Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[forever_blue]

All true enough, but why you've posted it in irritable response to me, I don't know.

What did I say that you feel you're challenging here?

you are becoming rather tedious these days monkey , I posted a reply which you admit to openly agreeing with however now wish to start an arguement based on your perceived tone of the post

[Monkey Tennis]

you are becoming rather tedious these days monkey , I posted a reply which you admit to openly agreeing with however now wish to start an arguement based on your perceived tone of the post

Well no, it's not a question simply of tone in isolation.

It's the fact that you quoted me ahead of your post. It's sort of conventional that this indicates that you were replying to me. I just wondered why, because the post in question, did not really seem to relate that closely to mine.

It's fine though. If we now just quote people randomly ahead of posting, then it's simply something else I'll need to adjust to in this ever changing world.

[forever_blue]

Well no, it's not a question simply of tone in isolation.

It's the fact that you quoted me ahead of your post. It's sort of conventional that this indicates that you were replying to me. I just wondered why, because the post in question, did not really seem to relate that closely to mine.

It's fine though. If we now just quote people randomly ahead of posting, then it's simply something else I'll need to adjust to in this ever changing world.

Aye I will just leave this be right here because like stoney , the arguement is already sounding mindnumbingly boring before it has even begun , hope that's allright with you monkey

[bennett]

Celtic have effectively outbid Rangers. Even if we leave aside that it would naturally have taken more money for Hibs to be prepared to lose the player to a direct rival, it's likely that Celtic's ability to pay the money upfront is more attractive to the selling club.

We also have the factor of the players making the reverse journey. There are two of them who are likely to play at Hibs' level, while much less likely to do so at Celtic's. That's a pretty significant aspect of this that might enable Hibs to feel not terribly weakened at all, even though Allan would be considered better than each of them individually.

No they haven't outbid Rangers, hibs made it clear they would not sell to Rangers. Celtic took advantage of hibs and exploited the situation, hibs really had little choice especially when English teams backed off.

Of course they are weakened, they have two players who Celtic obviously value less than the player they got.

[forever_blue]

No they haven't outbid Rangers, hibs made it clear they would not sell to Rangers. Celtic took advantage of hibs and exploited the situation, hibs really had little choice especially when English teams backed off.

Of course they are weakened, they have two players who Celtic obviously value less than the player they got.

Exactly this was never a bidding war between Rangers and celtic , although I am not denying if it was celtic would have the resources to outbid us just now , the point i am making it was never a case of us and celtic trying to outbid each other

[bennett]

Exactly this was never a bidding war between Rangers and celtic , although I am not denying if it was celtic would have the resources to outbid us just now , the point i am making it was never a case of us and celtic trying to outbid each other

Monkey knows this, he's just doing his wkr lite thing again.

[Border Reiver]

You are correct it was never a bidding war, As the rangers don't have the money to be in one. It would also appear that Hibs wouldn't give the rangers a credit line (I wonder why?).

Glib and shameless will have to "over invest" elsewhere.

[Monkey Tennis]

No they haven't outbid Rangers, hibs made it clear they would not sell to Rangers. Celtic took advantage of hibs and exploited the situation, hibs really had little choice especially when English teams backed off.

Of course they are weakened, they have two players who Celtic obviously value less than the player they got.

I agree that Celtic took advantage of this situation. It's also pretty uncomplicated as to why Hibs wouldn't sell to Rangers.

Your final sentence doesn't stand up though. It's perfectly possible that while Allan was worth more than the two players to Celtic because of the size of Celtic's squad and the environment in which they play; the two players could actually be of more use to Hibs, because of the same factors as they apply to them.

Remember too that the players move in addition to a fee and that it's likely that the payment terms for the fee were attractive.

Did we ever get as far as Rangers offering players, alongside money?

[stonedsailor]

Aye I will just leave this be right here because like stoney , the arguement is already sounding mindnumbingly boring before it has even begun , hope that's allright with you monkey

Yet again looking for arguments where there are only discussions to be found. You have a terribly negative outlook on life. Maybe try the depression thread in the GN forum?

[bennett]

I agree that Celtic took advantage of this situation. It's also pretty uncomplicated as to why Hibs wouldn't sell to Rangers.

Your final sentence doesn't stand up though. It's perfectly possible that while Allan was worth more than the two players to Celtic because of the size of Celtic's squad and the environment in which they play; the two players could actually be of more use to Hibs, because of the same factors as they apply to them.

Remember too that the players move in addition to a fee and that it's likely that the payment terms for the fee were attractive.

Did we ever get as far as Rangers offering players, alongside money?

My final sentence is an opinion and my opinion differs from yours, my opinion is that Allan is the better off the three players.

[Monkey Tennis]

My final sentence is an opinion and my opinion differs from yours, my opinion is that Allan is the better off the three players.

Assuming you mean that Allan is the best of the three players, then it's an opinion we share.

It would be extraordinary if Celtic were giving away two better players and money in order to secure one who's not as good.

However, it still makes plenty sense to suggest that if Hibs do get two players, that might actually serve them better than Allan, because at their level they could field both, whereas Celtic would be much less likely to do that, due to their resources and playing environment.

[Ira Gaines]

As I said, Rangers couldn't offer what Celtic could. The 275k offer is a small part of a very good offer, and it remains to be seen that Hibs might be a better side with what they have.

That could not have happened with any bid Rangers could have made. If there was a bidding war, you'd have lost it, and you know it. Not that it's a bad thing.

[forever_blue]

As I said, Rangers couldn't offer what Celtic could. The 275k offer is a small part of a very good offer, and it remains to be seen that Hibs might be a better side with what they have.

That could not have happened with any bid Rangers could have made. If there was a bidding war, you'd have lost it, and you know it. Not that it's a bad thing.

No one is saying we would have won a bidding war with celtic , infact I quite clearly pointed out twice that we wouldn't , the fact is this was never a bidding war between Rangers and celtic

[bennett]

Assuming you mean that Allan is the best of the three players, then it's an opinion we share.

It would be extraordinary if Celtic were giving away two better players and money in order to secure one who's not as good.

However, it still makes plenty sense to suggest that if Hibs do get two players, that might actually serve them better than Allan, because at their level they could field both, whereas Celtic would be much less likely to do that, due to their resources and playing environment.

One player I think is rather injury prone (?) And the other is a highly rated youngster, highly rated youngsters are ten a penny in old firm land, most of them never live up to the hype.

One of the problems we had last season was breaking down stubborn defences, you need a player with a we'd bit of flair for that and hibs have sold their flair player.

Again my opinion before you get on your high horse.

[bennett]

No one is saying we would have won a bidding war with celtic , infact I quite clearly pointed out twice that we wouldn't , the fact is this was never a bidding war between Rangers and celtic

I did wonder at the time if Celtics move was to entice us into upping our offer and making a silly offer/letting ego's take over but now I reckon they just took advantage of hibs weak position.

[Monkey Tennis]

One player I think is rather injury prone (?) And the other is a highly rated youngster, highly rated youngsters are ten a penny in old firm land, most of them never live up to the hype.

One of the problems we had last season was breaking down stubborn defences, you need a player with a we'd bit of flair for that and hibs have sold their flair player.

Again my opinion before you get on your high horse.

You might be right Bennett. As you know, I always enjoy exchanging opinions.

I do in some respects think Rangers have lost a bidding war, but it was an unfair fight the moment Celtic joined it.

Rangers would have needed to bid a lot more than Celtic to get him because they play in the same division as Hibs.

It's also true that as far as we're aware, Celtic did offer more, in that players were added to comparable money. The payments from Celtic may also have been in more attractive terms.

Rangers have lost out to Celtic here, but for several reasons, they were disadvantaged in any battle.

[Henrik's tongue]

When the cheque clears hibs will have more money than you.

[bennett]

You might be right Bennett. As you know, I always enjoy exchanging opinions.

I do in some respects think Rangers have lost a bidding war, but it was an unfair fight the moment Celtic joined it.

Rangers would have needed to bid a lot more than Celtic to get him because they play in the same division as Hibs.

It's also true that as far as we're aware, Celtic did offer more, in that players were added to comparable money. The payments from Celtic may also have been in more attractive terms.

Rangers have lost out to Celtic here, but for several reasons, they were disadvantaged in any battle.

I don't believe that substantially upping our bids would have made a difference, hibs were pretty clear that they wouldn't do business with Rangers for obvious reasons.

No bidding war, just Celtic taking a chance on a promising hibs player and hibs with no other option than to sell.

[bennett]

Goa lol

[Ken Fitlike]

I did wonder at the time if Celtics move was to entice us into upping our offer and making a silly offer/letting ego's take over but now I reckon they just took advantage of hibs weak position.

Of the 3 clubs involved it is clear that Rangers 2012's position was the weakest.

All they had was a crazy handful of nothing...