Alfredo Morelos transfer latest as Rangers director Stewart Robertson sends message over star's future

BlueMeanie

Well-Known Member
Eintracht Frankfurt are understood to be considering a move for the striker and he's also been linked with moves to the Premier League.


Record Sport exclusively revealed last week Eintracht Frankfurt were considering an offer having watched the 22-year-old on several occasions.
Morelos has made no secret of his desire to play in the English Premier League and has been linked with West Ham and Crystal Palace this summer.
The Colombian, who bagged 30 goals last season, netted a hat-trick in the Europa League win over St Joseph's last week as his season got under way.
But he's this week said goodbye to close friend Daniel Candeias as he left Ibrox to join Genclerbirligi.


Robertson admits anything is possible in the transfer market but is remaining cool over Morelos' future.

Asked if the club are confident they can keep the frontman, the managing director replied: "Listen, we'll see what happens.
"There's been no bids for Alfredo so far. He's started the season well with four goals in two games.

"He's playing with a smile on his face, so he looks happy to be here and we're delighted to have him."
Following the loss of Candeias, for which Rangers are believed to have scooped around £250,000, Robertson insists funds remain available to Steven Gerrard should he want to make more signings.


The Rangers boss has been up front on his desire to bring Ryan Kent back from Liverpool, however any return for the winger would be another loan deal.
However, he's hinted he could also seek a direct replacement for Candeias.
And Robertson said: “It is down to the guys identifying who they might want to bring in and bringing that to the board but, absolutely, funds are available.
“I am not saying it will be this window or the next, but at some point there has to be transfer income built into the business model.
“If you look at clubs at our level in the European Club Association, the average percentage of revenue that comes from transfers is 28 per cent.
“Last year ours was about seven per cent.
“If we are to compete on a level playing field without relying on the investors and the board, that is a key part of the business model, as well as bringing players through the academy.”
 
"Listen, we'll see what happens.
"There's been no bids for Alfredo so far. He's started the season well with four goals in two games.
"He's playing with a smile on his face, so he looks happy to be here and we're delighted to have him."

Almost the definition of 'not sending a message' despite how the paper put it.
Either:
A reminder that he’s still here and we’re generating the interest.
Or:
Look, we’re happy, he’s happy, so we’re in no rush to sell.
 
Daniel Candeias is worth more than 250k ffs.

Annoyed at how cheap we must’ve valued him.

31 year old and last year of contract. We risked losing him for nothing next year if we kept him. Also there was no guarantee he would get game time.

Yes there would have been many out the door first but our hands were tied.

Posters with valuations of £1m plus were in dreamland.
 
Daniel Candeias is worth more than 250k ffs.

Annoyed at how cheap we must’ve valued him.

The problem is we overpay in wages for a team in a league of our standard. The sort of teams that are buying players from us who we don’t want are unlikely to be paying the wages that we are. As a result we are either stuck with their wage or we let them go for peanuts.

We are seeing this mould being broken hopefully with younger players with future value being brought in. Alfredo, tav, Aribo, Kamara and many more fit into the strategy of being able to shift to a higher quality league and being a good age.
 
We want to keep him for the coming season as we know how important a contribution he can make to our success. But every player has a price in our position.

Both are positive outcomes for us.

Those comments can simply not be taken as anything else - but watch them twist it and smell their fear.
 
Daniel Candeias is worth more than 250k ffs.

Annoyed at how cheap we must’ve valued him.


I tend to agree with this. I take all of the following on board....
  • He's the wrong side of 30
  • Last year of contract
  • Can't break down lowblock defenses which we'll come up against more often than not
  • He said that he wanted to go somewhere he can play every game
But he is one of the best we had when we were playing on the counter attack, his pace and aggression when closing opponents down not only relieved pressure but actually got us goals.

I get that we wouldn't be getting a high fee considering the above but still feel 250k is low.

Reading between the lines (and 4LHAD blog post this morning) I think Candeias must have been on a decent wage - maybe more than his contribution deserved.
 
We need to keep him, he's only going to get even better. If the refs give him more protection (that's a big if) then Alfie could easily end up with 40+ goals this season.
 
Getting a fee for Candieas is decent business - his cost isn't our problem anymore.

We have moved his wage on, we have money in - if only we could do the same with the likes of Herrera.

Candeias was more than 'a wage' though, he contributed to the team. I don't know the details so can't comment on whether his contribution was worthy of his wage, maybe not and that's why we've accepted such a low bid.

I get talking about getting rid of a wage when it comes to people like Herrera and Pena etc but when it's people who are a making a contribution it makes no sense to talk about losing a wage as we have to pay people to play for us.
 
Candeias was more than 'a wage' though, he contributed to the team. I don't know the details so can't comment on whether his contribution was worthy of his wage, maybe not and that's why we've accepted such a low bid.

I get talking about getting rid of a wage when it comes to people like Herrera and Pena etc but when it's people who are a making a contribution it makes no sense to talk about losing a wage as we have to pay people to play for us.

He did, moving forward it didn't appear he was going to.

We are right to try and make money back on a player who would be walking out the door.

There is a time to sell - this was it.
 
I tend to agree with this. I take all of the following on board....
  • He's the wrong side of 30
  • Last year of contract
  • Can't break down lowblock defenses which we'll come up against more often than not
  • He said that he wanted to go somewhere he can play every game
But he is one of the best we had when we were playing on the counter attack, his pace and aggression when closing opponents down not only relieved pressure but actually got us goals.

I get that we wouldn't be getting a high fee considering the above but still feel 250k is low.

Reading between the lines (and 4LHAD blog post this morning) I think Candeias must have been on a decent wage - maybe more than his contribution deserved.

Let's say for talking sake the fee is £250k. Along with the points you've noted, it's £250k we wouldn't be getting in 6 months for a player that looks like he's going to spend most of his time on the bench and wants away.
 
He did, moving forward it didn't appear he was going to.

We are right to try and make money back on a player who would be walking out the door.

There is a time to sell - this was it.

I have no issue with us selling him, I do feel that the fee is low but probably not by a huge amount. I think it's unfair to say he was 'a wage' though as he did contribute to the team.

There are a few that contributed who will get less game time because of the players we've brought in, potentially Katic, Jack, Arfield we shouldn't just let them go at a discounted price because of that. Gerrard said he wanted him to stay and fight for his place.
 
Daniel Candeias is worth more than 250k ffs.

Annoyed at how cheap we must’ve valued him.

They’ve most likely bought out the final year of his contract which is all he was worth on paper. In 6 months he’d have signed for someone for nothing. You win some, you lose some. That’s football. His fee has effectively paid for Joe Aribo.
 
I have no issue with us selling him, I do feel that the fee is low but probably not by a huge amount. I think it's unfair to say he was 'a wage' though as he did contribute to the team.

There are a few that contributed who will get less game time because of the players we've brought in, potentially Katic, Jack, Arfield we shouldn't just let them go at a discounted price because of that. Gerrard said he wanted him to stay and fight for his place.

He evidently wasn't going to be first choice and as a result had just become a squad player on a wage, with a deal running down - where is the win in that for us? Even in a world where he fights for his place, all he would be is a player on a wage with a deal running down and heading out the door for free.

We have bombed our squad with players who can play in the wide areas, we had evidently done that because we saw Candieas as a player who would be moving down the pecking order.

Re the likes of Katic and Jack, they are very much still in contention as players who will play and likely play often - they are younger, have time left on their deals etc - totally removed from Candieas situation

Candieas was perfectly fine for us, he did try etc but he was just a guy we were paying a wage to play football for us - little more, little less, just dudes doing their job, when they stop being of use to us, sack them off and move on from that - that's how it works.
 
Let's say for talking sake the fee is £250k. Along with the points you've noted, it's £250k we wouldn't be getting in 6 months for a player that looks like he's going to spend most of his time on the bench and wants away.

I get that, and I'm not under any illusions that we'd be getting a big fee for him given the circumstances, I just feel that it's low. I'd have thought a minimum of 500k or 700k at a push, it's not a huge difference but it's about getting max value.

There is a difference in age, potential, quality etc but cel'ic got 8M for Armstrong, a player they were going to lose for nothing the following season. I hate to bring them into the discussion but it's an example of them getting maximum value in a similar situation and I don't feel that we're doing that. Again, before anyone picks up on it I'm not for a second saying that Candeias is worth 8M just that they got maximum value while it feels like we're selling at a discounted price.

To be honest if it was a one-off it wouldn't bother me so much but I feel we've sold players before where we've 'took a hit' just to get them off the wage bill. Cardoso and Waghorn are two that spring to mind but I know there are more.
 
He evidently wasn't going to be first choice and as a result had just become a squad player on a wage, with a deal running down - where is the win in that for us? Even in a world where he fights for his place, all he would be is a player on a wage with a deal running down and heading out the door for free.

We have bombed our squad with players who can play in the wide areas, we had evidently done that because we saw Candieas as a player who would be moving down the pecking order.

Re the likes of Katic and Jack, they are very much still in contention as players who will play and likely play often - they are younger, have time left on their deals etc - totally removed from Candieas situation

Candieas was perfectly fine for us, he did try etc but he was just a guy we were paying a wage to play football for us - little more, little less, just dudes doing their job, when they stop being of use to us, sack them off and move on from that - that's how it works.

I have no issue with him being sold, none at all. You're right it looked like his game time will diminish due to others being brought in but Gerrard said he wanted him to stay and fight for his place so he obviously would still have been in his plans.

The issue for me is that we aren't getting the most we could get for him, which is important for a club who have openly stated that trading players will be an important part of business model going forward.

I think Candeias would have still been involved in games where we would have less of the ball because of his counter pressing qualities.

EDIT - also they are more than just employees, like it or not players are commodities ones were the club have stated we will be looking to buy low and sell high. There has been no evidence of selling high and that's what bothers me. The fee is immaterial it's whether we're getting the best possible value when buying and selling. I think that we could have got more for Candeias.
 
Last edited:
I have no issue with him being sold, none at all. You're right it looked like his game time will diminish due to others being brought in but Gerrard said he wanted him to stay and fight for his place so he obviously would still have been in his plans.

The issue for me is that we aren't getting the most we could get for him, which is important for a club who have openly stated that trading players will be an important part of business model going forward.

I think Candeias would have still been involved in games where we would have less of the ball because of his counter pressing qualities.

It's player dependent.

Our hand in this stand alone negotiation is hinging.

"nah we want 700K"

"Do one, keep him... keep his wage for a year, we will take him in January for hee haw after he has played 200 odd minutes for you having been your 4th choice wide option..."

There is no win in that and it doesn't make us look strong for another transfer and another set of circumstances.

It makes us look daft and would cost us money.
 
Those unhappy with the fee - we could have wanted until Jan having paid his wages for another 5 months and got even less.
 
Nah I’m not having that, I’d of rather kept him for the season than pocket a poxy £250k

Why? He wanted to be a regular starter and he wasn’t going to be. Why keep a 31 year old journeyman with one year left on his deal who would also be unhappy no getting regular starts?

It makes no sense. £250k was very good for us (plus the wages it frees up)
 
It's player dependent.

Our hand in this stand alone negotiation is hinging.

"nah we want 700K"

"Do one, keep him... keep his wage for a year, we will take him in January for hee haw after he has played 200 odd minutes for you having been your 4th choice wide option..."

There is no win in that and it doesn't make us look strong for another transfer and another set of circumstances.

It makes us look daft and would cost us money.

It's not quite as black and white as that though, is it?

You can negotiate without demanding 700k. You can enter into discussions without taking a stance which would result in them telling us 'do one, keep him'.

It's not standalone either, there is a pattern of players we have sold at discounted prices/taking a hit on what we paid; Cardoso, Waghorn, John, (I would argue) Windass, Garner, McKay.
 
It's not quite as black and white as that though, is it?

You can negotiate without demanding 700k. You can enter into discussions without taking a stance which would result in them telling us 'do one, keep him'.

It's not standalone either, there is a pattern of players we have sold at discounted prices/taking a hit on what we paid; Cardoso, Waghorn, John, (I would argue) Windass, Garner, McKay.

Ok, so we got 250k (rumored) what should we have got? 500k? That 250k would have made a huge difference.....

Do we even categorically know we didn't initially ask for 700k, 600k, 500k? I highly doubt we settled on a deal WE didn't feel comfortable with

The likes of Cardoso, Waghorn, Windass, Garner differ entirely as their own entity in terms of circumstances of sell let alone bringing to departure of Candieas into the equation.

A transfer is just it's own standalone thing based on circumstance of sell.

Windass and Cardoso departure being spoken about in the same breath.... just makes no sense, they are miles apart as circumstance of exit.
 
I am as sorry as the next fan to see DC go but that is the name of the game now, here at Ibrox there is little room for sentiment in football, let alone a club like Rangers, still engaged in a war with the fat one, where every pound is a prisoner, after so many false dawns, we see a way forward, the other players need and will be moved on and I hope soon?
 
"Listen, we'll see what happens.
"There's been no bids for Alfredo so far. He's started the season well with four goals in two games.
"He's playing with a smile on his face, so he looks happy to be here and we're delighted to have him."

Almost the definition of 'not sending a message' despite how the paper put it.
The official statement read "we will be making no statement at this time"
 
Ok, so we got 250k (rumored) what should we have got? 500k? That 250k would have made a huge difference.....

Do we even categorically know we didn't initially ask for 700k, 600k, 500k? I highly doubt we settled on a deal WE didn't feel comfortable with

The likes of Cardoso, Waghorn, Windass, Garner differ entirely as their own entity in terms of circumstances of sell let alone bringing to departure of Candieas into the equation.

A transfer is just it's own standalone thing based on circumstance of sell.

Windass and Cardoso departure being spoken about in the same breath.... just makes no sense, they are miles apart as circumstance of exit.


Neither you or I know the details of the negotiations, I feel that we could have got more than the 250k you are happy with 250k. That much we can agree on, surely?

You are saying an extra 250k wouldn't have made much of a difference (I'm assuming sarcasm in highlighted line above), yet you are happy with the 250k we got? Do you not see a contradiction there?

The fee is irrelevant to be honest, it's about extracting maximum possible value from transfers which means buying as low as we can and selling as high as we can - it's the clubs stated policy yet we have yet to see any evidence of this on the selling side of transfers.

Everyone of the players mentioned above is relevant, I'm not saying we should be getting millions of pounds for every transfer as the player/circumstances will be different, what I'm saying is that we should be trying to get the maximum possible amount for each player we sell and I haven't seen any evidence of us trying to do that. Can you name a player we've let go where you feel we've got top dollar for him?
 
Neither you or I know the details of the negotiations, I feel that we could have got more than the 250k you are happy with 250k. That much we can agree on, surely?

You are saying an extra 250k wouldn't have made much of a difference (I'm assuming sarcasm in highlighted line above), yet you are happy with the 250k we got? Do you not see a contradiction there?

The fee is irrelevant to be honest, it's about extracting maximum possible value from transfers which means buying as low as we can and selling as high as we can - it's the clubs stated policy yet we have yet to see any evidence of this on the selling side of transfers.

Everyone of the players mentioned above is relevant, I'm not saying we should be getting millions of pounds for every transfer as the player/circumstances will be different, what I'm saying is that we should be trying to get the maximum possible amount for each player we sell and I haven't seen any evidence of us trying to do that. Can you name a player we've let go where you feel we've got top dollar for him?

Not really, because it most likely isn't just 250k it is likely a fee and wage we would have been paying - as an additional aside, if we hadn't got 250k and simply shifted him for %^*& all but lost his wage I would have no issue either.....he is no value to us anymore, little point us spending money on him anymore.

It isn't always about selling.... and again some players will differ.

We have kept a player like Candieas, likely had his best years, we have sacked him off, is what it is - he isn't a sellable asset or commodity as such we have the likes of Tav, Morelos etc to tick that box.

Ajax are a selling club but wont bin every player for a huge profit i.e Blind and Schone will likely just wind down their contract and fade away having served their purpose.

A player like Weir for example we were never selling him...

On occasion players just sign players who do them a turn and they leave - it doesn't mean teams don't have a model of making money through sales.

Players and situations differ.

Rangers have been a relative financial shambles during most of Murray's tenure, Whyte..... Green......

Using historical reference and owners we didn't have now as a measure of where we are now is a bit daft - it is a given we haven't sold players for massive profit as such given our circumstance you know the whole admin and run by twats thing.... it did sort of hinge our trading.

The landscape of our club has changed so much from owner to owner there is little point in the whole in pointing to the past as an example of the now - still too early into their tenure of shit cleaning to hold this board hostage to the inability of others.
 
Last edited:
"Listen, we'll see what happens.
"There's been no bids for Alfredo so far. He's started the season well with four goals in two games.
"He's playing with a smile on his face, so he looks happy to be here and we're delighted to have him."

Almost the definition of 'not sending a message' despite how the paper put it.
I'm thinking it's along the lines of, were not looking to sell, he's happy but if a bid comes in it better be a bloody good one or he's staying.
I think that's the precise message we should be putting out for all our top players
 
Not really, because it most likely isn't just 250k it is likely a fee and wage we would have been paying - as an additional aside, if we hadn't got 250k and simply shifted him for %^*& all but lost his wage I would have no issue either.....he is no value to us anymore, little point us spending money on him anymore.

It isn't always about selling.... and again some players will differ.

We have kept a player like Candieas, likely had his best years, we have sacked him off, is what it is - he isn't a sellable asset or commodity as such we have the likes of Tav, Morelos etc to tick that box.

Ajax are a selling club but wont bin every player for a huge profit i.e Blind and Schone will likely just wind down their contract and fade away having served their purpose.

A player like Weir for example we were never selling him...

On occasion players just sign players who do them a turn and they leave - it doesn't mean teams don't have a model of making money through sales.

Players and situations differ.

Rangers have been a relative financial shambles during most of Murray's tenure, Whyte..... Green......

Using historical reference and owners we didn't have as a measure of where we are now is a bit daft - it is a given we haven't sold players for massive profit as such given our circumstance.

The landscape of our club has changed so much from owner to owner there is little point in the whole in pointing to the past as an example of the now - still too early into their tenure of shit cleaning to hold this board hostage to the inability of others.


Mate, everyone of the players I listed was sold under the current board, I specifically didn't go back any further because I recognise that the times are different.

I don't buy the spin on us saving a wage, he was a contributing player, it's not like he has never kicked a ball for us so we're not 'saving a wage' as his contribution will have to be replaced. It may be the case that we have already brought in the player to replace his contribution or we have identified one to come in and the Candeias money will go to that but please stop the saving a wage chat as his contribution will be replaced by a player who will also be paid a wage!

I accept that there will be some players that we wont make a profit on but for a club that have stated player trading will be part of our policy we're really poor at getting max value from player sales.
 
Mate, everyone of the players I listed was sold under the current board, I specifically didn't go back any further because I recognise that the times are different.

I don't buy the spin on us saving a wage, he was a contributing player, it's not like he has never kicked a ball for us so we're not 'saving a wage' as his contribution will have to be replaced. It may be the case that we have already brought in the player to replace his contribution or we have identified one to come in and the Candeias money will go to that but please stop the saving a wage chat as his contribution will be replaced by a player who will also be paid a wage!

I accept that there will be some players that we wont make a profit on but for a club that have stated player trading will be part of our policy we're really poor at getting max value from player sales.

But the circumstance around said players differs....I mean Windass literally meets the criteria you reference and more...

It isn't "spin" re us saving a wage, we literally have moved his wage from our wage bill, that's an actual, literal thing that's happened with his departure from the club - his moving on is a wage less we have to pay from what was a bloated squad, that IS the point of his departure.

There are things people say and things they do...

Gerrard said, he wanted the player to fight for his place....naturally..

Rangers did.....buy loads of wide options and agree to sell him...

it is kind of obvious we wanted his wage and him as a player of the books.
 
But the circumstance around said players differs....I mean Windass literally meets the criteria you reference and more...

It isn't "spin re us saving a wage, we literally have moved his wage from our wage bill, that's an actual, literal thing that's happened with his departure from the club.

You're right, we won't be paying Candeias' wages any more, 'that's an actual, literal thing that has happened' as you put it but as he contributed to our team that contribution will have to be replaced by another player and unless said player is playing for free then we haven't saved a wage.

So you think that we are good at getting value for players that we sell? You say 'and more' when mentioning Windass who I pointed out. Can you list all the players you think that we have traded for maximum value?
 
You're right, we won't be paying Candeias' wages any more, 'that's an actual, literal thing that has happened' as you put it but as he contributed to our team that contribution will have to be replaced by another player and unless said player is playing for free then we haven't saved a wage.

So you think that we are good at getting value for players that we sell? You say 'and more' when mentioning Windass who I pointed out. Can you list all the players you think that we have traded for maximum value?

We have.... as his being with us would have just seen us having AN other player on a wage as part of our squad, we now don't have that wage as part of the squad.... it's pretty simple actually.....yes he was replaced, yes his wage was replaced, we then don't need HIS wage AS WELL.

I said Windass meets the criteria you reference and more - yes...because he does.... we bought him, we got our use from him and sold him for a tidy profit so referencing him and Cardoso as an example in the same bracket is just daft..

I don't think many teams trade oft at maximum value, more so a team who played Scottish Championship football, ended third in the Scottish league etc.... we haven't been established enough to sell oft for profit...now we are looking to establish ie Europe last season, there is a better level of interest in our players..

No one gives a %^*& re our achievements of the last few season (before last) who we tangibly could sell to a decent profit for - they mean little to clubs outside Scotland so of course we haven't sold oft for profit..

We also have the addition of being a club who are building we could sell a handful of players tomorrow for a profit but are making a conscious effort not to.

A selling model, and trade of player doesn't just mean selling people all the time to prove a point and justify a logical statement made re trading.

You are overlooking circumstance and actualities.
 
Last edited:
All of a sudden the Daily Rebel is gospel. When even they said "believed to have scooped around £250,000" still gospel.

Fwiw, I feel we had no choice but let him go. £250k, £500k, it matters not a jot. Candeias gets his wish, we get a fee, save a wage, no unhappy player in the group and we move on.
 
We have.... as his being with us would have just seen us having AN other player on a wage as part of our squad, we now don't have that wage as part of the squad.... it's pretty simple actually.....yes he was replaced, yes his wage was replaced, we then don't need HIS wage AS WELL.

I said Windass meets the criteria you reference and more - yes...because he does.... we bought him, we got our use from him and sold him for a tidy profit so referencing him and Cardoso as an example in the same bracket is just daft..

I don't think many teams trade oft at maximum value, more so a team who played Scottish Championship football, ended third in the Scottish league etc.... we haven't been established enough to sell oft for profit...now we are looking to establish ie Europe last season, there is a better level of interest in our players..

No one gives a %^*& re our achievements of the last few season - they mean little to clubs outside Scotland so of course we haven't sold oft for profit..

We also have the addition of being a club who are building we could sell a handful of players tomorrow for a profit but are making a conscious effort not to.

A selling model, and trade of player doesn't just mean selling people all the time to prove a point and justify a logical statement made re trading.

You are overlooking circumstance and actualities.

Gerrard said Candeias would still have been in his plans and we haven't brought in any more forwards since then so it suggests he would have been happy for him to stay and contribute.

Comparing Cardoso and Windass is daft how? You can't just dismiss failed players because it doesn't suit your argument.

We should be looking to get maximum possible value for every transfer, if player X has 3 years left on his contract then we will get more for him than we would if he only had 1 year left on his contract, that's a fact however we should be looking to get the best possible price for every player we sell even if they only had 1 year left.

There have been numerous examples where we have sold players at less than their value. Cel'ic got 8M for a player who had a year left on his contract, that's maximum value. We also have to get max value.

We've completely derailed this thread about Morelos, we'll need to agree to disagree.
 
Gerrard said Candeias would still have been in his plans and we haven't brought in any more forwards since then so it suggests he would have been happy for him to stay and contribute.

Comparing Cardoso and Windass is daft how? You can't just dismiss failed players because it doesn't suit your argument.

We should be looking to get maximum possible value for every transfer, if player X has 3 years left on his contract then we will get more for him than we would if he only had 1 year left on his contract, that's a fact however we should be looking to get the best possible price for every player we sell even if they only had 1 year left.

There have been numerous examples where we have sold players at less than their value. Cel'ic got 8M for a player who had a year left on his contract, that's maximum value. We also have to get max value.

We've completely derailed this thread about Morelos, we'll need to agree to disagree.

Of course he said that....if the played had stayed he still has to accommodate him, it didn't stop him buying wide players, continually being linked to ANOTHER wide player AND letting Canideas walk out the door.

Well because we signed Windass for 65k and sold him for 2 million so how the %^*& that correlates to the departure of Cardoso is beyond me.

The last part is all a bit meh to me... again comparing different circumstance and situation.....things differ based on the player, club etc..
 
Back
Top