Midweek fitba

[thewolf_1980]

27 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

To be fair, they attracted pretty ordinary SPL players who in the majority of cases appeared to only go for the money. Which in most cases was way more than they were worth, and more than they could get elsewhere.

And in addition to the pretty ordinary SPL players, we also scraped the bottom of the barrel with Ian Black.

[vanderark14]

1 minute ago, thewolf_1980 said:

And in addition to the pretty ordinary SPL players, we also scraped the bottom of the barrel with Ian Black.

That's a Scottish international you're slagging off 

[thewolf_1980]

2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

That's a Scottish international you're slagging off 

I was at the game at Easter Road when he got booed and thought it was disgraceful... then spent long periods at Ibrox shouting at him for being pish. There are few folk more hypocritical than football fans! 

[Scotty CTA]

12 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

The only advantage we have over Aberdeen is a settled team but the money you have should give you the ability to attract a better standard of player than we can. I'm not saying having a bigger budget automatically gives you 2nd place but to say its nonsense is stupid at best. 

Correct.

The team with by far the biggest budget is undefeated.

(I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a link.)

[Scotty CTA]

1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Rangers efforts in League 2 prove you wrong. We had a massive budget but couldn't attract the better players. 

How much did Gretna spend to make it to the top League in just 3 years?

What type of players did they sign (and on what wages?)

The Rangers should have used that model but I imagine that they were terrified of drawing Celtic in one of the Cups (or perhaps had a Cup win as a goal).

Even at the time, most could see that the flaw in their strategy was trying to do too much too soon. 

[Parklife]

45 minutes ago, thewolf_1980 said:

Presumably it's my turn to be in your eyeline this week. I'm sure it'll pass.

Yup, you referencing me completely at random will be my fault. Not sure I get your logic but never mind. 

[macy37]

2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Rangers efforts in League 2 prove you wrong. We had a massive budget but couldn't attract the better players. It depends on the level of competition you are in, how the club is perceived and on lots of other factors. Money is just one of these factors, albeit an important one. 

The fact that you don't understand this doesn't make my point stupid. 

Which 'better players' were you hoping for or Indeed were you requiring in the part time league 2? 

[RenfrewBlue]

3 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Are you for real? Rangers attracted SPL players to play in league 2. 

Rangers were trying to attract players of the quality to win one of the two big cups. That simply wasn't possible despite the money being spent. 

We got Black and Templeton. They prove my point. 

[Parklife]

6 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Rangers were trying to attract players of the quality to win one of the two big cups. That simply wasn't possible despite the money being spent. 

We got Black and Templeton. They prove my point. 

The players Rangers signed were, in the main, wasters. Hence why they were happy to move to the 4th tier for the cash. 

Ally McCoist did boast about signing Hearts, killie and Dundee Utd's "best players" though. The players Rangers signed were mainly thought of as good players at SPL level. Let's not try to rewrite history. 

[Cove_Sheep]

10 minutes ago, Parklife said:

The players Rangers signed were, in the main, wasters. Hence why they were happy to move to the 4th tier for the cash. 

Ally McCoist did boast about signing Hearts, killie and Dundee Utd's "best players" though. The players Rangers signed were mainly thought of as good players at SPL level. Let's not try to rewrite history. 

I always thought that rather than cutting the managers salary (did Sally even take the cut?) they'd have been better cutting their wage bill by 50% and getting a proper manager in.

[euan2020]

22 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

The budget argument is just Aberdonians way of justifying how shit they are.  Of course we should be better with a bit more money, but often thats not the case.  It gives them an argument and as per, allows them to believe they are better than they actually are.  Nothing new here.

"bit more"

Is it not 2.5 times more money spent on wages than Aberdeen ? 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14906287.Revealed__Celtic_top_list_of_Scottish_club_salaries__paying_players_more_than_double_Rangers/

bit more to me is like 20-30% - not 150%

Rangers are paying around 8 times what Ross County are paying their guys  

 

[Pool Q]

Black had a good season at Hearts the year before signing for Rangers. It may not suit a lot of agendas, but it happens to be true. Templeton was inconsistent for us, but had his moments. Both were perfectly good SPL level players though before Rangers got their hands on them. 

[vanderark14]

Just now, Pool Q said:

Black had a good season at Hearts the year before signing for Rangers. It may not suit a lot of agendas, but it happens to be true. Templeton was inconsistent for us, but had his moments. Both were perfectly good SPL level players though before Rangers got their hands on them. 

beat me to it.

RB is using hindsight but at the time they were signing SPL quality players to promoted to the SPL. Happy to be proven wrong here but I can't remember much being said about getting a cup winning side together. It was always about getting promoted to the top division. 

I'm not sure why Bluegaz and RB are even arguing this point, all I've said is having a bigger budget than your rivals gives you and advantage, so far Rangers have spunked that advantage against the wall through poor signings and bad management. The season is far from over, Rangers could still end up 2nd and in the cup final or even win the cup. 

 

[Ormond]

13 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

Black had a good season at Hearts the year before signing for Rangers. It may not suit a lot of agendas, but it happens to be true. Templeton was inconsistent for us, but had his moments. Both were perfectly good SPL level players though before Rangers got their hands on them. 

Fran Sandaza at Saints was another.

[Guest BlueGaz]

1 hour ago, euan2020 said:

"bit more"

Is it not 2.5 times more money spent on wages than Aberdeen ? 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14906287.Revealed__Celtic_top_list_of_Scottish_club_salaries__paying_players_more_than_double_Rangers/

bit more to me is like 20-30% - not 150%

Rangers are paying around 8 times what Ross County are paying their guys  

 

Again, it is only relevant if it is spent well and I have yet to speak to someone who would say it has been.  If it is not spent well, and that is my argument, its not a valid argument.  You cant just say Rangers should be here, Rangers should be there because they have a bigger budget.  I deal with budgets all the time and thats not how it works.  There are other factors which have to be taken into account to make it thee argument.

We will hopefully secure a Euro spot, Ross County definitely will not, so don't understand you using them as an example either.  

The EPL doesn't look like it is going to work out according to budgets, and it certainly hasn't over recent years, so why should it always work out like that here?  My analogy is relative of course.

[vanderark14]

19 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

Again, it is only relevant if it is spent well and I have yet to speak to someone who would say it has been.  If it is not spent well, and that is my argument, its not a valid argument.  You cant just say Rangers should be here, Rangers should be there because they have a bigger budget.  I deal with budgets all the time and thats not how it works.  There are other factors which have to be taken into account to make it thee argument.

We will hopefully secure a Euro spot, Ross County definitely will not, so don't understand you using them as an example either.  

The EPL doesn't look like it is going to work out according to budgets, and it certainly hasn't over recent years, so why should it always work out like that here?  My analogy is relative of course.

Do Rangers have an advantage over 10 teams in this league? if so have they wasted that advantage?

Edited February 9, 2017 by vanderark14

[Pool Q]

38 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

The EPL doesn't look like it is going to work out according to budgets, and it certainly hasn't over recent years, so why should it always work out like that here?  My analogy is relative of course.

Not sure that's generally true. I'm no expert on English football, and obvious proviso needs to be made  for last season, but I've seen a number of EPL league tables based on wage bill and it is remarkable how much it mirrors actual tables. Not completely, and the odd teams under or over perform, but in general the similarities were striking. 

[Blackpool78]

Everybody knows Rangers spent the budget that they had badly and if they spent it wisely they would be well clear in second spot, when Rangers start spending better they will move closer to Celtic but the question the Rangers fans need to answer is Warburton to be trusted with another budget 

[Fairbairn]

32 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Do Rangers have an advantage over 10 teams in this league? if so have they wasted that advantage?

Yes, and yes.

[Guest BlueGaz]

4 minutes ago, Blackpool78 said:

Everybody knows Rangers spent the budget that they had badly and if they spent it wisely they would be well clear in second spot, when Rangers start spending better they will move closer to Celtic but the question the Rangers fans need to answer is Warburton to be trusted with another budget 

Totally agree, and I am leaning towards no at the moment.

[Fairbairn]

5 minutes ago, Blackpool78 said:

 but the question the Rangers fans need to answer is Warburton to be trusted with another budget 

And no.

[vanderark14]

Just now, Fairbairn said:

Yes, and yes.

thats all thats been said here/

 

bluegaz is arguing against point that haven't been made

[Guest BlueGaz]

6 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

Not sure that's generally true. I'm no expert on English football, and obvious proviso needs to be made  for last season, but I've seen a number of EPL league tables based on wage bill and it is remarkable how much it mirrors actual tables. Not completely, and the odd teams under or over perform, but in general the similarities were striking. 

I only looked at one set of figures to be fair, and granted, could be wrong, but the ones I looked at were different to the outcome of the league over the last few years.

[Blackpool78]

For Rangers to have improvement on and off the field they have to use Celtic's business model which is working well at the minute but for it to work they have to buy younger players and sell them for profit 

[sbcmfc]

1 hour ago, Blackpool78 said:

For Rangers to have improvement on and off the field they have to use Celtic's business model which is working well at the minute but for it to work they have to buy younger players and sell them for profit 

Which would involve a proper scouting network which I don't believe they have in place.

It looks like you're all arguing the same point from a different angle.

Rangers have an advantage over 10 of the other 11 teams, which due to poor management over the last few years isn't particularly  evident on the park.