Ferguson Hands in Transfer Request

[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.

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.

Of course there is no point in Rovers handing over 2.1 million only for Rangers to hand it straight back.

Also I understand your DVD player analogy as both you and your mate end up 'equal'.

However, your original example of Rangers paying Rovers 2.3 million (just an example I know) is not reimbursing Rovers back the full amount of the 4.4 million already paid.

In that case Rovers end up short, unlike you and your mate.

[frosty]

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.

one good reason is that Ferguson never was and never will be worth anything like the money we paid for him. the buying club now will only pay his true market value. the fact that the buying club is the same one that laughed all the way to the bank when they sold him to us in the first place is our tough luck.

[Dufflite]

The Rangers Manager, who sounds like Rab C Nesbitt, has just been on Radio 5 live stating that Rovers are not in a position to negotiate as Baz is intent on joining Rangers. The idiot was more or less saying that we had no choice other than to give him to them.

Does anyone else feel like they have just banged their head on a cupboard when they hear the utterings of idiots like this??

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dufflite

[Hasta]

The only way Rovers can swing this situation back anywhere near to their favour is if Hughes has a chat with Ferguson, gets his head right and then plays him tommorow night. He just has to be sure that Ferguson will give it his all. It's OK people saying they never want to see him wear the shirt again but this move would be the only way we could show that we feel we don't have to sell unless the price is right.

If playing him squeezes an extra £1m+ out of Rangers then it's worth upsetting certain fans for.

[philipl]

The Rovers still hold the cards- Ferguson's contract.

Sounds like Rangers are giving up if all they can do is argue about what Ferguson may or may not want to do.

Obviously Hughes is vastly superior to McLeish.

[T4E]

You have some very unbalanced logic Philip

[broadsword]

Also I understand your DVD player analogy as both you and your mate end up 'equal'.

However, your original example of Rangers paying Rovers 2.3 million (just an example I know) is not reimbursing Rovers back the full amount of the 4.4 million already paid.

In that case Rovers end up short, unlike you and your mate.

Can't he just go down teh shops and get his own bl00dy DVD player?

If the 2.1m owing is cancelled (and it won't be, Rovers are determined to pay it), then we've paid 4.4m for him. According to my log tables 4.4 does nto equal 2.1.

[Dado_Prso_9]

How hard is this to understand?

Rovers have paid £4.4 up front.

Rangers are owed £2.1 by Rovers.

If we pay £2.3 and wipe the debt of £2.1, then the total Rovers "receive" is £4.4, because you in effect have not had to pay out the £2.1 million owed, simply to receive it back. The £2.1 you owe us is our money, so we're simply spending it before it's banked. People are using the term "cancelled" ... we're not cancelling the debt, it's still money we are owed. The £2.1 in question is Rangers money. Rovers merely hold it till August and Rangers are trying to get it "spent" now, using it as downpayment on Fergusons fee. It's a bit off, I know, but this is how it's being worded.

Anyway, this is pointless. Rangers will not pay any more and Ferguson is not leaving Blackburn. So let's stop the stereotypical slurs on my Manager (Rab C Nesbitt, I think not), and the insults of my Club.

There's no need to get nasty.

And as for Bryan. While your comment of "can't he just buy his own DVD player", was a genuine attempt at being "funny" ... it wasn't. I was using it as an example.

Cheers.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[Eddie]

Rab C Nesbitt is getting nasty haha...sorry just found that funny.

I just think as a club with no financial need to sell you will find it difficult to convince us that that is a good deal. We will want to make a profit, not simply break even.

[Dado_Prso_9]

Rab C Nesbitt is getting nasty haha...sorry just found that funny.

I just think as a club with no financial need to sell you will find it difficult to convince us that that is a good deal. We will want to make a profit, not simply break even.

It's cool mate. I hate the damn show!

It's another one of these daft shows the BBC makes, and it ends up creating an image of Scottish people which is so far from the truth it's untrue. One visit to Glasgow would prove otherwise ... it's a brilliant city.

Of course, I'm biased ... but Rab C Nesbitt it's not!

[Eddie]

One visit to Glasgow would prove otherwise ... it's a brilliant city.

The string of lies continues

[Dado_Prso_9]

The Rovers still hold the cards- Ferguson's contract.

Sounds like Rangers are giving up if all they can do is argue about what Ferguson may or may not want to do.

Obviously Hughes is vastly superior to McLeish.

"Obviously Hughes is vastly superior to McLeish"

I take it that, for it to be obvious, that you've followed Alex McLeish's managerial progress over the last 10 years? Enough to make such a cast iron judgement which would suggest his inferiority to McLeish is "obvious"??

Stick to the points you can make, not the ones without an ounce of substance. Hughes may have been the Welsh national coach and may be enjoying the first "big" club management job of his career, but to claim he is superior to a manager who has done so much in the game as both a player and manager, at such a young age, is perposterous.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[Bobby G]

Dado if this is the logic you are losing then

we have paid you team 6.5 million already.

Then if you are giving us "back" 4.4 million (which wont happen cause you only offered 0.5 million real cash, then we would still be losing over 2 million on a transfer which we made 18 months ago, which gives you back a better player!

[Rainmaker]

Rovers have paid £4.4 up front.

Rangers are owed £2.1 by Rovers.

True

Rovers have, at this point, payed £4.4M. And are to pay £2.1M in August

The Euro-money are a non-issue me thinks.

Thus meaning that Rovers will have to pay £6.5M for Ferguson.

You claim that the clubs would be even if Rangers pay £2.3M upfront, and wipe the £2.1M debt.

This is SO not true.

You can't count the £2.1M debt in just one of the deals, as you seem to do, you have to count them in both or none.

In order for the clubs to be even one of the following deal structures have to happen have to happen:

1.

Ranges wipe the £2.1M debt and pay Rovers £4.4M

2.

Rangers pays Rovers £6.5M and not wipe the dept, and Rovers pays the debt it in August as planed.

If Rangers offers what you stipulated. the math goes as follows:

Rovers have payd £4.4M (+debt £2.1M)

Rangers offers £2.3M (+debt £2.1M)

Thus gaining Rovers a £2.1M LOSS. Not gonna happen!

[Dado_Prso_9]

The simple fact is, Rovers will not receive what they paid for Ferguson, because he frankly wasn't worth the £6.5 million paid in the first place.

However, I can see why Rovers fans are unhappy.

You paid £4.4 million up front. When you pay Rangers the £2.1 million owed to us, you will have paid out £6.5 million total. Right, so far so good.

If Rangers were to bid £2.3 million for Ferguson, and use the owed funds of £2.1 million to take the total bid to £4.4 million, then yes in effect Rovers would be losing £2.1 million. This, on top of the estimated £197,000 per game that Ferguson has cost Rovers, along with medical bills for his injured knee, will make the loss even greater.

However, at the end of the day, when it comes to hard figures, Rovers would have shelled out £6.5 million to receive £4.4 million in return, should Rangers offer a fee of £2.3 million cash, which they won't.

As you should well be aware, no club in the world ever recoups salaries paid to players when they are moved on to other clubs. And as for medical fees, as I pointed out earlier, we did not include the treatment, operation, and rehabilitation fees for Barry's hip injury before we sold him to Rovers two months later.

Being brutally honest, I think Rovers would bite Rangers hand off for a deal worth £4.4 million inclusive of the £2.1 million owed. Because, as most of you would agree, he has been average at best down south, and his heart is simply not at Rovers.

Anyway, I doubt I'll say much more on this, as it's painfully obvious he will not be coming back to Ibrox. End of story. Hope the Rovers can stay up.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Dado_Prso_9

[stuwilky]

So now you acknowledge that the numbers you mentioned earlier do in fact lose Rovers a significant amount of money?

You appeared to state it didnt earlier. Repeatedly, and with some attitude.

[Dado_Prso_9]

So now you acknowledge that the numbers you mentioned earlier do in fact lose Rovers a significant amount of money?

You appeared to state it didnt earlier. Repeatedly, and with some attitude.

There was no attitude mate. I simply hate repeating the same points over and over, to other users, who seem to have not read previous posts in depth.

I still stand by my opinion that if Rovers were to receive a deal worth around £4 million for Ferguson they'd take it, regardless of paying out £6.5 million. For a player who has been average in the Premiership at best, £4 million would be an excellent return in the current football climate.

I have no idea what you read as attitude, but trust me, if I'd posted with attitude you would have noticed it!

Chill out.

[Blueboy Downunder]

I am and always will be a big fan of barry ferguson. However......my view on the whole thing now is probably what a lot of people think and that is "sell the guy and get rid of him" cause he know longer wants to play for us. a real pity cause with the signing of savage who i would think would sit infront of the back four thus allowing fergy to play better football.....oh well!!!!

[broadsword]

Well, you'd have to bid 4.4 cash as we will be paying you 2.1 in August, and you can't actually stop that as far as I know.

And if you can't take a silly joke then I think you need to calm down. Mind you, what a Glaswegian sees as being even-tempered everybody else considers to be homicidal! Joke!

[philipl]

Well, I would imagine we will all be a lot wiser tomorrow-

If Rangers make a "challenging" bid

If another club comes in with a "challenging" bid complicating the whole matter by significantly outbidding Rangers

If Barry accepts Rangers are unable or unwilling to afford him and makes his peace with Rovers

If Barry refuses to play or join the squad (that for me is the litmus test)

The Rovers senior management are extremely careful about their public statements and I cannot recollect them ever being proved to be flatly wrong by subsequent events or outcomes.

Therefore Rangers have a huge task to shift Rovers from setting a price which gives a return on Rovers' investment in Ferguson or bringing the £2.1m outstanding into the negotiation.- Rovers have stated they have a contract to pay that amount in August and will honour it so it should be ignored in any transfer discussion.

Edited January 23, 2005 by philipl

[waggy]

i cannot believe some posters want fergie to stay,or even play for us again.till we get sparky's valuation stick the haggis /heavy/tunnocks wafer lover in the reserve's and let him rot

[stuwilky]

So now you acknowledge that the numbers you mentioned earlier do in fact lose Rovers a significant amount of money?

You appeared to state it didnt earlier.  Repeatedly, and with some attitude.

There was no attitude mate. I simply hate repeating the same points over and over, to other users, who seem to have not read previous posts in depth.

I still stand by my opinion that if Rovers were to receive a deal worth around £4 million for Ferguson they'd take it, regardless of paying out £6.5 million. For a player who has been average in the Premiership at best, £4 million would be an excellent return in the current football climate.

I have no idea what you read as attitude, but trust me, if I'd posted with attitude you would have noticed it!

Chill out.

The point you were making was incorrect.

I think we would accept a deal for 4.5million. But it still gives us a transfer fee loss of 2million.

That is the fact.

[Manchester Blue]

i cannot believe some posters want fergie to stay,or even play for us again.till we get sparky's valuation stick the haggis /heavy/tunnocks wafer lover in the reserve's and let him rot

End result of that is an unhappy player who could be helping the team but instead becomes more unahppy. As a consequence his value drops and we have little chance of getting a decent figure. By playing him we either get some good performances out of him and he decides to stay or we get good performances and Rangers decide to stump up the required fee.

Sticking him in the reserves or training with the kids is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[LeChuck]

Sticking him in the reserves or training with the kids is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

But isn't that the tactic Birmingham used to get an inflated fee for Robbie Savage?

For all the criticism of the way Birmingham handled the transfer, they got the fee they wanted, which was arguably more than what he is worth.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

In some ways I agree with you Waggy - but, I can't stop wondering how good a midfield we would have with Savage and Fergie.

He may have the chance to prove himself tomorrow (if picked) - as I am sure that any signs of a lack of effort will be picked up by the home fans.

Eitehr way - I am sure that after tomorrow - things will start to become a little clearer.