Transfers, Rumours and Delusional Pish 2016/17/18 - Page 25 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Transfers, Rumours and Delusional Pish 2016/17/18


Recommended Posts

On 10 June 2016 at 8:51 AM, Rossy said:

Good to see that Rangers, as promised, aren't spending money like there's no tomorrow, or God forbid, spending to accumulate.

We have generated an additional £2m from increased ST costs (and that's a conservative estimate). We've also binned Messrs Templeton and Shiels, who would've cost us around a million quid p.a. plus another couple of hundred grand for Clark and another few hundred grand for the various youngsters who have been deemed not good enough and released. Then, of course, there's Mr Durrant who I'd hazard was on a good few quid too. The boys from Accrington are likely to be on a relative pittance when compared with Mr Templeton, I'd imagine. Admittedly Krancjar and Barton will be on decent wages but the latter has already admitted that we are paying him less than Burnley so he presumably still fits into our pre-determined structure. I'd respectfully suggest that you need to look at the overall picture rather than in isolation all the time when criticising our signing policy.

We can't win. If we appear frugal, King would get criticised for being penny-pinching; if we appear to be overspending, it's 'back to the old days'. Ah well.

Edited by thewolf_1980
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thewolf_1980 said:

We have generated an additional £2m from increased ST costs (and that's a conservative estimate). We've also binned Messrs Templeton and Shiels, who would've cost us around a million quid p.a. plus another couple of hundred grand for Clark and another few hundred grand for the various youngsters who have been deemed not good enough and released. Then, of course, there's Mr Durrant who I'd hazard was on a good few quid too. The boys from Accrington are likely to be on a relative pittance when compared with Mr Templeton, I'd imagine. Admittedly Krancjar and Barton will be on decent wages but the latter has already admitted that we are paying him less than Burnley so he presumably still fits into our pre-determined structure. I'd respectfully suggest that you need to look at the overall picture rather than in isolation all the time when criticising our signing policy.

We can't win. If we appear frugal, King would get criticised for being penny-pinching; if we appear to be overspending, it's 'back to the old days'. Ah well.

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
54 minutes ago, thewolf_1980 said:

We have generated an additional £2m from increased ST costs (and that's a conservative estimate). We've also binned Messrs Templeton and Shiels, who would've cost us around a million quid p.a. plus another couple of hundred grand for Clark and another few hundred grand for the various youngsters who have been deemed not good enough and released. Then, of course, there's Mr Durrant who I'd hazard was on a good few quid too. The boys from Accrington are likely to be on a relative pittance when compared with Mr Templeton, I'd imagine. Admittedly Krancjar and Barton will be on decent wages but the latter has already admitted that we are paying him less than Burnley so he presumably still fits into our pre-determined structure. I'd respectfully suggest that you need to look at the overall picture rather than in isolation all the time when criticising our signing policy.

We can't win. If we appear frugal, King would get criticised for being penny-pinching; if we appear to be overspending, it's 'back to the old days'. Ah well.

Thats all true, but the £5m figure being discussed is still reported to be a 'soft loan' from the shareholders, half of it from King.  So Rossy's point earlier is valid.  I don't agree its going back to the problems before, as it is all relative, but the reported budget is not from savings and profit as far as I am aware.

Having said that, is it not normal practice for shareholders who have 'spare' cash to pump it into a club, with potentially no return as a risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thewolf_1980 said:

We have generated an additional £2m from increased ST costs (and that's a conservative estimate). We've also binned Messrs Templeton and Shiels, who would've cost us around a million quid p.a. plus another couple of hundred grand for Clark and another few hundred grand for the various youngsters who have been deemed not good enough and released. Then, of course, there's Mr Durrant who I'd hazard was on a good few quid too. The boys from Accrington are likely to be on a relative pittance when compared with Mr Templeton, I'd imagine. Admittedly Krancjar and Barton will be on decent wages but the latter has already admitted that we are paying him less than Burnley so he presumably still fits into our pre-determined structure. I'd respectfully suggest that you need to look at the overall picture rather than in isolation all the time when criticising our signing policy.

We can't win. If we appear frugal, King would get criticised for being penny-pinching; if we appear to be overspending, it's 'back to the old days'. Ah well.

Interesting that you describe a sensible, live within your means, financial policy as 'frugal', or 'penny pinching'. That was actually one of the points I made way back at the beginning of this thread....that it would be impossible for Rangers not to speculate to accumulate, because the supporters simply won't accept the club not being a 'big player' in the transfer market.

As Gaz points out, it seems that any summer signings....and I've no doubt that Rangers aren't finished yet....seem to be financed by debt. 

I'm sure the current board know what they're doing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2016 at 9:53 PM, vanderark14 said:
1 hour ago, Rossy said:

Interesting that you describe a sensible, live within your means, financial policy as 'frugal', or 'penny pinching'. That was actually one of the points I made way back at the beginning of this thread....that it would be impossible for Rangers not to speculate to accumulate, because the supporters simply won't accept the club not being a 'big player' in the transfer market.

As Gaz points out, it seems that any summer signings....and I've no doubt that Rangers aren't finished yet....seem to be financed by debt. 

I'm sure the current board know what they're doing though.

Do we know it's debt? Or is this the usual Tamb " somebody said it so it's now true"? 

I'm not arguing just genuinely curious. If it's soft loans which are either paid back or converted to shares then it's not quite the same as bank debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

 

I've no idea, I was merely going with Gaz's post. If there is a 'war chest', then it seems unlikely that it consists of profit made over the last 4 years.

'Soft loans' can be very dangerous. That's how Hearts managed to finance their lunacy. 

P.S. Learn how to use the quote function !! :lol:

Edited by Rossy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/06/2016 at 9:53 PM, vanderark14 said:
4 hours ago, Rossy said:

I know how to work the quote function ya cheeky Bassa! My phone, on the other hand, has got its editor in a knot and keeps bringing up old comments I quoted on and refuses to fecking clear. 

It's intensely irritating. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of these Scots (or granny rule Scots in Gilks case) players that are either getting on in years or for whom it's not worked out down south worthwhile targets for Scottish Premiership clubs ? 

Stevie May, Chris Burke, Andrew Shinnie, Kevin McNaughton (free agent), Stefan Scougall (despite the bright start, his career has been stalled for a while now), Ryan Flynn (free agent), Lee Erwin, Paul Coutts (transfer listed at Sheffield Utd) and Matt Gilks (free agent).

If a club can get him fit and confident again, Stevie May would be a good loan signing for a mid table club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
On 6/11/2016 at 4:02 PM, Rossy said:

I've no idea, I was merely going with Gaz's post. If there is a 'war chest', then it seems unlikely that it consists of profit made over the last 4 years.

'Soft loans' can be very dangerous. That's how Hearts managed to finance their lunacy. 

P.S. Learn how to use the quote function !! :lol:

It's not usual rumour, its been reported and King was quoted.  That said, its only correct if the report is correct.

I think both are right, fundamentally it is a debt, there is no getting away from it.  However its a 'soft loan', and not knowing the details of that loan or the thoughts of the lenders, its difficult to say if it will potentially cause any issues.  It could be that it is written off in one way or another, we don't know.

Also, in the big scheme of things, it is only £5m.  Season tickets this season should mount to c£20m, and then there is the potential to start getting merchandise profit again etc, so although its a loan on paper, I think they are being very conservative.

Edit:  not all aimed at you Rossy, can't quote RB.

 

Edited by BlueGaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

It's not usual rumour, its been reported and King was quoted.  That said, its only correct if the report is correct.

I think both are right, fundamentally it is a debt, there is no getting away from it.  However its a 'soft loan', and not knowing the details of that loan or the thoughts of the lenders, its difficult to say if it will potentially cause any issues.  It could be that it is written off in one way or another, we don't know.

Also, in the big scheme of things, it is only £5m.  Season tickets this season should mount to c£20m, and then there is the potential to start getting merchandise profit again etc, so although its a loan on paper, I think they are being very conservative.

Edit:  not all aimed at you Rossy, can't quote RB.

 

You taking the piss with the quote bit? ?

I've just sorted the editor out now (i think) but it's been a fecking nightmare. 

You're right in that unless you know the agreement you can't tell how potentially damaging these loans could be. I am inclined to trust the current board though as financially they've done a reasonable job so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to Steven Fletcher..it might be a good thing for Strachan if he signs for Celtic, means he gets to see who actually is better out of Fletcher and Griffiths based on who plays/scores most etc for the same team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
1 minute ago, RenfrewBlue said:

You taking the piss with the quote bit? ?

I've just sorted the editor out now (i think) but it's been a fecking nightmare. 

You're right in that unless you know the agreement you can't tell how potentially damaging these loans could be. I am inclined to trust the current board though as financially they've done a reasonable job so far.

No, the article I read (will try to dig it out) had quotes from him and maybe Warburton too.

I agree with you and am that way inclined too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
54 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

You taking the piss with the quote bit? ?

I've just sorted the editor out now (i think) but it's been a fecking nightmare. 

You're right in that unless you know the agreement you can't tell how potentially damaging these loans could be. I am inclined to trust the current board though as financially they've done a reasonable job so far.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3549217/Rangers-backers-prepare-5m-transfer-kitty-Premiership-return-Ibrox-set-sights-toppling-Old-Firm-rivals-Celtic.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that ST revenues are up at Rangers, and that a few highly paid players have been taken off the wage bill, but overall I wonder how much difference that will have made in the grand scheme of things. A lot of tickets were sold in the 4 seasons it took Rangers to work their way through the leagues and I think (happy to be corrected here, others will know for sure either way) that they made an operating loss during that period. Now there are obviously more signings in the offing, some at least on decent wages. Just a few weeks back a lot of Rangers fans on here were saying there was no way more the £500k would be getting spent. Now we are reading about £5m, funded not from revenues but from soft loans. It might all be fine, but then again it might not.

Edited by Pool Q
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

I appreciate that ST revenues are up at Rangers, and that a few highly paid players have been taken off the wage bill, but overall I wonder how much difference that will have made in the grand scheme of things. A lot of tickets were sold in the 4 seasons it took Rangers to work their way through the leagues and I think (happy to be corrected here, others will know for sure either way) that they made an operating loss during that period. Now there are obviously more signings in the offing, some at least on decent wages. Just a few weeks back a lot of Rangers fans on here were saying there was no way more the £500k would be getting spent. Now we are reading about £5m, funded not from revenues but from soft loans. It might all be fine, but then again it might not.

For a start we don't have the Easdales et al syphoning money out of the club. We're also making inroads into regaining control of our revenue streams which will be huge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's that of course, and revenue from merchandising will obviously be up. But still, from being loss making in the lower leagues with home gates of over 40k, to talk of spend of £5m on players funded by soft loans? No doubt it will all be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pool Q said:

There's that of course, and revenue from merchandising will obviously be up. But still, from being loss making in the lower leagues with home gates of over 40k, to talk of spend of £5m on players funded by soft loans? No doubt it will all be fine.

With the exception of a few games at the start in Division 3, our home gates were rarely close to 40k. I've been there throughout and it was under 30k most weeks, sometimes a lot less than that. Extra 10k punters x £20/game = £2m + savings on dross players released + increased revenue from merchandise (TBC) + increased revenue from hospitality + increased revenue from TV deals etc. etc.

Season tickets are expected to be up by approximately 8-10k from, say, the 2nd division.

Crude arithmetic, I know, but you get the gist hopefully.

Edited by thewolf_1980
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...