Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[TheLad]

20 hours ago, General dissaray said:

Porteous is a good player even Gerrard said a few times in interviews that he liked him and rated him wouldn't want to take the devil out off him either but think his cards marked by the refs and needs to go find another challenge and don't think it will be at Ibrox but we have signed a lot worce over the seasons like Simpson 

Gerrard signed most of those 'worse' signings. 

[House Bartender]

On 05/12/2022 at 19:25, Afc69 said:

Jim Duffy on the radio. Says he's heard that Porteous will be signing for sevco

Seriously? Is he not getting on a bit now?

[stressball]

4 hours ago, bennett said:

 

Money you’ll never get back Bennett!

[Bogbrush1903]

1 hour ago, House Bartender said:

Seriously? Is he not getting on a bit now?

Ian also had his off-field issues.

I think it was 'rumoured' that he glassed someone in nightclub.

The Northern Light fanzine had a cartoon with two men standing at a bar, and the one with the Rab C.Nesbitt bandage wrapped round his head says to the other, "...so I said to Ian Porteous..."

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 hours ago, bennett said:

 

Did you buy Pablo Escobar's settee on ebay? 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

Beale’s just seen the respective budgets of both clubs so at least he’s being realistic.

[gannonball]

6 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Beale’s just seen the respective budgets of both clubs so at least he’s being realistic.

I’m pretty sure wages published last by Rangers have shown not a great difference, where they have messed up is not selling their assets when in form and contract length is decent Now they are unable to fund their own squad overhaul like we have been doing. Their recruitment hasn’t been the best either really. 

[AJF]

12 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I’m pretty sure wages published last by Rangers have shown not a great difference, where they have messed up is not selling their assets when in form and contract length is decent Now they are unable to fund their own squad overhaul like we have been doing. Their recruitment hasn’t been the best either really. 

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.

[gannonball]

10 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

I think it’s less than that now but 5 million at that level certainly isn’t insurmountable . For the latter that’s my point we sold our players generally at a sensible time to generate a squad overhaul where as Rangers didn’t really sell anyone other than Patterson, no team in Scotland can really afford to have a transfer deficit but we have spoken about this death several times before I think.

[AJF]

9 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I think it’s less than that now but 5 million at that level certainly isn’t insurmountable . For the latter that’s my point we sold our players generally at a sensible time to generate a squad overhaul where as Rangers didn’t really sell anyone other than Patterson, no team in Scotland can really afford to have a transfer deficit but we have spoken about this death several times before I think.

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.

 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

2 hours ago, gannonball said:

I’m pretty sure wages published last by Rangers have shown not a great difference, where they have messed up is not selling their assets when in form and contract length is decent Now they are unable to fund their own squad overhaul like we have been doing. Their recruitment hasn’t been the best either really. 

I was laughing at the quality of journalism from the Scottish football media ‘experts’ more than comparing budgets tbh. 

I did read, and again given that it was a Scottish journalist it could very well be incorrect, that the level of money Postecoglu has been given to spend on players is unprecedented in Scottish football and dwarfs anything any other manager has had in the history of our game.

If you look at his sporadic success since moving into management in the late 90’s, that probably explains why he’s finding it an absolute scoosh in Scotland rather than being a managerial Demi-God like previously mentioned Scottish journalists would have us all believe.

 

[Jinky67]

6 hours ago, AJF said:

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.

 

This is the first season in quite a while we have had a transfer deficit, its not as if this is season after season. Our transfer market activity since 16/17 has been pretty shrewd which has allowed us to continue investing in the squad and despite our spend we still and most importantly remain profitable 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Jinky67

[AJF]

17 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

This is the first season in quite a while we have had a transfer deficit, its not as if this is season after season. Our transfer market activity since 16/17 has been pretty shrewd which has allowed us to continue investing in the squad and despite our spend we still and most importantly remain profitable 

 

 

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.

Edited December 7, 2022 by AJF

[Jinky67]

42 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

Then the question you really should be asking is why you can’t keep up with it.

[Squonk]

9 hours ago, AJF said:

Celtic are able to, and have, outspent us to a degree that we cannot keep up with.

How quickly you forget Lord Nimmo Smith's sage advice that money does not convey a sporting advantage, despite the glaringly obvious fact that money allows the purchase of better quality players. Maybe your players just need to try harder to catch up.

[AJF]

9 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

Then the question you really should be asking is why you can’t keep up with it.

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.

[gannonball]

11 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

This is the first season in quite a while we have had a transfer deficit, its not as if this is season after season. Our transfer market activity since 16/17 has been pretty shrewd which has allowed us to continue investing in the squad and despite our spend we still and most importantly remain profitable 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, AJF said:

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.

This season is probably the first time in about a decade that have had a transfer deficit, where as its probably the opposite way way round for Rangers. So lets not pretend this season is the norm and its the first time in a long time we knew we were getting champions league football. Whilst we are the bigger club lets not pretend we’re significantly bigger or that we have some sugar daddy bank rolling us. We basically make our margins bigger than yours through  sales of our better player which Rangers* have failed to do on a consistent basis and racked up significant losses in the process. Going ahead now though your investors appear to be no longer willing to absorb the losses as well as not really having much in the way saleable assets so it could start to stretch to a significant financial gap your are claiming.

[Clown Job]

Some laugh that AGM must have been 

[AJF]

40 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 

This season is probably the first time in about a decade that have had a transfer deficit, where as its probably the opposite way way round for Rangers. So lets not pretend this season is the norm and its the first time in a long time we knew we were getting champions league football. Whilst we are the bigger club lets not pretend we’re significantly bigger or that we have some sugar daddy bank rolling us. We basically make our margins bigger than yours through  sales of our better player which Rangers* have failed to do on a consistent basis and racked up significant losses in the process. Going ahead now though your investors appear to be no longer willing to absorb the losses as well as not really having much in the way saleable assets so it could start to stretch to a significant financial gap your are claiming.

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.

Edited December 8, 2022 by AJF

[gannonball]

26 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Some laugh that AGM must have been 

Conspiracies aside wtf has it to do With The board? Some shoehorning there by moonhowler.

18 minutes ago, AJF said:

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 that 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.

 

Yes but the rebuild was funded by years and years of player sales before that. For example in the time you have had Morelos we bought and sold Dembele, then Edouard and now have been able to buy 2 more decent strikers for less than what we paid for Eddie in the first place. You can moan about spending differences but the reality is we were able to spend that cash due to being savvy and selling at the right time. You could have funded your own rebuild selling Morelos a season or two ago but decided to keep him and now goosed, same goes for Kent. If we let Dembele, Eddie Ajer etc run down their contract we would be in much the same position as you. We earned our spending power through developing and selling our better players and finding others in the time that Rangers* tried to keep them. Neither club is able to do that long term due to the wages elsewhere, it also isn’t sustainable for either club to have a transfer deficit just about every season.

Edited December 8, 2022 by gannonball