Glasgow Rangers

[Jam_Man]

Coulthirst doesnt play every game so there is no clause forcing him to. How much simpler can I say it?

You are the one that was ranting that we shouldnt loan players we are forced to play, as he barely plays its been proven totally wrong.

Now you are so desperate to save face you are opening more threads to find other instances where it happens as proof it happens here, which it clearly hasnt.

There was no clause in Coulthirsts contract to say he has to play every game. Get over it.

 

[chapperzUK]

Why on earth would any manager admit it when under normal circumstances he would be liable to be sacked !

Shall I say it again. If it is normal, then why would they get the sack?

 

[Jam_Man]

Shall I say it again. If it is normal, then why would they get the sack?

Dont try to apply commons sense or logic to it, its futile.:smile:

 

[mrsblue]

Shall I say it again. If it is normal, then why would they get the sack?

Haha,

You are naive ,so a club plays Joe Bloggs who performs poorly game after game and the paying fan continues to pay to watch him then question his inclusion then the manager admits he is forced to play him,paying fans would not be very happy.

Dont you think ?

 

[Jam_Man]

Haha,

You are naive ,so a club plays Joe Bloggs who performs poorly game after game and the paying fan continues to pay to watch him then question his inclusion then the manager admits he is forced to play him,paying fans would not be very happy.

Dont you think ?

Coulthirst barely plays any games, so how on earth does that apply to us.

As Chapperz says if every contract was like that, then everyone would accept it, but as we dont play our loanees every game then that clause can not possibly be in every contract.

Apply some common sense....

 

[chapperzUK]

Dont try to apply commons sense or logic to it, its futile.:smile:

You've got to think like mrsblue then ... here goes:

It is proven that all loan contracts have clauses that players must play every game. By law of "If I keep saying it, it becomes true".

As we have paid a massive £25k for a player and bought a dome too we must be mega rich. As we are so rich, but not enough to get a new stadium, Ron wants to loan players in who aren't good enough for us and then pay the parent club everytime he doesn't play. Of course, we don't have to do this with any of the other loanees (Kiernan, Assombalonga, Egan, Sokolik etc.) as they are good enough.

The other positive is that Brown is so desperate to ruin Jason Williams' career, that he doesn't have to play him with these loanees. He tried to loan him to a struggling Chelmsford, but that ended up helping him so had to recall him. Why else would he do that? To make sure Williams never becomes a professional, he is now loaning him to Welling with the clause that he must play at LB in every game.

 

[londonblue]

Coulthirst doesnt play every game so there is no clause forcing him to. How much simpler can I say it?

You are the one that was ranting that we shouldnt loan players we are forced to play, as he barely plays its been proven totally wrong.

Now you are so desperate to save face you are opening more threads to find other instances where it happens as proof it happens here, which it clearly hasnt.

There was no clause in Coulthirsts contract to say he has to play every game. Get over it.

You're also missing the point someone else has already made: this is potentially an exceptional case because of the Mike Ashley link. The owner of the lending club has a substantial stake in the loanee club.

 

[mrsblue]

So interest is charged at say 20% (high enough?) on a loan of £10m. So £2m goes out of the club, reducing their profit. So the £2m then goes into several companies, increasing their profit and therefore increasing the tax due .... easy eh?

You have no idea!

Each company has massive debt so cannot be taxed on losses .

 

[chapperzUK]

You have no idea!

Each company has massive debt so cannot be taxed on losses .

A company can have massive debt and still make a profit, which is then taxed, so you must mean massive losses.

So are these losses made up or are they just failing companies?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Like I said, if this happens in every contract, why is it news worthy? If it does happen, then every manager would admit to it because it isn't out of the norm.

It has finally happened, mrsblue has become a parody of themselves!

I think that happened a long time ago.

Lets recap,

I suggested Woodrow had a must play clause(because I knew they existed)and can only assume with his copious pitch time that was so.

With Shaq I was told by somebody on here now unless they were just winding up that I don't know,but they sure convinced me.

This thread shows proof the parent club has total control yet you have dived in ranting and raving for little reason.

OK, let's recap.

Who is telling the manager the loanees have to play

Is it (a) the parent club Newcastle
OR
(b) Rangers' chief executive Derek Llambias and football board chairman Sandy Easdale

 

[Uncle Leo]

I've only skim read this thread but am I to understand that Rangers are now obliged to play Shaq every game?

 

[buffalowolf]

I've only skim read this thread but am I to understand that Rangers are now obliged to play Shaq every game?

Only if its basketball !

 

[londonblue]

I've only skim read this thread but am I to understand that Rangers are now obliged to play Shaq every game?

Only when the CIA ask.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Oh and don't forget somebody on here told me about Coulthirst.

Lets recap,

With Shaq I was told by somebody on here...

Well, that's proof enough for me!

 

[mrsblue]

Once mighty Rangers who had crowds of 50,000 were watched yesterday by 11,000 in the defeat against even mightier Raith !

Dodgy owners eh !

 

[londonblue]

Once mighty Rangers who had crowds of 50,000 were watched yesterday by 11,000 in the defeat against even mightier Raith !

Dodgy owners eh !

Indeed. Although their owners that started the problems were awful. They mortgaged the club against future season ticket income, and with attendances of about 50,000 they must have had a fair few season ticket holders.

I don't think we need to worry on that score just yet!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Once mighty Rangers who had crowds of 50,000 were watched yesterday by 11,000 in the defeat against even mightier Raith !

Dodgy owners eh !

What are you implying here? We got crowds of 11,000 under Ron.