Rapid set to lose Jelavic payment

Michael Kenrick , 6 July, 13comments | Jump to most recent

Rapid Vienna believe Rangers will default on the outstanding £900k payment due to the Austrian club for the £4M transfer of Nikica Jelavic two years ago.

Jelavic was sold on to Everton at a profit of over £1M in the last transfer window, but with liquidation looming for the stricken Glasgow club, there appears no hope of Rapid receiving the money they are due next month.

The Austrian club will seek help in recovering the money from Fifa. Their manager Peter Schottel commented, "It is unfair to sign a player from another club then not pay the transfer fee. It means that one club with problems is causing problems at another."

Quotes or other material sourced from The Hearld

Reader Comments (13)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Peter Thistle
1 Posted 06/07/2012 at 07:31:50

Rangers are a shady bunch. Makes me feel less guilty over us profiting from their "misfortune".

Danny Burke
2 Posted 06/07/2012 at 08:10:17

Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Rangers with Michael Ball. Feel for the fans and Rapid but the clubs shady dealings have caught up with them.

Lee Mandaracas
3 Posted 06/07/2012 at 08:57:53

Danny, you beat me to precisely that post. Why are Everton so historically bad at getting other teams to honour transfer dealings? The three that most prominently stick out in my mind are

1. Having to pay an extra £1m or so to get Kanchelskis as ManUre refused to pay their contractual obligation to his former club so we picked up the tab.
2. Rangers reneging on the Michael Ball deal and us 'negotiating' a settlement several months after everything was signed and sealed!
3. Joseph Yobo's agreed £5m end of loan agreement we still haven't resolved after almost two years since he first went to FenerbachŽ on loan.

I am sure there are many more but these just demonstrate we are as good as impotent with other teams even when we have signed contracts. I know these three span almost 20 years but I just thought it indicative that's all. After that rant I think I should go and get my pills :s

Lee Mandaracas
4 Posted 06/07/2012 at 09:03:45

P.S. Back on topic, it just demonstrates that Rangers have been shady for at least a generation in their transfer dealings and finally that sort of business has come home to roost.

David Chait
5 Posted 06/07/2012 at 10:32:14

Would have toughs that we would have paid £4.1m to Rangers and £0.9 to Rapid.... But guess it wasn't our deal or our issue.... Rangers were unscrupulous, guess its not hard to feel nothing for their plight.

Saul Goodman
6 Posted 06/07/2012 at 10:37:12

Lee, I think I'm correct in saying we also let Sunderland off with some money owed to us for John Oster. I think due to Sunderland struggling at the time, BK let them off with it because he's such a nice guy.

Maybe the banks will do the same for us?

Denis Richardson
7 Posted 06/07/2012 at 13:35:05

Not sure what the issue is here. Looks like Rangers bought the player and agreed to pay Rapid in installments. If the Rangers then go out of business in the mean time, then its just tough on the selling club if they have not been fully paid yet.

Like every other creditor that Rangers owed/owes money to, Rapid will have to hope there is something in the pot for them after the administrater has processed everything - probably not. Paying transfer fees in installments is very common so in this case I dont think you can call Rangers 'shady'.

There are other things they did that were 'dodgy' admittedly.

Not sure if there is some insurance type agreement at the Fifa level that covers non-payment of transfer fees. Same thing happened with Portsmouth and fees owed by them.

Ken Williams
8 Posted 06/07/2012 at 13:53:56

Surely Rangers will still have to pay creditors, you can't just say we are now a new club when your playing in the same stadium?

I would have thought all assets would have to be sold to pay off outstanding debts.

Peter Creer
9 Posted 06/07/2012 at 14:17:32

I suppose it should be said that when you go and make a deal with another club you should know whether that club deals in an honourable way, or is a club that is financially at risk.

Unfortunate for Rapid, but they did agree to the deal.

Richard Reeves
10 Posted 06/07/2012 at 13:38:28

I hope Rangers get kicked down to the lowest league possible which would give other SPL teams more time to build their clubs and challenge for the title... which in turn would make the SPL more interesting. I've never been interested in the SPL because of the Rangers/Celtic stranglehold. Hopefully by the time Rangers get back into the Scottish Premier League, the gap will have been closed and other teams could dominate. I think what has happened to Rangers is a positive thing for Scottish football (in the long run).

Jamie Crowley
11 Posted 06/07/2012 at 21:19:54

Does anyone know what this Rangers mess will mean for TV rights / deals in North America?

Fox Sports picked up the SPL last season. Before that you had to go to the local Irish Pub that had a Celtic Supporters Group to see Celtic games over here - and the Channel 67 thing was just crap (on-line subscription to Celtic games).

Having the ability to just wake up at 7:30 in the comfort of your own house to see games was awfully nice. Does anyone know if Fox Sports in America will continue to show the SPL?

And Richard - I agree with you. Young boys with talent in Scotland who were Rangers fans and aspired to join Rangers will surely not play second division football and will join another Club - Motherwell, Hearts... et al. So it's possible the league will become more competitive without Rangers, coupled with the obvious financial impact Celtic will have to absorb. Hopefully in 2-3 years this means a much more competitive structure, with 3-4 teams vying for the title instead of 2 (with the pending dilution of talent). We'll see. I doubt it, but one can hope.

Andy Crooks
12 Posted 07/07/2012 at 00:14:50

Jamie, believe me, young boys in Scotland who aspired to join Rangers will still join Rangers. Without Rangers one team will win the title,every year. The notion that the SPL will be more competiive is utterly misguided. Rangers deserve to be punished but there is absolutely no silver lining here for Scottish football.

Also, the idea that this was a stand for integrity implies that there was ever a shred of integrity in the SPL to start with. Clubs in Scotland have even more contempt for fans than those in the EpL , and by fuck that's saying something.

Ian Bennett
13 Posted 07/07/2012 at 08:51:50

Saul I think we gave Sunderland Gavin McCann as we couldn't afford to pay them a cut of a league cup gate. I think we had to write off cash when selling matterazzi despite him then moving to inter a little later.

I don't really understand why uefa dont refuse to sanction deals until prior clubs are paid out first.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

About these ads