Ferguson Hands in Transfer Request

[Hughesy]

Looking at the offers Rangers have managed so far and with them trying to part x players or even push others out the door. I cannot see them coming up with the money for Ferguson.

[den]

Ferguson and Rangers are quickly losing all credibility over this.

Rangers start by talking to Ferguson, behind the backs of the club who are paying his wages. They reckon they can get him back with writing off a debt of just over £2m plus less than a million of their own.

Ferguson's stupid enough to go along with this plan. A plan against his employers who have paid £6.5m pounds for him, 17 months ago.

Ferguson is encouraged to demand a transfer. He's also stupid enough to go along with that, presumably thinking rovers would allow him to go, writing off a loss of around £3.5m.

Assuming rovers stick to their guns, where does that leave Ferguson? Well Rangers are going to dump him, aren't they! They have caused him to possibly ruin any kind of relationship with the rovers fans - the fans who help pay his wages.

I reckon it's time for our captain to tell the rovers fans what the hell is going on. He daren't do that though dare he. He's a wimp.

[philipl]

den, you are right and to all those who derided me for suggesting the Rovers might seek legal redress for this mess or file appropriate reports with UEFA and FIFA, please bear in mind that the Rovers have a track record of acting litigiously where others have meekly sat back and accepted their losses:

Many players have retired with non-injury related complaints. But it was Blackburn Rovers who had the balls, intelligence and cash to take on the insurance industry (four defendant companies being some of the insurance "heavyweights") in Court on the Martin Dahlin case.

So given Rovers have gone where no other football club dared to tred in respect of the High Court once already, if Rovers have a case against either (or both) of Rangers and Viola, and consider on balance it is in our interests (football or commercial) not to let it lie, I would expect some "afters" in February if Ferguson does not get transferred in this window.

I am sure Rovers will not feel constrained in seeking an agreement to make sure a farce with the same player, agent and "buying" club is never repeated. Rovers will not be without ammunition for getting what they want and almost certainly any agreement would be unlikely to be made public.

This afternoon's Glasgow papers suggests some movement by Rangers but surely not enough to tempt the resolute Rovers Board. here

[Scotty]

den, you are right and to all those who derided me for suggesting the Rovers might seek legal redress for this mess or file appropriate reports with UEFA and FIFA, please bear in mind that the Rovers have a track record of acting litigiously where others have meekly sat back and accepted their losses:

Many players have retired with non-injury related complaints. But it was Blackburn Rovers who had the balls, intelligence and cash to take on the insurance industry (four defendant companies being some of the insurance "heavyweights") in Court on the Martin Dahlin case.

So given Rovers have gone where no other football club dared to tred in respect of the High Court once already, if Rovers have a case against either (or both) of Rangers and Viola, and consider on balance it is in our interests (football or commercial) not to let it lie, I would expect some "afters" in February if Ferguson does not get transferred in this window.

I am sure Rovers will not feel constrained in seeking an agreement to make sure a farce with the same player, agent and "buying" club is never repeated. Rovers will not be without ammunition for getting what they want and almost certainly any agreement would be unlikely to be made public.

This afternoon's Glasgow papers suggests some movement by Rangers but surely not enough to tempt the resolute Rovers Board. here

More @#/?.

[philipl]

A well-reasoned and awesomely logical ripost

Read Article 8 "Maintenance of Contractual Stability" in the FIFA Regulations governing the transfer and registration of players.

These regulations very rarely get used. Usually the club or agent doing the destabilising (tapping up) has the good sense to make sure it has the resources to pay the unwilling seller's price to secure the player. When that happens, as Gordon Taylor observed, the selling club has used the player's contract to make a decent profit.

As thing stands at the moment, Rangers and Viola haven't got the resources to pay and so are at risk from the Rovers acting against them- Ferguson is under 28 years old which is the age limit at which FIFA Article 8 ceases to apply.

What makes Ferguson an even more unusual and clear cut case is that Rangers have no defence that Rovers are asking for an artificial or unreasonable price- it is Rangers' own price set when they sold Ferguson to us!

FIFA have used the sanctions specified in their Regulations on the rare occasions these cases reach them- fines and/or transfer ban and/or ban from entering international competitions.

Quite apart from the FIFA Regulation, if Rovers can prove damage to their business directly as a result of improper behaviour, they have the basis for a civil case for damages. Again, this has not previously been invoked in football because invariably the tapper up makes sure the seller does not make a commercial loss.

But in this case, Rangers don't have the financial resources to avoid the Rovers making a loss. And they might have picked the wrong club because Rovers have shown that they fight (the insurance industry over Dahlin) where others don't.

What is @#/? about that?

Edited January 27, 2005 by philipl

[jim mk2]

This afternoon's Glasgow papers suggests some movement by Rangers but surely not enough to tempt the resolute Rovers Board. here

According to the Glasgow evening paper a new bid "in excess of £4 million will be lodged in the next 24 hours".

If that does not include the £2.5 million Rovers still owe for Ferguson then the club have no reason not to accept it.

Still sticking my neck out, I expect Ferguson to be at Ibrox tomorrow night having his medical.

[ABBEY]

Gives us ample time to replace him grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[philipl]

jim, that as they say is the £2.5m question!

If its £4m plus the £2.1m (the true number written off), bye bye Bazza.

If not, go away Gers.

[den]

Well the £3m included the £2.5m owed by us, so I expect the £4m does also.

We're all guessing though.

[tchocky]

Well the £3m included the £2.5m owed by us, so I expect the £4m does also.

We're all guessing though.

Yes, and philipl has guessed nearly 100 times already on this thread

[Scotty]

A well-reasoned and awesomely logical ripost

Read Article 8 "Maintenance of Contractual Stability" in the FIFA Regulations governing the transfer and registration of players.

These regulations very rarely get used. Usually the club or agent doing the destabilising (tapping up) has the good sense to make sure it has the resources to pay the unwilling seller's price to secure the player. When that happens, as Gordon Taylor observed, the selling club has used the player's contract to make a decent profit.

As thing stands at the moment, Rangers and Viola haven't got the resources to pay and so are at risk from the Rovers acting against them- Ferguson is under 28 years old which is the age limit at which FIFA Article 8 ceases to apply.

What makes Ferguson an even more unusual and clear cut case is that Rangers have no defence that Rovers are asking for an artificial or unreasonable price- it is Rangers' own price set when they sold Ferguson to us!

FIFA have used the sanctions specified in their Regulations on the rare occasions these cases reach them- fines and/or transfer ban and/or ban from entering international competitions.

Quite apart from the FIFA Regulation, if Rovers can prove damage to their business directly as a result of improper behaviour, they have the basis for a civil case for damages. Again, this has not previously been invoked in football because invariably the tapper up makes sure the seller does not make a commercial loss.

But in this case, Rangers don't have the financial resources to avoid the Rovers making a loss. And they might have picked the wrong club because Rovers have shown that they fight (the insurance industry over Dahlin) where others don't.

What is @#/? about that?

And how do we prove Ferguson's been "tapped up"?

What exactly has Ferguson's agent done wrong over than perhaps giving his client bad advice?

What exactly have Rangers done wrong? They've made a bid, we've turned it down, it looks like they're going to make another bid, we'll either turn that down or accept it. What's wrong with that?

First you claim we'll get £8.5m for Ferguson - a figure that is frankly laughable, we'll be lucky to get half that - then you claim it's all Ferguson's agents fault, now you're claiming we can pursue some sort of legal claim against Rangers, or Viola, or both.

Almost everything you've said on this thread is just crap.

The fact of the matter is that our captain wants to move to Rangers so he got his agent to try and sort it out. As a result Rangers have made a bid and we've turned it down. Everything else is just you playing fantasy island.

[Duff's Minder]

I hate the way the media is trying to make us into accountants and lawyers!

let's get back to basics - BF wants to leave the club, we're now haggling over how much we get. we will almost certainly end up getting less than 6m.

let's get on with it - even 3 or 4m would be enough to replace the jumped up waste of space. How much did Toogs cost or Thomo? Both better players than BF anyway.

[philipl]

Scotty, you have got this pretty mixed up.

I pointed out that there is a pattern in these transfers where the selling club gets 80% of the number it first asked for. Ergo, if Rovers want £6.5m, ask for £8.5m. I don't believe I ever forecast we would get £8.5m.

In the event the club delayed naming a price and then went straight to a last and final number- guarranteed £6m.

Rovers is owned by a Trust- the Trustees are lawyers and accountants.

If we were owned like Rangers or Newcastle by metal merchants I'd look at this a different way.

But we are controlled by lawyers and accountants. Our owners- the Trustees know that as reluctant sellers they can probably force (if they want to) recovery of £6.5m as the club which sold Ferguson to them is also the club wanting to buy him back in somewhat confusing circumstances.

So the Trustees knocked off a notional £500K for unrecoverable legal fees and the cost of hassle and stuck the stake in the ground at £6m. Unless Rovers suddenly need the Ferguson cash for another transfer deal, they will not shift.

That leaves us with tapping up. What do you call a tap up?

Would you like to be Viola or Rangers answering a barrister holding a newspaper dated 7 January- "Barry- my family and I are very happy in Blackburn" and another newspaper dated 10 January- "Rangers- we were made aware by the player's agent that he wanted to come to Rangers" and then innumerable articles since October from Rangers' directors and Managers trumpeting "Now we have got the financing done, we can bring Barry back home"?

I keep saying, this will not go to a Court of Law or to FIFA. But the very fact the Rovers went to Court against the Insurance Industry sends a clear message to Scotland that they cannot count on Rovers not turning litigious.

It makes the threat credible and that is what counts in getting whatever the Rovers Board want out of this Ferguson situation.

All I have sought to do is explain that the Rovers have a bloody big stick to help them get what they want!

Edited January 27, 2005 by philipl

[Guest Kamy100]

New Offer Rejected:

http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/New...~619524,00.html

[Dado_Prso_9]

Look Phil, he's not coming back to Rangers, so why don't you just drop it eh? Even some of your own board members can't be bothered with your pedantic rants or right, wrong, moral issues, tapping up, courts of law, and the weather.

Ok, forget the weather ...

Christ sake man, let it go.

For the record, according to your location indicator, you are from Malta. If this is true, are you Maltese or are you an Englishman living abroad?

[greggyk]

Rangers have confimed that the Barry Ferguson deal is DEAD. And there will be no more contact with rovers.

Right, lets swap him for Bellamy!!

Edited January 27, 2005 by greggyk

[philipl]

Guarranteed £3.5m rising to £4m on appearances.

Will any club accept an appearance-linked deal from Rangers after the Michael ball episode?

[den]

So I guess that:

New Offer Rejected:

http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/New...~619524,00.html

Answers that:

Well the £3m included the £2.5m owed by us, so I expect the £4m does also.

We're all guessing though.

[philipl]

Rangers have confimed that the Barry Ferguson deal is DEAD. And there will be no more contact with rovers.

Right, lets swap him for Bellamy!!

Excellent news.

1) Make sure it is dead dead- no lazarus acts in the summer.

2) Rehabilitate or trade on.

[den]

Rangers official site

Tosspots. Like I said earlier, they got Ferguson to cause unrest, then dumped him.

[joey_big_nose]

Hmmm... looks like Phillipl could have been right. Will the fans be able to forgive Barry?

Unless Everton or Newcastle come in it looks like he could be lining up against Colchester....

[Nuclearsox]

Rangers have confimed that the Barry Ferguson deal is DEAD. And there will be no more contact with rovers.

Right, lets swap him for Bellamy!!

Excellent news.

1) Make sure it is dead dead- no lazarus acts in the summer.

2) Rehabilitate or trade on.

Isn't this just what always happens?

One club makes a bid. It's turned down.

They scrimp and scrape to make an improved "final" offer. It's turned down.

They say the deal's dead and usually "It's the player I feel sorry for."

Then the player moves two days later for an undisclosed fee.

[Dado_Prso_9]

Rangers have confimed that the Barry Ferguson deal is DEAD. And there will be no more contact with rovers.

Right, lets swap him for Bellamy!!

Excellent news.

1) Make sure it is dead dead- no lazarus acts in the summer.

2) Rehabilitate or trade on.

Isn't this just what always happens?

One club makes a bid. It's turned down.

They scrimp and scrape to make an improved "final" offer. It's turned down.

They say the deal's dead and usually "It's the player I feel sorry for."

Then the player moves two days later for an undisclosed fee.

The deal is dead.

Frankly, we can both get on with supporting our teams, and maybe Barry can find a new agent ... cause it's obvious Viola started this whole thing off.

Looks like the media source who posts on here WAS wrong for once eh? At Ibrox for his medical on Friday? Not a chance.

[greggyk]

Now that Ferguson seems to be staying.What to do with him?

There is no doubt that Ferguson is our best player even if he's playing at 80%(thats because this is rovers worst ever team since we've been in the premiership.Its just because of poor managing we got relegated in 99.)

And we are in a huge relegation battle.I dont think we will get more than 3points from our next 7 or 8 games so we could very well be in the bottom 3 by then.

So i believe we must keep Ferguson-and i couldnt give a toss if his family are unhappy-a lot of people are unhappy in life because of where they live but they get on with it.Im sure the money he gets will keep him happy till the summer

The only way we should get rid of him is if it invloves a swap deal with Bellamy.

[krislu]

Right, lets swap him for Bellamy!!

Agree!