Nile Ranger leaves Blackpool after winning case

Nile Ranger
Nile Ranger
0
Have your say

Nile Ranger has left Blackpool after the Football League judged he was free to sign for another club.

The striker hasn’t kicked a ball since November 2014 with his disappearance lasting almost ten months before finally turning up to train in September last year.

Pool boss Neil McDonald was having none of the troubled striker’s reappearances, insisting he had no future at the club.

After being told to train alone the 24-year-old again went missing just two days later, and hasn’t been seen on the Fylde coast since.

Despite making it clear he wouldn’t be welcome at Bloomfield Road, Blackpool refused to allow the 24-year-old to walk away from the club, prompting him to get the PFA involved.

And he now claims to have won his case against Karl Oyston, with a post on Twitter this morning apparently showing a letter from the PFA.

It read: “The player related dispute commission was held at the Football League in Preston last week.

“The panel dismissed the club’s appeal and therefore the termination of your contract has been upheld.

“You are now free to sign for another club even thought it is outside of the transfer window.”

Ranger commented on the statement, saying: “God is good, thanks you PFA for everything. #FREEEEE.”

Should Ranger’s claims be true it would bring to an end a turbulent spell at Bloomfield Road, which saw him scored just two goals in 14 games.

After Ranger called his Blackpool contract “a joke” on social media last season, many were stunned when Pool exercised their option to tie him to the club for another 12 months.

The striker had blamed his poor contract made it difficult to “fill my fridge”, with reports suggesting his pay-as-you-play deal left him with £150 a week if he was not selected in the first team.

The player had his contract terminated by previous clubs Newcastle and Swindon, and McDonald admitted he couldn’t allow his behaviour to continue.

Blackpool FC confirmed Ranger had left the club, but insisted they would be making ‘no further comment’ on the matter.