Whilst there is the possibility that both these players could leave, there are other clubs in a similar position where they have players who have run down their contracts in the hope that there is something better out there for them. If we were all to be honest, we would do the same for our families and career if we felt that our current employers ambitions no longer met ours.
Ned has always served well, but he's been paid well over the odds for years, if he won't sign then I say it's his time. Flashes of excellence followed by appalling ball control, we could do better for less. That's all.
Lidl is considered budget while Waitrose is considered premium Durbar. That said many a good deal can be found in Lidl, you just have to look and listen - a bit like scouting for a player
He's 31, and is looking for a last pay day for a three or four year deal to take him to 35. When he will retire. He'll take it if it's from someone else but we're no longer in the market to offer him this. He'll go where the money is, if not he may well stay on a reduced contract and get to play regular football. Nedum is the right sort where there's others who have played for us weren't. SWP for instance. Regardless, I wish him well and he was motm on Saturday, but he was not a Rangers captain.
Surely we should offer Ned what we can afford and think he's worth. Not offering him a contract gives him no option of taking a reduced contract just removes the possibility that he might agree to it. The Robinson situation is stupid and he should have been given a fresh deal months ago. That said, we have supported him through some major injuries and so signing a new deal with a buyout would seem fairest (not that football works that way). I'm not in favour of half the team playing for their contracts - if we really do have the right sorts then on field competitiveness should be sufficient. It just makes us a shop window for freebies and possessions over the notion of us buying cheap, developing and then selling on for a profit.
Ned is getting on and Robinson is injury prone, perhaps they don't want them at the end of the season I also don't think they would get much for either of them if they had tried to sell them To criticize the club for not offering new contracts is a bit unfair as none of us know the thinking or reasoning that goes on in the managements minds.
We don't know managements minds with respect to team selection and tactics but we can see or anticipate the results. Perhaps we should never say anything eh?
To be fair he is just putting his view across and let's be honest a lot of people think they know better than the club on these issues and it is just possible they don't isn't it?
Apologies Dunbar if it seemed a blunt reply. It wasn't intended to be. You are of course right - we don't know what they think or in fact what they will do. Time will tell.
Robinson has had contact from other clubs... would imagine Ned has had too... can't see either with us next season if they get offers - which would be a shame but understandable. +++Edit+++ Just saw Durbar's comment about Sheff Utd... given their overall performance this season it would be understandable for him to choose a club with more chance of at least hitting the playoffs
For those who want to keep Ned (including me!), which bit of the £47 000 000 fine do you not understand?! Cost are being cut at every corner from not opening the smaller kiosk for drinks in PU at halftime through to higher level jobs where people are not being replaced and their job being split between other employees. If they lose the final appeal against FFP (whenever that may be), we will be in administration with all that brings with it. We'll be lucky if we have 11 players (all aged 17 and down) to actually field a team. Unless Ned can be persuaded to take the 20k per week wage cap, he will be gone if he can find another club to pay him more.
Understood most of that yes, except “going into administration “ WE WILL NOT GO INTO ADMINISTRATION as uncle Tony said the fine was down to him and he would pay it therefore no administration.
Exactly - none of us would take a £40k pay cut per week (in our dreams) - he's in the late stages of his career and is going to be looking for security and a final big pay deal. Last season there was a suggestion someone (Burnley?) were interested - despite the fact a lot on here don't rate him, it's clear he will probably be on someone's transfer list.
That is not my understanding I'm afraid. I believe the rules state that the fine must come from the club. Think it through logically. The purpose of the FFP is to stop uber wealthy owners buying success. If Tony was allowed to pay out of his own pocket, what would be the point of the rule? If they were able to pay themselves, do you not think they would have already done so and clear the slate to try for another promotion bid but this time the 'proper' way. Delighted if someone can tell me I'm wrong but I don't think I am. If QPR have to pay the fine some sort of sanction a real danger. I agree it's hard to imagine administration when the owners do have cash they could use to remedy the situation.
I think you are right, however it just highlights the absurdity of the rule - the club spent too much money forcing itself into debt - if the club is further fined the suggested £40m amount, the debt we are being penalised for will increase and the club will possibly be forced into administrate - thus compelling the club into financial prudence will result in us potentially going out of business - brilliant logic! The idiocy of fining a club for financial imprudence by forcing it further into debt is astounding. FFP clearly only benefits the existing huge clubs with massive revenues by putting an spending limit in the way of clubs that do have the revenues to compete - effectively creating a permanent state of 'them and us' between bigger and smaller clubs. As a by-product, it also now actually forces long term Championship clubs to break FFP rules by big spending if they are to have any hope of winning promotion - and often this spending will only then put them on a level playing field with the recently relegated clubs and their much bigger budgets that come courtesy of parachute payments. It's an absolute clusterfuck presided over by one of the most dysfunctional and poorly run organisations in sport today - the EFL.
And Leicester and Huddersfield complicated matters by showing it can be done the hard way. Maybe Burnley too. I strongly agree with you about the illogical nature of the rule and the 'us and them' it perpetuates. maybe it will change when the Super League is born??
Completely agree. As far as I can see, the FFP rules basically takes clubs in bad situations, does nothing to help them, and slaps on a punishment which makes the situation worse. If the footballing governing bodies, either on a national level, or an international level, really cared about the state of clubs in lower divisions they would be helping them get their houses in order, not just slapping on a fine. Once again, the big clubs will get bigger and the small clubs will suffer the consequences.
Completely agree. As far as I can see, the FFP rules basically takes clubs in bad situations, does nothing to help them, and slaps on a punishment which makes the situation worse. If the footballing governing bodies, either on a national level, or an international level, really cared about the state of clubs in lower divisions they would be helping them get their houses in order, not just slapping on a fine. Once again, the big clubs will get bigger and the small clubs will suffer the consequences. If the aim was truly to bring financial fair play, they would be trying to level the playing field, not just punish clubs like ours.
