Transfers, Rumours and Delusional Pish 2016/17/18

[Stu101]

29 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

But they’re effectively deferring payment, the price stays the same...

I wasn't referring to the Murphy transfer, tbf. I was referring to the other players we are trying to bring in at the moment.

[Parklife]

2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I hadn't heard about the guaranteed fee in the summer. If that's correct then it's probably more cash flow related which is as has been said, still probably better for Rangers. 

Although maybe not as flexible as I had originally thought. 

"If that's correct" - it's in the statement Rangers released announcing he'd joined  

[Stu101]

22 minutes ago, Parklife said:

"If that's correct" - it's in the statement Rangers released announcing he'd joined  

Aye, but to be fair, you cant really trust those statements

[Pool Q]

I don't read it as there being an actual commitment by Rangers. The guarantee relates to the fee Brighton would charge, and only Rangers would have the 'option' to purchase? Basically they have him on loan until the summer at which point they have first dibs at a set fee (though it isn't really clear what that fee would be).

[Parklife]

58 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

I don't read it as there being an actual commitment by Rangers. The guarantee relates to the fee Brighton would charge, and only Rangers would have the 'option' to purchase? Basically they have him on loan until the summer at which point they have first dibs at a set fee (though it isn't really clear what that fee would be).

The statement on their website has been changed now. Previously it didn't include the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. 

[RenfrewBlue]

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

"If that's correct" - it's in the statement Rangers released announcing he'd joined  

Ive given up on reading statements from Rangers. They normally just do my head in. 😀 

[slasher]

4 hours ago, Stu101 said:

Or a cunning plan to show that we wont pay for players

Fixed that fur ye 😉

[slasher]

7 hours ago, shaggycoo said:

Celtic centre-back Jozo Simunovic is an £8million target for English Premier League outfit Crystal Palace, with Burnley also believed to be interested in the 23-year-old Bosnian.

Ok, this lad worth £8m?? Haven't seen anywhere near enough to make that judgement

I think there's a decent centre half there with the right partner. I would assume Brendan will want to see him and Comperr together before deciding on his future. If we sell anyone this window I would hope it to be Armstrong and possibly Dembele.

[Brummie Hibs]

Hibs sign Australian International striker Jamie Maclaren on loan until end of the season. http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/8299

Hoping this is the poacher that we desperately need to compliment the dominance we seem to have in many of our games, but unable to actually score in.

Note: This is not the same Jamie Maclaren that was going to join Hearts, and who was going to be a great signing and a fantastic coup. This is actually the Jamie Maclaren that no Jambo would ever want at Hearts, was never considered, is useless and Hibs are welcome to him.

[adamntg]

Dundee United made a late bid to scupper Coutinho's £142m move to Barcelona, but in the end decided to go with Craig Slater on loan from Colchester Utd instead.

However, they have still beaten Barca four times out of four.

[Pool Q]

59 minutes ago, Brummie Hibs said:

Hibs sign Australian International striker Jamie Maclaren on loan until end of the season. http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/8299

Hoping this is the poacher that we desperately need to compliment the dominance we seem to have in many of our games, but unable to actually score in.

Note: This is not the same Jamie Maclaren that was going to join Hearts, and who was going to be a great signing and a fantastic coup. This is actually the Jamie Maclaren that no Jambo would ever want at Hearts, was never considered, is useless and Hibs are welcome to him.

Knew next to nothing about him when he was first linked with us, same applies now. Seven games and no goals for a team that is third bottom of Bundesliga 2 didn’t really suggest anything special, but at the same time he seems to think he can make the Australian WC squad so maybe has something. Only time will tell.

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, Brummie Hibs said:

Hibs sign Australian International striker Jamie Maclaren on loan until end of the season. http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/8299

Hoping this is the poacher that we desperately need to compliment the dominance we seem to have in many of our games, but unable to actually score in.

Note: This is not the same Jamie Maclaren that was going to join Hearts, and who was going to be a great signing and a fantastic coup. This is actually the Jamie Maclaren that no Jambo would ever want at Hearts, was never considered, is useless and Hibs are welcome to him.

I watch quite a bit of A-League and always thought he was shite. Maybe he'll have improved. 

[phart]

On 1/7/2018 at 4:12 AM, GRBear said:

Loan a player and being first dibs to buy in the summer. Freeing up funds to be spent on further recruits now. 

Clever not shambolic 😉

Or you don't have the funds and the can has been kicked further down the road.

Let's monitor it and see how clever it turns out to be. You think it shows cleverness, i think it shows a lack of funds.

[aaid]

53 minutes ago, phart said:

Or you don't have the funds and the can has been kicked further down the road.

Let's monitor it and see how clever it turns out to be. You think it shows cleverness, i think it shows a lack of funds.

On the surface - the devil of course will be in the detail - this looks like a better deal for Rangers than if it was a straightforwards transfer.

They have the benefit of the player for six months "on approval".  If he works out then they can make the transfer permanent at the previously agreed fee.  

The fact it's described as an initial loan suggests to me that there will be an opportunity for Rangers to pull out should he not work out at the end of the loan.

If it was just a case of deferring the transfer payment for six months because Rangers were short of cash then they would have put it through as a transfer but with a deferred payment schedule - that's pretty much standard in football transfers.

 

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, adamntg said:

Dundee United made a late bid to scupper Coutinho's £142m move to Barcelona, but in the end decided to go with Craig Slater on loan from Colchester Utd instead.

However, they have still beaten Barca four times out of four.

There are Lisbon Lions who are getting fed up of United fans going on about that. 

[euan2020]

47 minutes ago, aaid said:

On the surface - the devil of course will be in the detail - this looks like a better deal for Rangers than if it was a straightforwards transfer.

They have the benefit of the player for six months "on approval".  If he works out then they can make the transfer permanent at the previously agreed fee.  

The fact it's described as an initial loan suggests to me that there will be an opportunity for Rangers to pull out should he not work out at the end of the loan.

If it was just a case of deferring the transfer payment for six months because Rangers were short of cash then they would have put it through as a transfer but with a deferred payment schedule - that's pretty much standard in football transfers.

 

Unless Brighton had doubts on Rangers cashflow and did not want to permanently release the players registration

Given Rangers have got the player to travel to Ibrox under the premise of permanent transfer, they have unsettled him (sound familiar) and Brighton have defaulted to this now being a loan

This is the equivalent of the drunk in the bar orderign a pint, taking a sip, and then turning out empty pockets, and bar staff are accepting to take payment "when I get paid next week"

Joking apart - bars in Cape Town run a bar tab, and some folk do a runner, and drink in bar down the street - also folk denying they drunk drinks or bought rounds until shown CCTV 

[Pool Q]

58 minutes ago, aaid said:

On the surface - the devil of course will be in the detail - this looks like a better deal for Rangers than if it was a straightforwards transfer.

They have the benefit of the player for six months "on approval".  If he works out then they can make the transfer permanent at the previously agreed fee.  

The fact it's described as an initial loan suggests to me that there will be an opportunity for Rangers to pull out should he not work out at the end of the loan.

If it was just a case of deferring the transfer payment for six months because Rangers were short of cash then they would have put it through as a transfer but with a deferred payment schedule - that's pretty much standard in football transfers.

 

All of which, to me, rather begs the question why Brighton have agreed to the deal as reported. In most other businesses a deal structured around those lines would include a sizeable premium to cover both the cash flow and maybe the ‘approval’ elements of it. If he is a marketable asset, and they could expect to get the same money for him from other clubs, then why not just do that? The player’s wishes have to befactored in too of course, but it feels like Rangers were talking more money than anyone else for Murphy, so the loan with an option to purchase deal was deemed worth a punt by Brighton when it became clear Rangers might not be good for the payments, at least not at the moment. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Pool Q

[aaid]

 

5 minutes ago, euan2020 said:

Unless Brighton had doubts on Rangers cashflow and did not want to permanently release the players registration

Given Rangers have got the player to travel to Ibrox under the premise of permanent transfer, they have unsettled him (sound familiar) and Brighton have defaulted to this now being a loan

 

As far as debt in football is concerned, money owed to other clubs is about as secure as it gets.  National Associations, FIFA and UEFA are pretty strict on clubs not paying transfer fees.  Even clubs that go into administration or liquidation have to agree to clear "football" debt before all else.  I'd imagine that in a case where a player is transferred and the buying club goes bust - and completely folds - then the player's registration would revert back to the selling club.

2 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

All of which, to me, rather begs the question why Brighton have agreed to the deal as reported. In most other businesses a deal structured around those lines would include a sizeable premium to cover both the cash flow and the ‘approval’ elements of it. If he is a marketable asset, and they could expect to get the same money for him from other clubs, then why not just do that? The player’s wishes have to factored in too of course, but it feels like Rangers were talking more money than anyone else for Murphy, so the loan with an option to purchase deal was deemed worth a punt by Brighton when it became clear Rangers might not be good for the payments, at least at the moment.

You've got to really ask what is the market for a player like Jamie Murphy, a 28 year old, no better than average Championship level player.  The answer is probably pretty much Rangers.

It just looks to me that the buying club have a bit more leverage than the selling club.  I'm not suggesting that Brighton are "desperate" to sell him but more likely they just want to get him off the books and Rangers are probably the only interested party.

None of this is to suggest that Rangers are awash with cash or don't have financial challenges, I suspect that Brighton are having to go along with a deal structured to Rangers' benefit as they don't have much of an option.  

[euan2020]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

 

As far as debt in football is concerned, money owed to other clubs is about as secure as it gets.  National Associations, FIFA and UEFA are pretty strict on clubs not paying transfer fees.  Even clubs that go into administration or liquidation have to agree to clear "football" debt before all else.  I'd imagine that in a case where a player is transferred and the buying club goes bust - and completely folds - then the player's registration would revert back to the selling club.

 

You've got to really ask what is the market for a player like Jamie Murphy, a 28 year old, no better than average Championship level player.  The answer is probably pretty much Rangers.

It just looks to me that the buying club have a bit more leverage than the selling club.  I'm not suggesting that Brighton are "desperate" to sell him but more likely they just want to get him off the books and Rangers are probably the only interested party.

None of this is to suggest that Rangers are awash with cash or don't have financial challenges, I suspect that Brighton are having to go along with a deal structured to Rangers' benefit as they don't have much of an option.  

I dont think Bankruptcy law permits football debt to be a preferred creditir - I think what occurred in the last "episode" is that discretionary payments - League Positon etc, were paid directly by the League to teams who were owed money - Dundee Utd got paid directly by the league 

Bristol City were in for him  (likely he would refuse the Xfer given Rangers unsettled him)

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2062203/jamie-murphy-rangers-bristol-city-brighton-1-8millon/

[aaid]

8 minutes ago, euan2020 said:

I dont think Bankruptcy law permits football debt to be a preferred creditir - I think what occurred in the last "episode" is that discretionary payments - League Positon etc, were paid directly by the League to teams who were owed money - Dundee Utd got paid directly by the league 

Bristol City were in for him  (likely he would refuse the Xfer given Rangers unsettled him)

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2062203/jamie-murphy-rangers-bristol-city-brighton-1-8millon/

Nothing whatsoever to do with bankruptcy law, it's an internal football thing, basically the authorities say if you want to start a "new" football club you have to clear the football debt of the old club.

As regards the Rangers/Dundee Utd debt, my recollection is that the SFA/SPFL were insisting that Newco Rangers pay the money that Oldco Rangers owed Dundee United.  That's fair enough and is pretty standard, however the SPFL also "owed" money to Oldco Rangers which they wouldn't pay to Newco, who understandably told them to do one and pay Dundee United form the money the league owed them.  It wasn't a case of the League paying off Dundee United because Rangers couldn't. 

[Pool Q]

18 minutes ago, aaid said:

 

As far as debt in football is concerned, money owed to other clubs is about as secure as it gets.  National Associations, FIFA and UEFA are pretty strict on clubs not paying transfer fees.  Even clubs that go into administration or liquidation have to agree to clear "football" debt before all else.  I'd imagine that in a case where a player is transferred and the buying club goes bust - and completely folds - then the player's registration would revert back to the selling club.

You've got to really ask what is the market for a player like Jamie Murphy, a 28 year old, no better than average Championship level player.  The answer is probably pretty much Rangers.

It just looks to me that the buying club have a bit more leverage than the selling club.  I'm not suggesting that Brighton are "desperate" to sell him but more likely they just want to get him off the books and Rangers are probably the only interested party.

None of this is to suggest that Rangers are awash with cash or don't have financial challenges, I suspect that Brighton are having to go along with a deal structured to Rangers' benefit as they don't have much of an option.  

I had understood he was pretty much an ever-present for Brighton last year. The step up to the EPL has obviously proved too big for him, but I’d have thought ‘no better than average’ is harsh. Other clubs would be interested (Bristol City, currently fourth in the Championship, seem to have been sufficiently so to table a £1.8m offer) maybe just not at the money Rangers were talking? Pure conjecture on my part, but I suspect Rangers must be offering top dollar for Brighton to have agreed to this deal.

[phart]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

On the surface - the devil of course will be in the detail - this looks like a better deal for Rangers than if it was a straightforwards transfer.

They have the benefit of the player for six months "on approval".  If he works out then they can make the transfer permanent at the previously agreed fee.  

The fact it's described as an initial loan suggests to me that there will be an opportunity for Rangers to pull out should he not work out at the end of the loan.

If it was just a case of deferring the transfer payment for six months because Rangers were short of cash then they would have put it through as a transfer but with a deferred payment schedule - that's pretty much standard in football transfers.

 

This is all speculation. Or Brighton are loaning cause they don't believe Rangers can pay the amount. So are loaning him while they do due diligence on the funds. Rangers get to associate with a £1 million player without actually spending any great amount.

The bolded bit shows why we're all speculating as the details aren't there.

I reckon Ranger's being skint is the main factor as opposed to Ranger's being elite deal makers.

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

I had understood he was pretty much an ever-present for Brighton last year. The step up to the EPL has obviously proved too big for him, but I’d have thought ‘no better than average’ is harsh. Other clubs would be interested (Bristol City, currently fourth in the Championship, seem to have been sufficiently so to table a £1.8m offer) maybe just not at the money Rangers were talking? Pure conjecture on my part, but I suspect Rangers must be offering top dollar for Brighton to have agreed to this deal.

Looking at his record for last year - he seemed to play a lot of games, no idea how many he started and how many were substitute appearances but he scored 2 league goals, which for a supposed attacking midfielder in a promotion winning team is pretty pish.

[Pool Q]

55 minutes ago, phart said:

I reckon Ranger's being skint is the main factor as opposed to Ranger's being elite deal makers.

Quite.

52 minutes ago, aaid said:

Looking at his record for last year - he seemed to play a lot of games, no idea how many he started and how many were substitute appearances but he scored 2 league goals, which for a supposed attacking midfielder in a promotion winning team is pretty pish.

Well I hope you are proved right.

[euan2020]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

Nothing whatsoever to do with bankruptcy law, it's an internal football thing, basically the authorities say if you want to start a "new" football club you have to clear the football debt of the old club.

As regards the Rangers/Dundee Utd debt, my recollection is that the SFA/SPFL were insisting that Newco Rangers pay the money that Oldco Rangers owed Dundee United.  That's fair enough and is pretty standard, however the SPFL also "owed" money to Oldco Rangers which they wouldn't pay to Newco, who understandably told them to do one and pay Dundee United form the money the league owed them.  It wasn't a case of the League paying off Dundee United because Rangers couldn't. 

Sure - but if no new club, then no pay off of debts, so its not guaranteed