AJF

Apparently we have distanced ourselves from Porteous as well so it doesn't seem likely he will be on his way to us which is ideal as like you said before, he wouldn't be an upgrade on what we already have.

I never said the £40m was included in last years turnover, I said the Europa league run was, hence why it was included in its own paragraph. I mentioned that we had sold £40m worth of talent in response to the (valid) criticisms of not cashing in on Morelos and Kent to show that we still done well in the transfer market despite this during the last 12 months. So, I’m not trying to skew anything, they were separate points that you have lumped together. It’s not a pre-emptive stance on anything, I have been highly critical of our performances this season and expect us to be doing a lot better. It’s why I was in favour of Gio getting sacked, unless you just want to ignore all that. This started after a Celtic fan insinuated that there wasn’t much of a financial disparity between the two clubs which I’ve proven to be incorrect. It is simply an (unfortunate for us) fact.

We made record revenue last season and it took reaching the Europa League final to do it and it was still less than what Celtic brought in. ”you are capable of it” drastically oversimplifies the matter. I’ve never once argued against the point that Kent or Morelos could’ve been cashed in earlier, but that also ignore that we sold more than £40m of talent in the last 12 months so it’s hardly as if we haven’t been selling well in that period.

Aye? Would you care to provide me with the Rangers vs Celtic turnover comparison for the last 2/5/10 years then?

Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. While there may be additional income into the economy, I am unsure whether the council would be willing to foot the bill. If Aberdeen turned round tomorrow and said we have the funding for the stadium, will they be charged for use of the land? If not, then that would appear to be quite a big concession from the council hence their possible reluctance to put up further funds to help build it.

Come on, I was asking an innocent question as I am genuinely curious as to what I may be missing.

Maybe it's just me and I am missing something, but what is short-sighted about Aberdeen Council stating that any new stadium is dependant on the capital investment from the club?

If you have no interest in me posting about Rangers in the Rangers thread, then you are under no obligation to read it. Just ignore and move on rather than be condescending.

Aye, let's call it a day as I don't think we are going to ever agree

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we sold Patterson, Bassey and Aribo for over €40m? How much would we have needed to bring in for you to consider it enough for a rebuild? It is not a case of moaning, it is a case of accepting that we are financially way behind Celtic, something that Celtic fans don't want to accept. The fact is we still spent over €14m in the summer, which is a hell of a lot of money for a Scottish side. I'm just saying that it is a pittance in comparison to what Celtic have spent.

I never claimed it was the norm, I was using the same time period that YOU used when you first mentioned Celtic's squad rebuild which started when Postecoglou came in. Why would I change the time period to a decade when that isn't what was mentioned? I also never claimed you were bankrolled by some sugar daddy, but you are naive to the extreme if you ignore the obvious factors that have led to Celtic's turnover dwarfing ours since 2012. We have been playing catch up ever since and are still a long way behind in terms of our ability to spend and cash in the bank. That is just a simple fact. You stated that in the period since they started their rebuild, that Celtic used their sellable assets to fund a squad rebuild. However, they have spent more than they have brought in during that period, and Rangers have brought in more than Celtic have in that same period on players which also highlighted your claim of only selling Patterson to be false. Our investors have always been upfront regarding their funding, which was they would cover any losses until such time we have adopted a self-sufficient model which is essentially qualify for the CL or sell players. This is the exact same model that Celtic adopt and is our end goal. ETA: It is not surprising that Celtic fans try to downplay the significant financial advantage they have over us and the vastly different spending levels in the last 2 years when it comes to comparing our current fortunes. 2 years ago we were the better side, since then, Celtic have spent to overtake us again. That is not to deny that Postecoglou is performing very well. He deserves credit for that undoubtedly. But it is what it is.

Don’t pretend to be naive and act as if you don’t know the answer to that. I wasn’t suggesting we should or could keep up with Celtic’s spending, I was more suggesting that Celtic having vastly superior spending power is as much a fact as the sky is blue. It cannot be denied. Rangers have began to use transfer income and European revenue to minimise losses and repay shareholder loans, something that every non-Rangers fan has said we should be doing for years. Our board were always committed to covering any shortfall until such a time we were “self sufficient” so to speak. They clearly believe that time has just about come.

I was giving the transfer spend since the squad overhaul started under Postecoglou that @gannonballmentioned which highlights the vastly differing budgets of the two teams during that period. Being profitable or not doesn’t change or alter the fact that Celtic are able to, and have, outspent us to a degree that we cannot keep up with.

Well, for context, £5m would be the equivalent of 5 extra players on £20k a week. That's quite a difference. Also, I think you may be forgetting we sold Bassey for a club record fee and Aribo for a decent sum too. If you look at what has been brought in and paid out over the last 2 seasons, Rangers are in a transfer surplus of €28.92m (Paid Out: €17.88m, Brought In: €46.8m) whereas Celtic are actually in a transfer deficit of €14.85m (Paid Out: €53.45m, Brought In: €38.6m). Celtic have vastly outspent us.

Isn't Celtic's player wage budget still higher than ours by approx. £5m? I can't remember where I seen that so I may be wrong. Additionally, if you consider that Celtic have committed to €53.45m on transfer fees compared to our €17.88m in the last two seasons, then aye, there is quite a significant budget difference.

Aye, he'd be a squad player. If everyone was fit, Goldson and Davies would be our starting CB pairings. Then you'd imagine he'd be behind Souttar in the pecking order, maybe even Helander as well based on his ability when he is injury free.

Let's hope Jim Duffy's source is just a case of him glancing at twitter or something then. Don't get me wrong, I reckon Porteous is probably good enough, but it wouldn't be a universally popular signing and he'd need to start quickly otherwise it could get a bit messy with fans on his back due to the, let's say history, we have with him.

That's a little bit of spin regarding the Scottish talent brough in by Smith if you are claiming that nobody wanted or rated at first. The ones that worked out well were the likes of Weir, Thomson, Whittaker, McCulloch, Naismith, Miller and Alexander. These players were generally coming from a decent level (e.g. English Premiership/Championship) or were already regarded as leading players at other SPL clubs (Thomson, Whittaker and Naismith). You could never really consider them as players that nobody wanted or rated. Then you had the likes of Broadfoot, Dailly, Smith, Webster and Gow who would potentially fall under that bracket of not wanted or rated at first and none of them were much more than average to decent players.

I think it depends if the FA of the nation involved report it to the SFA or not.

Aye, I’m torn. The best player to ever play the game, just seems a bit iffy considering Devlin never played a single minute of the match plus the Hearts caption

Is this tinpot or not?

Which is why that was discussed on the Rangers threads I also commented how I wasn’t convinced with the appointment and could see the sound bites for what they are, playing to the gallery. Im not sure why that would be relevant to your come down on Lawell though, so swing and a miss there. You’ve said you don’t want him back but originally said he was a good option for the role? Seem a bit conflicting.

Celtic fans protested and wanted him chased out the door. Now it’s fine as he is in a different role? Fickle.

Fat man has food on his mind - what a shock.

I think it later came out that McGrain said it was a lot of rubbish.