Ferguson Hands in Transfer Request

[AussieinUk]

I think if anything, it would be fair to construct a similar deal for Rovers, for us to take Ferguson north. For talking sake, £2.3 million cash, plus the £2.1 million owed ... this would give you back the £4.4 million originally paid 18 months ago to secure Ferguson's services.

Can you do math? Your excluding the actual Transfer package. As you said, Rovers paid £4.4m upfront and and have a payment of £2.1m a year later.. a similar deal would be £4.4m upfront and the cancellation of the £2.1 in August.

Under you concept rovers get £4.4m, where the deal was worth £8m. I would expect the £4.4 upfront and a payment of at least £2.1m a year later from the transfer of BF back to Rangers (totaling £6.5m and bugger the Euro triggers of £1.5m).. thats fairer IMO.

[colin]

Dado_Prso_9,

Good posts, appreciated.

[philipl]

A pretty comprehensive piece charting the decline of Rangers and the hard fact, not appreciated by the Gers posting on here, that the days of austerity are definitely not over.

Amongst the many rumours circulating is one that Everton have tapped up Ricksen and that Gers are unable to match the £25K per week the Toffees are willing to pay him.

Ricksen must be thoroughly unhappy with the openly canvassed £30,000 a week five year contract apparently awaiting Ferguson if he goes back home- not that it is much more (if any) than he is already getting at Rovers.

Put it into perspective:

The Greek centre half Rangers signed this week is joining on £14K a week.

Rovers' accounts for 2002/3 would suggest some £30m was spent on wages for the first team squad. For that to be true, the AVERAGE wage of the 25-man Rovers' squad was £23K a week.

Meantime McLeish was talking yesterday about the Ferguson situation:

“We haven’t heard from Blackburn or from any other sources about what the outcome may be,” said McLeish. “If nothing is done [in the current window] we would need to see whether we felt it was futile to try again for him in the summer or whether a deal could be resurrected.”

Hardly the words of a Manager who is confident his Chairman will back him financially to secure his number one transfer target!

Deep down, Murray knows Rangers cannot compete and he probably greatly regrets this Ferguson saga ever started.

Edited January 23, 2005 by philipl

[Bobby G]

Rangers are trying to ROB us,they were hoping his transfer request would see us ready to sell him cheaply. They would/should have raised their offer by now.

I hope their CHEAP tactics dont work and Barry realizes that he is better off here,continuing to prove himself rather than taking a step backwards at his relatively young age.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Bobby G

[dave birch]

After reading that phil, then, if Ferguson doesn't return north, there will be much angst at Ibrox.

It's becoming apparent that there isn't the dosh hanging around in the Blue side of Glasgow.

Will we see anti Murray protests soon?

[Dado_Prso_9]

I think if anything, it would be fair to construct a similar deal for Rovers, for us to take Ferguson north. For talking sake, £2.3 million cash, plus the £2.1 million owed ... this would give you back the £4.4 million originally paid 18 months ago to secure Ferguson's services.

Can you do math? Your excluding the actual Transfer package. As you said, Rovers paid £4.4m upfront and and have a payment of £2.1m a year later.. a similar deal would be £4.4m upfront and the cancellation of the £2.1 in August.

Under you concept rovers get £4.4m, where the deal was worth £8m. I would expect the £4.4 upfront and a payment of at least £2.1m a year later from the transfer of BF back to Rangers (totaling £6.5m and bugger the Euro triggers of £1.5m).. thats fairer IMO.

Yes, I can do math, so please ... no need to silly derogatory remarks. None have been made on my part, I don't expect them in any retort.

The fact is, Rangers are looking to pay what has been paid to them. Many Rovers fans I've read on other forums, would take £4.4 million including the debt of £2.1 owed.

Think about it. You have no paid the £2.1 million yet, it's money "banked" by us, if you will. You did pay £4.4 million up front. So, by us giving £2.3 million and wiping the debt of £2.1 million, Rovers in effect would be receiving the £4.4 million which they paid out 18 months ago. This is painfully obvious.

You also mention that you expect Rangers to match the initial offer of £8 million? Sorry, but why should we match the offer of £8 million? £1.5 million of that was dependant on European performances by Rovers. I can see no obvious excuse, within reason, why Rangers should pay out on a clause which has not, and no disrespect, look unlikely to be fulfilled in the near future.

The transfer market is a tricky place, but please don't vent your anger on me ... I've no grief with anyone on here.

Cheers.

[Dado_Prso_9]

After reading that phil, then, if Ferguson doesn't return north, there will be much angst at Ibrox.

It's becoming apparent that there isn't the dosh hanging around in the Blue side of Glasgow.

Will we see anti Murray protests soon?

We've never been a support to protest outside the ground and demand someone quits the board, etc. My last recollection of this was in early 90's when Celtic fans managed to get their board to step down and allow Fergus McCann to take control of Celtic Park. His induction to the board and his influence on Celtic are present even today, in the form of Celtic Park and the relative financial stability they enjoy. Celtic are some £18 million in debt, whereas Rangers are £20 million in debt, tied up in long term loans. If Murray wanted Ferguson back badly enough, he would be able to pay a decent price.

As I've said, the people I feel sorry for here are Ferguson himself who has seen this move hyped up, and the fans who are desperate to see him return to Ibrox. Both parties are set to be desperately disappointed.

[Eddie]

I think this should be reason for you to match this, we don't want to sell, and we don't have to sell.

We aren't wanting to be "fair" we want to make money if we have to sell. Simple as that, you see to take this as some sort of ongoing negotiation where we will both be so happy with this even arrangement, if you are going to take Bazza, I don't think you are going to find it will be for even and fair money.

[Dado_Prso_9]

I think this should be reason for you to match this, we don't want to sell, and we don't have to sell.

We aren't wanting to be "fair" we want to make money if we have to sell. Simple as that, you see to take this as some sort of ongoing negotiation where we will both be so happy with this even arrangement, if you are going to take Bazza, I don't think you are going to find it will be for even and fair money.

I still think this whole situation has been hyped up to the extent people are beginning, on both sides, to make up their own stories in their heads.

We have to remember one important thing here. Rangers have made ONE bid for Ferguson, which was rejected instantly.

The way some people are making claims of Rangers "ripping" Rovers off, would make me believe Rangers had put in perhaps three or four derisory offers, in quick succession.

The whole thing has been started by Viola. Both sets of supporters should be venting their anger on him, and not at David Murray and Glasgow Rangers, who have acted on his information.

[trueblue]

The whole thing has been started by Viola. Both sets of supporters should be venting their anger on him, and not at David Murray and Glasgow Rangers, who have acted on his information.

Totally agree mate.. It's a pity the FA and the Scottish FA can't do anything about the likes of Viola !

He might be a Viola... but he's playing everybody like a fiddle ! (Sorry, couldn't resist it... I'll get my coat )

Edited January 23, 2005 by trueblue

[BRFC4EVA]

BRFC4EVA

...

I'd like to first thank you for the kind words.

They weren't so kind a few days ago.

What was it..."at least we don't care if people are Catholic or Prodestant(sic)"?

Actually, as prso said, he has never been to follow follow and doesnt post there, which backed up my original comment. If you had a look on there would find that they DO care very much if people are catholic or prod. So why dont you go take a little look on there before getting so pi33ed off. Oh and btw, it was my town that was taken the mick out of first not yours.

[Dado_Prso_9]

BRFC4EVA

...

I'd like to first thank you for the kind words.

They weren't so kind a few days ago.

What was it..."at least we don't care if people are Catholic or Prodestant(sic)"?

Actually, as prso said, he has never been to follow follow and doesnt post there, which backed up my original comment. If you had a look on there would find that they DO care very much if people are catholic or prod. So why dont you go take a little look on there before getting so pi33ed off. Oh and btw, it was my town that was taken the mick out of first not yours.

As I also stated in that same post mate, my step-father is a Celtic supporter, my best mate at work is a Celtic supporter, and three of my mates in the 5-a-side team I run, are Celtic supporters. The whole Catholic/Protestant thing is blown out of all proportion, and I the aforementioned post also contained some decent info on the situation up here.

Cheers.

[BRFC4EVA]

BRFC4EVA

...

I'd like to first thank you for the kind words.

They weren't so kind a few days ago.

What was it..."at least we don't care if people are Catholic or Prodestant(sic)"?

Actually, as prso said, he has never been to follow follow and doesnt post there, which backed up my original comment. If you had a look on there would find that they DO care very much if people are catholic or prod. So why dont you go take a little look on there before getting so pi33ed off. Oh and btw, it was my town that was taken the mick out of first not yours.

As I also stated in that same post mate, my step-father is a Celtic supporter, my best mate at work is a Celtic supporter, and three of my mates in the 5-a-side team I run, are Celtic supporters. The whole Catholic/Protestant thing is blown out of all proportion, and I the aforementioned post also contained some decent info on the situation up here.

Cheers.

Soz prso, the post wasnt aimed at anything which you said, which i read and it cleared a few things us. The post was in retrospect to a previous thread between radgast and myself on the insulting of Blackburn and Glasgow.

Cheers.

[herbergeehh]

The whole thing has been started by Viola. Both sets of supporters should be venting their anger on him, and not at David Murray and Glasgow Rangers, who have acted on his information.

Agree on the Viola bit, he's started this whole thing - but what are your views on the comments coming from the Rangers camp - e.g Murray stating that Rovers can't keep an unhappy player...?

Also, there's been three or four players crying for Rangers to buy Barry, which I'm sure only makes things worse.. (having that said, I do believe Amoruso told a newspaper "I think the Barry-deal will go ahead. He wants to leave for Rovers" or something the last time...)

[philipl]

Prso's formula is £2m plus £2.1m debt forgiveness.

Can he give Blackburn Rovers one good reason why they should take a £2.4m loss on transfer fees, a £2m hit in wages and probably a several hundred thousand pounds hit in medical expenses so that Viola and the Fergusons can run their property business together more conveniently?

As for attacking Viola, if you have any more dirt you can dish on him, please contribute to the John Viola thread on this MB.

[Dado_Prso_9]

The whole thing has been started by Viola. Both sets of supporters should be venting their anger on him, and not at David Murray and Glasgow Rangers, who have acted on his information.

Agree on the Viola bit, he's started this whole thing - but what are your views on the comments coming from the Rangers camp - e.g Murray stating that Rovers can't keep an unhappy player...?

Also, there's been three or four players crying for Rangers to buy Barry, which I'm sure only makes things worse.. (having that said, I do believe Amoruso told a newspaper "I think the Barry-deal will go ahead. He wants to leave for Rovers" or something the last time...)

With regards to Murray, he's a successful businessman, who knows how to make deals happen ... but this, remember, is football. Murray's Metal Company is one of Britains most successful firms, and it's no fluke that he's taken it to the top. His comment, I feel, were false. At the time Murray made his comment regarding Barry's value, Blackburn were not a willing seller. These comments, in conjunction with the transfer request, have made Rovers more willing to part with Ferguson. The thoughts up here, by some, is that Murray pandered to Rovers in order to make them eventually become willing sellers, allowing him to up the bid accordingly and seal Fergusons's return. Personally, I don't buy it.

Regarding the three or four Rangers players coming out and saying "they'd love to see Barry back", this is normal. Two of the players were Fernando Ricksen and Bob Malcolm, who were two of Ferguson's closest friends at Ibrox. If you heard a very good friend was returning home from, let's say, the Army ... wouldn't you be shouting from the rooftops in anticipation of your best friends return? I like to break scenarios down into more realistic circumstances ... we have to sometimes take a step back and say "it's only a game". Easier said than done of course!

As for Amoruso's comments, I think this proves one thing I said earlier. That being, we only hear what our respective press bodies want us to hear. In England, it's reported we win games at a canter every week and fight with each other due to religion. Both of which, as I explained in great detail on pages 38 and 39 of this thread, are nonsense. In Scotland, we hear very little outside the top three in the Premiership. The only way people with any common sense follow the Premiership is to watch every game on Sky, and any other affiliated shows regarding the league. You may or may not believe that Rovers were the first English team I "supported". I'm not in any way claiming to be a diehard Rovers fan, so please don't jump in line to have a go. However, at the beginning of the season which Rovers won the Premiership, myself and a good friend at school (at the time), bought Rovers shirts because we loved watching the way they played, and of course ... we loved watching Alan Shearers goals!

The point I'm trying to make, is that unless we go out of our own personal way to find out more about a certain league, we will be fed the scraps which the press see fit to feed us. And 99% of the time, it's one sided, stereotypical nonsense which, in turn, breeds rumour, false information, and resentment.

For the record, again, I would like to state that I do not under and circumstances see Barry Ferguson back in a Glasgow Rangers jersey. The deal may be "resurrected" in the summer, but I feel to the same outcome.

Cheers.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[Korean John]

Think about it. You have no paid the £2.1 million yet, it's money "banked" by us, if you will. You did pay £4.4 million up front. So, by us giving £2.3 million and wiping the debt of £2.1 million, Rovers in effect would be receiving the £4.4 million which they paid out 18 months ago. This is painfully obvious.

It doesn't seem obvious to me.

If Rovers paid 4.4 million with a promise to pay a further 2.1, how can Rangers giving us 2.3 million with a promise to forget the 2.1, be construed as us getting our 4.4 million back?

The only way Rovers can get 4.4 million back is if Rangers cough up that much cash.

[Dado_Prso_9]

Prso's formula is £2m plus £2.1m debt forgiveness.

Can he give Blackburn Rovers one good reason why they should take a £2.4m loss on transfer fees, a £2m hit in wages and probably a several hundred thousand pounds hit in medical expenses so that Viola and the Fergusons can run their property business together more conveniently?

As for attacking Viola, if you have any more dirt you can dish on him, please contribute to the John Viola thread on this MB.

Sadly, in football, no Club every recoups the wages it's paid to a player when he moves on, and the transfer fee is never inclusive of any losses via a players salary. Likewise, the medical costs. These are not factors which anyClub who bids for Ferguson, would expect to include in their offered price. These medical costs were paid, by Rovers, because they wanted their player back in the first team. We paid good money to help Barry through a hip operation before he turned round and left us. We didn't expect you to pay for those fees, and the player.

Sadly, in football, Clubs lose money on salaries and medical expenses. It's how things go I'm afraid, no matter the league or Club.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[T4E]

Very well constructed posts Dado, shows a few of our Birmingham friends that it is possible. Can I assume you are the person from the Gersforum of the same name?

[Dado_Prso_9]

Think about it. You have no paid the £2.1 million yet, it's money "banked" by us, if you will. You did pay £4.4 million up front. So, by us giving £2.3 million and wiping the debt of £2.1 million, Rovers in effect would be receiving the £4.4 million which they paid out 18 months ago. This is painfully obvious.

It doesn't seem obvious to me.

If Rovers paid 4.4 million with a promise to pay a further 2.1, how can Rangers giving us 2.3 million with a promise to forget the 2.1, be construed as us getting our 4.4 million back?

The only way Rovers can get 4.4 million back is if Rangers cough up that much cash.

What is the point in Rovers giving us £2.1 million, cash, in August, for us to simply hand it back over again as part of the Ferguson deal. Assuming of course there is a "deal" at all.

Right, let's say I owe a mate £20 ok? One day, I turn round and say I'm selling my DVD player for £100. He offers to take it off my hands, but he offers me £80 for it, taking into consideration that I already owe him £20. I would accept this, as there would be no point in him paying me £100 for the DVD player, only for me to hand him back £20 of it instantly, which is money I owe him. It would, therefore, have been simpler for him to say "I'll give you £80 and forget the £20 you owe me". Do you see?

Again, real life scenarios work. And please remember, the £2.3 million figure mentioned is fictional and was used merely in my examples in posts on page 38/39.

Cheers.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[Dado_Prso_9]

Very well constructed posts Dado, shows a few of our Birmingham friends that it is possible. Can I assume you are the person from the Gersforum of the same name?

Cheers mate.

I am indeed the one and the same Dado_Prso_9 from the "Gers Forum". Do you read the forum at all mate? It's a very good forum, with a good mix of fans. I've not seen any bad natured goings on in that forum in my time there.

[T4E]

Yes mate, I'm registered as BrianLaudrup. It has a very similar ambience to this place, enjoyable to visit and post on.

[philipl]

Sadly, in football, no Club every recoups the wages it's paid to a player when he moves on, and the transfer fee is never inclusive of any losses via a players salary. Likewise, the medical costs. These are not factors which any who bids for Ferguson, would expect to include in their offered price. These medical costs were paid, by Rovers, because they wanted their player back in the first team. We paid good money to help Barry through a hip operation before he turned round and left us. We didn't expect you to pay for those fees, and the player.

Sadly, in football, Clubs lose money on salaries and medical expenses. It's how things go I'm afraid, no matter the league or Club.

No but every club which holds a long term contract on a player who asks to make a move makes a profit on the deal.

Apart from anything else, it buys the Agent out of disconduct charges and the buying club from tapping up charges. If the selling club is making a loss, they can turn elsewhere to the guilty parties to make up their loss.

Any price from Rangers of less than £6.5m is a total dream. Forget it.

The reason I mentioned wages etc. is that in legal and commercial terms (forget football and let's talk the commercial and legal reality of the real world) these could be included as part of Rovers' investment. Note that Hughes said, Rovers would look for a return on their investment. Not just a profit on the transfer fee.

Edited January 23, 2005 by philipl

[Drakefyre]

Using the DVD player example again:

I buy a DVD player from you for $100 but only pay you $80. I still owe you $20.

You want to buy back the DVD player. You offer to pay me $60 and absolve the $20 that I owe you.

Therefore, you make $20 on the deal and I lose $20.

Better would be paying $80 and absolving the $20, then both sides would be even.

[philipl]

In other words, Rovers have paid £4.4m cash and owe £2.1m.

Therefore what dado prso is really saying is that Rangers should repay £4.4m cash now and cancel the £2.1m owing.

Then the Rovers will start negotiating their profit on top....