Captain next season

Orange Peel said:
I don't get what you mean.
Why can the new club not pay what we are paying and it's the same?
Click to expand...
OK I get what you are saying however we offered him a 4 year deal and that's his contract. If he is to leave early he also.needs a payoff. We won't pay any payoffs for players to leave. He will be put of pocket.
 
ecossebear said:
I wasn’t referring to the flogging a dead horse as a crew, it was literally aimed directly at Tav. I’ve said further back the thread I would have him in the top group of players who absolutely have to be moved on this summer (alongside Lundstram and Goldson). Just changing him MAY be what we’ve been needing and finally bring us the success that 6 managers, 3 chairmen and 108 new team mates have not. But we could also go through another 6 managers before deciding a then 40 year old Tav should move on. When everyone but 1 from a cast of hundreds are all changed and the results don’t, maybe taking the plunge to try it without that 1 is worth trying?
Click to expand...
We've really seen it all now. James Tavernier is to blame for the poor performance of previous Rangers chairmen hahahaha
 
Los Pollos Hermanos said:
So what does 'take away' mean?
Click to expand...
Hahahaha you did think that. That's amazing.

I'll make the same point, what, a 4th time now? Lol His penalties, free kicks and corner kick goal contributions are the overwhelming majority of his goal contributions and have no baring, what so ever, on his ability as a full back. You take away those and focus on his actual ability as a right back then not even his biggest fanboys would've wanted him to stay even this long.

How does a grown man have to have that explained to him that many times?
 
Los Pollos Hermanos said:
So what does 'take away' mean?
Click to expand...
Only on FF could I find myself both criticising and defending the same person on the same thread. :))

1. You can’t “take away” Tavs goals anymore than you can McCoists.
2. Tavs goal record is a phenomenon from RB
3. Tav has been a wonderful servant for the club and has delivered brilliant memories.
4. Tav is not a very good defender. He wasn’t at 22, he isn’t at 31 and he still won’t be at 40.
5. A proper overhaul of a squad involves also removing the mainstay with the biggest influence who is also captain.
6. 3 domestic trophies out of 21 as captain is NOT a good record.
7. If sold / offloaded this summer Tav will be fondly remembered amongst the greats of Rangers and will always be a fan favourite.
8. All 7 of these statements can coexist in the same universe!
 
Kinghornloyal said:
OK I get what you are saying however we offered him a 4 year deal and that's his contract. If he is to leave early he also.needs a payoff. We won't pay any payoffs for players to leave. He will be put of pocket.
Click to expand...
That is complete garbage.

In the scenario that he was to want to leave early and Rangers were happy to let him leave then there would be no need to pay him off at all. Why would there be if both parties are happy?
 
MartinS93 said:
That is complete garbage.

In the scenario that he was to want to leave early and Rangers were happy to let him leave then there would be no need to pay him off at all. Why would there be if both parties are happy?
Click to expand...
Cause I'm saying why would any player want to walk away from £1.5m it makes no sense.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Cause I'm saying why would any player want to walk away from £1.5m it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Well in the scenario above where both parties are happy, then that would imply the leaving player would've struck a deal that was worth leaving that for, no?

You're talking here as if you've never heard of a player, for example, leaving on a free in January before.
 
MartinS93 said:
Well in the scenario above where both parties are happy, then that would imply the leaving player would've struck a deal that was worth leaving that for, no?

You're talking here as if you've never heard of a player, for example, leaving on a free in January before.
Click to expand...
Show me an example where a player has just gave up his contract with no pay off and left. Possibly a squad player who gets no game time and has 4 minths left. We have Britain's highest ever scoring defender with 2 years left on his deal. Let's just agree to let him leave for nothing. Yeah we save £1.5m wages but also need to buy a player and wages to replace him and get no transfer fee. Wow. That's just hilarious.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
OK I get what you are saying however we offered him a 4 year deal and that's his contract. If he is to leave early he also.needs a payoff. We won't pay any payoffs for players to leave. He will be put of pocket.
Click to expand...
He won't need a pay off if we tell him to look for another club and he gets one with at least the same contract.
 
Ten Ton Tony said:
We've really seen it all now. James Tavernier is to blame for the poor performance of previous Rangers chairmen hahahaha
Click to expand...
You’re completely missing the point! We’ve changed every single person from board down to tea ladies. We’ve overhauled every aspect of the club. I don’t think there is still a single staff member at the club and there certainly isn’t another player at the club from when he first arrived. Yet we continually stick with him as RB and captain, losing goal after goal down our right side, being fairly impotent from set pieces and bottling under pressure while we change everyone else out and watch the scum overhaul our 17 trophy lead while he’s been here.

But no. Let’s improve the ball boys or bring in a new kit man. Next year will be better. He just needs good players around him. We can’t replace his stats. Anything rather than accept the fact maybe having a poor defender not only be a mainstay of the team but have the team built round him is not now and wasn’t in 2015 the correct decision.
 
MartinS93 said:
Hahahaha you did think that. That's amazing.

I'll make the same point, what, a 4th time now? Lol His penalties, free kicks and corner kick goal contributions are the overwhelming majority of his goal contributions and have no baring, what so ever, on his ability as a full back. You take away those and focus on his actual ability as a right back then not even his biggest fanboys would've wanted him to stay even this long.

How does a grown man have to have that explained to him that many times?
Click to expand...
'Take away' means only one thing, you know you've made a lady's front bottom of yourself so the deflection tactics start.

www.vocabulary.com

Take away - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

remove something concrete, as by lifting, pushing, or taking off, or remove something abstract
www.vocabulary.com www.vocabulary.com
 
Not a peep out these crackpots for months we hit a poor spell their all foaming at the mouth wanking over having the ability to have a go at Tav online.

Crackpots and btw like i said before its put to me “ you like Tav more than Rangers “

I like him more than the folk that blame him for everything.
 
Orange Peel said:
Well never get money for him and its costing us more keeping him.
He's not a sellable asset unless the loaded Saudis come in for him.
Click to expand...
Yes then if the Magor says to him he isn't playing. Tell your agent to find a buyer then that's what we do. However I don't believe the manager wants rid of him.
 
ecossebear said:
Only on FF could I find myself both criticising and defending the same person on the same thread. :))

1. You can’t “take away” Tavs goals anymore than you can McCoists.
2. Tavs goal record is a phenomenon from RB
3. Tav has been a wonderful servant for the club and has delivered brilliant memories.
4. Tav is not a very good defender. He wasn’t at 22, he isn’t at 31 and he still won’t be at 40.
5. A proper overhaul of a squad involves also removing the mainstay with the biggest influence who is also captain.
6. 3 domestic trophies out of 21 as captain is NOT a good record.
7. If sold / offloaded this summer Tav will be fondly remembered amongst the greats of Rangers and will always be a fan favourite.
8. All 7 of these statements can coexist in the same universe!
Click to expand...
I just find it bizarre that a fan wants to 'take away' penalties and free kicks, so we remove those then he argues that 6/7 goals per season from open play isn't that good from RB, this place is nuts. :))
Everyone wants change but it's the venom from some that's eye opening.

Let Clement decide if he's captain next season, the manager might well bring in his own man then we can move on from this tiring debate every month or so.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Yes and instead of finding a buyer we lose more money cause it will cost lots to replace him
Click to expand...
Or we play Sterling there and promote a youngster as a backup. In that scenario we may instantly improve and will have saved a chunk of wages. What’s the worst that can happen - we lose another league title as we have the last 3?
 
ecossebear said:
Or we play Sterling there and promote a youngster as a backup. In that scenario we may instantly improve and will have saved a chunk of wages. What’s the worst that can happen - we lose another league title as we have the last 3?
[/QUOTE
Who Sterling that is made of glass and can't last 3 or 4 games. No thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Los Pollos Hermanos said:
I just find it bizarre that a fan wants to 'take away' penalties and free kicks, so we remove those then he argues that 6/7 goals per season from open play isn't that good from RB, this place is nuts. :))
Everyone wants change but it's the venom from some that's eye opening.

Let Clement decide if he's captain next season, the manager might well bring in his own man then we can move on from this tiring debate every month or so.
Click to expand...
To be honest it’s not just within Rangers. You get the same when people talk about Harlaand or Kane “but they can only score <insert as suits> goals”.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Show me an example where a player has just gave up his contract with no pay off and left.
Click to expand...
you keep ducking the scenario tgat Tav would be happy to 'give up' his contract for a better one.

Why would we be required to pay any player off if he wants to leave for a better contract and Rangers are happy to let him go?

You keep ducking that question.
 
Los Pollos Hermanos said:
'Take away' means only one thing, you know you've made a lady's front bottom of yourself so the deflection tactics start.

www.vocabulary.com

Take away - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

remove something concrete, as by lifting, pushing, or taking off, or remove something abstract
www.vocabulary.com www.vocabulary.com
Click to expand...
Hahaha

Even explaining it 4 times you still don't understand the point being made, do you?

That's incredible.
 
MartinS93 said:
you keep ducking the scenario tgat Tav would be happy to 'give up' his contract for a better one.

Why would we be required to pay any player off if he wants to leave for a better contract and Rangers are happy to let him go?

You keep ducking that question.
Click to expand...
I'm.not ducking anything. Why would the club let him agree to just leave. He has 2 years left so we would want a buyer whatever that fee would be.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Eh aye. Point 1 deemed not good enough by who. Fans. They don't pick the team. And sorry we wouldn't let a player cancel his contract with 2 years left. Show me anywhere that has ever happened at our club
Click to expand...
The manager. In the above hypothetical scenario where the manager has deemed Tav not good enough.

Tav gets an offer that's better than his current one, the club and manager are happy to see him go and off the wage bill. Why, in that hypothetical scenario, where both parties want to part ways, would Tav be then demanding a pay off?
 
ecossebear said:
I wasn’t referring to the flogging a dead horse as a crew, it was literally aimed directly at Tav. I’ve said further back the thread I would have him in the top group of players who absolutely have to be moved on this summer (alongside Lundstram and Goldson). Just changing him MAY be what we’ve been needing and finally bring us the success that 6 managers, 3 chairmen and 108 new team mates have not. But we could also go through another 6 managers before deciding a then 40 year old Tav should move on. When everyone but 1 from a cast of hundreds are all changed and the results don’t, maybe taking the plunge to try it without that 1 is worth trying?
Click to expand...
Fair comment and while it's not how I see things I do see where you're coming from. I want to see a side that's capable of playing to the style and standard that the manager demands, whether that includes Tav or not.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
I'm.not ducking anything. Why would the club let him agree to just leave. He has 2 years left so we would want a buyer whatever that fee would be.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If he’s on £1.5m per season (for arguments sake as I’ve just made it up!) then that’s £3m he will “cost” us for the rest of his contract. If Clement decides he wants a new right back and that Tav has only a limited future at the club then letting him go on a free transfer saves us £3m. I can’t understand why people can’t understand the difference between tearing up a contract (paying a part or all of a players wages as a lump sum to get rid of them) and letting a player move without demanding a transfer fee.
 
MartinS93 said:
The manager. In the above hypothetical scenario where the manager has deemed Tav not good enough.

Tav gets an offer that's better than his current one, the club and manager are happy to see him go and off the wage bill. Why, in that hypothetical scenario, where both parties want to part ways, would Tav be then demanding a pay off?
Click to expand...
OK he may not want a payoff but we aren't going to let a player who is our captain go for zero. Why would we. There is no chance the manager sees tav as the problem
 
ecossebear said:
Not necessarily. If he’s on £1.5m per season (for arguments sake as I’ve just made it up!) then that’s £3m he will “cost” us for the rest of his contract. If Clement decides he wants a new right back and that Tav has only a limited future at the club then letting him go on a free transfer saves us £3m. I can’t understand why people can’t understand the difference between tearing up a contract (paying a part or all of a players wages as a lump sum to get rid of them) and letting a player move without demanding a transfer fee.
Click to expand...
It doesn't save us £3m cause we need to replace him l. Even say a player of £2m on 20k a week. That costs is £6m to replace a guy we let go for free. In fact this is pointless. Nobody just let's someone with 2 years left go for free
 
Tav's stats are distorted because of the sheer number of penalties we get. We get lots of pens because we play in a league full of hammer throwers. His penalty conversion rate this season is 75% that's average for a designated penalty taker.

If Dessers was our designated penalty taker he would be on about 30 goals in the league this season, he would be well ahead of Shankland in the top scorer table. People would be talking about what a great goal scorer Dessers is. He would probably have won player of the year etc.

Just shows how stats are distorted in favour of a designated penalty taker. Tav's stats are still good even without pens, but all the pens make him look a lot better on paper than he actually is.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
ÕOK he may not want a payoff but we aren't going to let a player who is our captain go for zero. Why would we. There is no chance the manager sees tav as the problem
Click to expand...
Manager/club are happy to see him go and off the wage bill.

So why would a payoff be required when the club are just happy to get him off the wage bill?
 
MartinS93 said:
Manager/club are happy to see him go and off the wage bill.

So why would a payoff be required when the club are just happy to get him off the wage bill?
Click to expand...
Why would the manager want the captain off the wage bill with 2 years left. Wouldn't we have been trying to do that with the 6 out of contract. It also sends a shocking message to any possible new players. Here's a 4 year deal but we can always look to just get rid of you for nothing and no pay off. Mental. It isn't how it works
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Why would the manager want the captain off the wage bill with 2 years left.
Click to expand...
Not good enough in the managers eyes.
Kinghornloyal said:
Wouldn't we have been trying to do that with the 6 out of contract. It also sends a shocking message to any possible new players.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. In the above scenario he is happy to go and wants to leave.
Kinghornloyal said:
Here's a 4 year deal but we can always look to just get rid of you for nothing and no pay off. Mental. It isn't how it works
Click to expand...
That wasn't the scenario I put to you.
 
MartinS93 said:
Not good enough in the managers eyes.

No it doesn't. In the above scenario he is happy to go and wants to leave.

That wasn't the scenario I put to you.
Click to expand...
All.nonsense. you are making up a scenario that the manager wants Tav to leave. Nothing said or insinuated by the manager even suggests this. It's fans saying it. A player can't dictate he wants to rip up his contract. He is out asset so can't just walk away just like we can't sack him
 
Kinghornloyal said:
All.nonsense. you are making up a scenario that the manager wants Tav to leave. Nothing said or insinuated by the manager even suggests this.
Click to expand...
Correct. As said 2 posts above, it was a hypothetical scenario.
Kinghornloyal said:
It's fans saying it. A player can't dictate he wants to rip up his contract. He is out asset so can't just walk away just like we can't sack him
Click to expand...
Didn't say he could or we even could. I don't understand how you don't understand that?
 
MartinS93 said:
Correct. As said 2 posts above, it was a hypothetical scenario.

Didn't say he could or we even could. I don't understand how you don't understand that?
Click to expand...
Then just leave it then. Let's make up a million fake scenarios. What's the point. Unless a team buys Tav and he agrees to go he will be here and captain next year.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Why would the manager want the captain off the wage bill with 2 years left. Wouldn't we have been trying to do that with the 6 out of contract. It also sends a shocking message to any possible new players. Here's a 4 year deal but we can always look to just get rid of you for nothing and no pay off. Mental. It isn't how it works
Click to expand...
Because he realises that there is a glass ceiling this team can reach if they stick with him and that was a few years ago? Because the savings in wages can go to someone younger? Pure speculation and wishful thinking at this stage anyway, and there is probably equally a chance he stays or goes for a few million, but a free transfer is also a possible option I’d be looking at. I think we can all agree we won’t be ripping up his contract which is what I think you’re confusing a free transfer for.

We regularly do that so to use the 6 ooc players as examples doesn’t work! We just did it with Ofoborh last year. We did it with Simpson the year before. Neither of these put players of coming to us. Why would letting a player leave for a lucrative deal in the Middle East after he’s been at the club for the best part of a decade be a worse look than letting Cifu and Lammers go 6 months into 4/5 year contracts?
 
ecossebear said:
Because he realises that there is a glass ceiling this team can reach if they stick with him and that was a few years ago? Because the savings in wages can go to someone younger? Pure speculation and wishful thinking at this stage anyway, and there is probably equally a chance he stays or goes for a few million, but a free transfer is also a possible option I’d be looking at. I think we can all agree we won’t be ripping up his contract which is what I think you’re confusing a free transfer for.

We regularly do that so to use the 6 ooc players as examples doesn’t work! We just did it with Ofoborh last year. We did it with Simpson the year before. Neither of these put players of coming to us. Why would letting a player leave for a lucrative deal in the Middle East after he’s been at the club for the best part of a decade be a worse look than letting Cifu and Lammers go 6 months into 4/5 year contracts?
Click to expand...
Because he is an asset and won't be leaving for zero. Itsvthat simple.
 
Kinghornloyal said:
Then just leave it then. Let's make up a million fake scenarios. What's the point. Unless a team buys Tav and he agrees to go he will be here and captain next year.
Click to expand...
I came up with one scenario, that's probably happened a million times in football, in response to your claim that the only way we can part ways early is if we sell him.

You were clearly talking rubbish.
 
MartinS93 said:
I came up with one scenario, that's probably happened a million times in football, in response to your claim that the only way we can part ways early is if we sell him.

You were clearly talking rubbish.
Click to expand...
It's not rubbish. We aren't going to just cancel a contract with 2 years left. Especially a player who is captain and plays every game..
 
Tav has been a phenomenal signing for us. For the price we paid, the goals, the big performances, the memories and years of service he can be considered an absolute bargain. Remarkable in all honesty

I do however think we need a change in culture at the club. If we want to become consistent winners then the leadership needs to change. The captain needs to set the tone for the rest of the team. I don’t think we have a captain in Tav who relishes going into battle with them and that simply will not do any longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top