He was very cunningly advised and karma bit him on the backside for being a snake dealing with other snakes. I'd still like to see Wigan take a boot in the bollocks over their complicity in the whole mess. Relegation for them this season would do nicely.

[Drylaw Hearts]

I always felt that Rangers overpaid for Lee McCulloch which was at the same time as their loan/ transfer of Webster.

 

Webster signed for Rangers 6 months before they bid for McCulloch.

[Drylaw Hearts]

My view is that Webster had been well felt up by Rangers

 

Of course he was.

 

Hearts will have done the same thing on many occasions.

 

Infact..

 

They probably 'felt-up' Webster several days before his Rangers contract was cancelled.

[Victorian]

Thats your best response ?

 

You focussed on the word 'really' ?

 

You've had ample opportunities to put over a decent case and you've failed miserabley my old foe.

 

You and your peanut size balls have underachieved this evening.

 

is that your best DH? tut tut.

 

yes we have meandered away from the main point somewhat.

 

the central point is that webster had a third option other than the two outlined by yourself. while you insist that he either had to sit out football for a year or underhandedly escape from his contract, the fact is that he could have chosen to accept the contract and bide his time for his move. craig gordon took this course of action... marius zaliukas did too more recently.

 

my assertion is that webster and his advisors chose to take the quicker, more devious route. it wasn't that he alone had the balls to stand up to tyranny... it's because of the devious nature of the characters involved.

[The Merse]

is that your best DH? tut tut.

 

yes we have meandered away from the main point somewhat.

 

the central point is that webster had a third option other than the two outlined by yourself. while you insist that he either had to sit out football for a year or underhandedly escape from his contract, the fact is that he could have chosen to accept the contract and bide his time for his move. craig gordon took this course of action... marius zaliukas did too more recently.

 

my assertion is that webster and his advisors chose to take the quicker, more devious route. it wasn't that he alone had the balls to stand up to tyranny... it's because of the devious nature of the characters involved.

 

The third option?

 

Trust Vladimir Romanov?

 

[Drylaw Hearts]

is that your best DH? tut tut.

 

yes we have meandered away from the main point somewhat.

 

the central point is that webster had a third option other than the two outlined by yourself. while you insist that he either had to sit out football for a year or underhandedly escape from his contract, the fact is that he could have chosen to accept the contract and bide his time for his move. craig gordon took this course of action... marius zaliukas did too more recently.

 

my assertion is that webster and his advisors chose to take the quicker, more devious route. it wasn't that he alone had the balls to stand up to tyranny... it's because of the devious nature of the characters involved.

 

But he didn't want to sign a new deal with Hearts Vic.

 

He was well within his rights to turn down any contract offer.

 

 

How are you not understanding that ?

[Victorian]

The third option?

 

Trust Vladimir Romanov?

 

 

yes.

 

and while he toddled off into the sunset wondering whether or not uncle vlad would be true to his word, he could could have consoled himself by playing football every week, winning the scottish cup (which he did years later anyway, i know), and counting his greatly increased wages.

 

we're not talking about white slavery here.

[Mr Brightside]

Webster signed for Rangers 6 months before they bid for McCulloch.

Was that the loan deal ir tbe permanent transfer? Was McCulloch signed before or after the Webster compensation fee wad agreed?

 

Just my thoughts, but I thought it was all very suspect at the time including the fee for McCulloch.

[Drylaw Hearts]

Was that the loan deal ir tbe permanent transfer? Was McCulloch signed before or after the Webster compensation fee wad agreed?

 

Just my thoughts, but I thought it was all very suspect at the time including the fee for McCulloch.

 

The loan deal.

 

Ranger paid the same amount for McCulloch we offered Motherwell several years prior.

 

?1 million for an EPL is chicken-shit.

[tynietigers]

Did he not sign a contract before the crazy times and then update that contract during the really crazy times for about 15 to 18 grand