09 Dec 2014 18:50:12
I gave five words to say to the Dundee Utd chairman, Get it right up you!

1.) 09 Dec 2014
Hear Hear.

2.) 09 Dec 2014
09 Dec 2014 19:43:04
Just read Thompsons statement, while great for rangers he makes a good point. Any youngster who has trained at a club for 7-8+ Years then leaves, the new club(I'm guessing scottish clubs only)must pay at least 200k even if they have only played 1 game in the first team. That dose seem quite high.

{Ed039's Note - if Rangers didnt want him and hadnt offered him a new contract Dundee United would have got him for nothing, but the boy is a decent player and was offered a new deal, these rules are there to protect clubs from picking up other clubs youngsters for nothing, Dundee United would have been the first to moan if it was one of their players)

3.) 09 Dec 2014
Bongo: - Well said, my man, I think he got a lot more for Robertson when he sold him on after taking him from QP, and selling Gauld to Sporting If McCoist played the good kids we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

4.) 10 Dec 2014
I was on the d utd page thing there a comment said the fee for young telfer is more than ten spl clubs have spent in transfer fees in the last five years quite amassing these clubs want most players for nothing

5.) 10 Dec 2014
What would everyone's feelings be if it was the other way round & rangers had to pay £200k to utd, I think it's unfair and had utd taken the player from any other club out with old firm then it would have been £50k.

6.) 10 Dec 2014
N5. I don't think they can crib about it as just like young Gould and Robertson young telfer will be sold on for millions, as the auld saying goes, you've got to put money in to take money out, speculate to accumulate

7.) 10 Dec 2014
What does it matter asking if it had been the other way around? Fact is, United pinched a good young player and have been hit with the bill. £50k for ten years development? Do you see that as being fair? I know I don't!

8.) 10 Dec 2014
The rule is there to protect ALL clubs big or small. Otherwise the bigger clubs would abuse the system (its business after all) and use the smaller clubs as breeders with no recompense. can't have your cake and eat it buddy. What does annoy me, and this is just an example, the rules in place are not introduced in a couple of weeks. These rules are put out for review, debate and revision before being implemented. Its like the cup and league schedules. For the most part they are out there at the beginning of each season. Through brilliance or luck (whatever) some clubs end up with a congestion of games and then start bleating that the schedule is unfair. My answer is not to be so successful then (tongue in cheek). The powers that be need to be more flexible but they can only implement powers allowed to them by the associations. which is the club members themselves. THEY are the ones who at the end of the day, make and endorse the rules. Hearn made some great points about the football 'businessmen' (This club knows that only toooooo wel!)

9.) 10 Dec 2014
I'm asking from only a financial law side - Shouldn't some of that 10 years 'fee' belong to the old company and its creditors then? After all the player wasn't sold he had to Tupe over!

10.) 10 Dec 2014
10 years development are you having a laugh, even so you think £20 k a year is fair for school boy football, I know I don't

11.) 11 Dec 2014
N10 I don't think they are allowed to play for there school team when they have a contract at the most successful club in scotland

12.) 11 Dec 2014
Ed my responce to no 10was sarcasm just in case you think I didn't get his post

13.) 11 Dec 2014
No really lol