The Summer 2022 Rangers Transfer Window Rumours and Deals - Thread

bkerr72

Well-Known Member
I know Aribo has a year to go on his contract but would love to see us get another year out of him as I think there's so much more to come from him. Think a full season as a 10 he would get more goals but he's been versatile in his time here he's never really nailed a certain position down.

Don't see him going to a Southampton but if Palace make a bid for him then yeah given he's a London boy he would move on.
 

Now and forever

Well-Known Member
You're saying you dont want Hong Kong owning and running the club. I'll accept there's no full ownership however Julian Wolhardt owns shares and is on our board.

He owns a a decent % and on the board therefore has a say in the running of the club. As I said it's close enough.

Combine that with Stuart Gibson who earned his money in HK and there's more than enough involvement in our club from HK
Not for quitting are you.

For the third and last time. You wrote 'too late' to my point when i said i do not want Hong Kong private equity investors owning and running us (after a rumoured takeover). You were wrong, the reason you were wrong is because Hong Kong investors do not own or run us. We have investors on board, and they may part own us like every other shareholder does, no one is disputing that.

But Hong Kong investors to not own or run us in the way i was suggesting. Which means it is not in fact 'too late'.
 

DeeGer10

Well-Known Member
Not for quitting are you.

For the third and last time. You wrote 'too late' to my point when i said i do not want Hong Kong private equity investors owning and running us. You were wrong, the reason you were wrong is because Hong Kong investors do not own or run us. We have investors on board, and they may part own us like every other shareholder does, no one is disputing that.

But Hong Kong investors to not own or run us in the way i was suggesting.
Like I said full ownership isn't there I know.

We still have HK ownership and at the moment HK looks like our only source of fresh investment. I appreciate you're saying you dont want but if its good enough for now then it's good enough later.

We'll obviously not agree, I think it's too late in regards to running the club as they already have a say in day to day running you disagree as its not fully them. I'll agree to disagree.
 

Andrew webb

Well-Known Member
You're saying you dont want Hong Kong owning and running the club. I'll accept there's no full ownership however Julian Wolhardt owns shares and is on our board.

He owns a a decent % and on the board therefore has a say in the running of the club. As I said it's close enough.

Combine that with Stuart Gibson who earned his money in HK and there's more than enough involvement in our club from HK
Good point s
 

WATP

Well-Known Member
In order to sell them - and in order for someone else to sign them - then the player needs to agree mate. If any of those players chooses to run down their contract, and that’s what Aribo, for example, did at Charlton, then there is nothing we can do about it.
It could be argued differently VB, we absolutely could encourage him to move and sometimes that encouragement in football is carrot or stick in approach. All is fair in love, war and business…..football is all 3!!
 

MarkD87

Well-Known Member
Yep he definitely has the ability to do all of that. If he actually fulfills his potential it would be Liverpool or Man City looking at him.
He can be the most frustrating player I've ever seen.
I think Aribo is an absolutely cracking player, but I think he maybe lacks the mentality to get to those heights (maybe not the technique or physical ability though).
Several people, including himself, have recognised that he lacks the belief and confidence in his own ability. I fear that may always be there and hinder the heights he should reach.

I'll miss him from our team. I wonder if we were the perfect club for him - being a big fish in a small pond will have helped with his confidence.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
It could be argued differently VB, we absolutely could encourage him to move and sometimes that encouragement in football is carrot or stick in approach. All is fair in love, war and business…..football is all 3!!
Aribo has already demonstrated he’s happy to run down a contract. And subsequently done very well out of his move to Rangers. Reportedly a £300k fee but by the time the player and his Agent got their ‘inducements’ it cost us circa £2m. So it would need to be a big carrot. The only ‘stick’ would be not playing him - and that hurts us as well.

I‘m not suggesting because he’s done it once he will do it again. Simply highlighting that it’s not the 70s anymore and it’s the player that has the power.
 

HamiltonBear

Well-Known Member
Heart and Hand + the 4th official.

Probably leaked to explain why the fee is on the lowish side.
Didn't know about 4th official. Don't know how reliable that is. Might be.

I doubt very much the club leaked it at all. Explaining fees doesn't make sense. If clubs don't want to reveal fees theyusually just say undisclosed. Could have been the agent but I would expect there to be more out there if that's the case.

Anyways, hopefully resolved one way or another soon.
 

Shota

Well-Known Member
Didn't know about 4th official. Don't know how reliable that is. Might be.

I doubt very much the club leaked it at all. Explaining fees doesn't make sense. If clubs don't want to reveal fees theyusually just say undisclosed. Could have been the agent but I would expect there to be more out there if that's the case.

Anyways, hopefully resolved one way or another soon.
Would make sense to leak it to dampen expectations of people wanting him to go for much more.

If the release clause wasn’t leaked then suddenly Aribo moves for 10m the fan base would be in uproar.
 

Ted Rangers

Well-Known Member
£10m (his sell-on clause) plus a 20% sell-on fee to potential suitors and he goes with best wishes.

:(
That doesn't make sense though. Why would you offer that, if £10m itself with no sell on would be accepted?

If anything, there's a potential to sell for about £8m with a decent sell on.

It would be easier for the buying club to just pay the full amount though. The £2m is nothing to these clubs.
 

GreigK_RFC

Well-Known Member
That doesn't make sense though. Why would you offer that, if £10m itself with no sell on would be accepted?

If anything, there's a potential to sell for about £8m with a decent sell on.

It would be easier for the buying club to just pay the full amount though. The £2m is nothing to these clubs.
I'd hope we'd demand a good sell-on fee is added to his contract we need to be getting something out of it when they move him on.
 

strider

Well-Known Member
I'd hope we'd demand a good sell-on fee is added to his contract we need to be getting something out of it when they move him on.

As was said above, if there's a release clause and it's met, there's pretty much no chance anyone will agree to a sell-on percentage.
 

HamiltonBear

Well-Known Member
Would make sense to leak it to dampen expectations of people wanting him to go for much more.

If the release clause wasn’t leaked then suddenly Aribo moves for 10m the fan base would be in uproar.
But would they really? Last year of contract. Club just need to say clause activated and if it's £10 million that's what it is. How much more would we realistically get with his contract running down? It's all a bit strange that the clause is activated in the final year. Again, not saying it isn’t but doesn't make sense to me.
 

DeeGer10

Well-Known Member
That doesn't make sense though. Why would you offer that, if £10m itself with no sell on would be accepted?

If anything, there's a potential to sell for about £8m with a decent sell on.

It would be easier for the buying club to just pay the full amount though. The £2m is nothing to these clubs.
It happens and probably a likely scenario.

A 10m release clause needs to be paid upfront.

We'll more likely agree on a deal of just under 10m with a clause of some sort so the buyer can pay in installments.
 

Shota

Well-Known Member
But would they really? Last year of contract. Club just need to say clause activated and if it's £10 million that's what it is. How much more would we realistically get with his contract running down? It's all a bit strange that the clause is activated in the final year. Again, not saying it isn’t but doesn't make sense to me.
Some people in here think we should be looking at 20m. I don’t agree with much that gets fed out to certain people but this is probably one I do agree with.

I think the release clause in the final year is quite smart tbh. Leaves the buyer an exact sum they can buy the player for and no real tough negotiating.

Easy for both parties that way.
 

strider

Well-Known Member
The instalments or up-front fee is an interesting one - Leeds just knocked back £60m from Man City which would be paid as £15m a year for 4 years in favour of £43m up front.

Obviously we're talking about far larger sums so it's a different conversation, but I wonder what we'd prefer out of say £8m up front or £11m over 3 years or something like that for one of our players.
 

Shota

Well-Known Member
The instalments or up-front fee is an interesting one - Leeds just knocked back £60m from Man City which would be paid as £15m a year for 4 years in favour of £43m up front.

Obviously we're talking about far larger sums so it's a different conversation, but I wonder what we'd prefer out of say £8m up front or £11m over 3 years or something like that for one of our players.
Sometimes the seller prefers it, and it’s reported as say 5m upfront then 5m in add ons/instalments.

There’s less pressure to spend the full 10m on transfers that window from the fan base and then the instalments can go to other areas of the club.
 

Ted Rangers

Well-Known Member
The instalments or up-front fee is an interesting one - Leeds just knocked back £60m from Man City which would be paid as £15m a year for 4 years in favour of £43m up front.

Obviously we're talking about far larger sums so it's a different conversation, but I wonder what we'd prefer out of say £8m up front or £11m over 3 years or something like that for one of our players.
It probably depends on our current squad, and potential targets.

I imagine Leeds will want the money up front to fund their rebuild under a new manager. They'll have their targets and know what the price is.

With Aribo, it'll be interesting to see what the deal is. I still think it'll be £10m up front, with nothing else added.
 

Bob Belcher

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It probably depends on our current squad, and potential targets.

I imagine Leeds will want the money up front to fund their rebuild under a new manager. They'll have their targets and know what the price is.

With Aribo, it'll be interesting to see what the deal is. I still think it'll be £10m up front, with nothing else added.
If it's a release clause, it generally has to paid up-front, in full
 

Ted Rangers

Well-Known Member
If it's a release clause, it generally has to paid up-front, in full
Yeah, that was the discussion, whether someone would meet the clause, or pay differently (installments for higher overall fee, less up front and a sell on etc.).

I think it suits us to get the money up front for our rebuild, in the blame way Leeds have.
 

Shota

Well-Known Member
Can we add on a sell on fee of f the release clause is set at 10m
No. If the release clause it met we need to abide by that and it’s automatically accepted.

Unless someone came in lower and we negotiated a sell on fee. Can’t really see that situation arising.
 

Gameboy

Well-Known Member
If it's a release clause, it generally has to paid up-front, in full

The release clause to be activated has to be paid in full to the football association of the selling club and not released until the deal is done either way.

That’s why Neymar’s lawyers went to the Spanish FA with the documents confirming the transfer of money for the PSG deal.
 

Jimbo 1690

Well-Known Member
Can we add on a sell on fee if the release clause is set at 10m
Who knows…..if we saw the potential and installed a release cause, perhaps we were smart enough already to include a selling on fee too……although it maybe the opposite and it maybe Aribos agent who’s installed the release clause so he’s not stuck in Scottish football forever!
 

DeeGer10

Well-Known Member
Can we add on a sell on fee if the release clause is set at 10m
Yes and no.

No - if a club comes in offers the release clause amount and pays it off in full upfront. The release clause value is then held with a third party until the deal is completed.

Yes - Clubs will know there's a release clause via agents but may not wish to pay upfront in favour of paying in installments. A deal is usually agreed which suits all parties. The cash portion could be more or less than the release clause but spread over installments with additional clauses put in as a sweetener for the selling club for agreeing to it.
 

Willger

Well-Known Member
Sometimes the seller prefers it, and it’s reported as say 5m upfront then 5m in add ons/instalments.

There’s less pressure to spend the full 10m on transfers that window from the fan base and then the instalments can go to other areas of the club.
This is true, I once sat next to a Morton director on a flight just after they had sold someone to Chelsea, he told me he refused the money up front because in his words it's like a feeding frenzy if everyone at the club thinks a big wedge has just landed. I think the player might have been David Hopkins.
 

albop

Well-Known Member
Our transfer business has been shocking to date
If we need to sell a player then so be it

Gotta wonder wat gio asked for a budget tho
 
Top