Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[Jacksgranda]

Quote

3 minutes ago, nacho said:

predominantly brutal

 

30 points it is, then.

[thepundit]

Joey Garner signing for Ipswich Town tomorrow.

Fee reported to be £500k. (which would suggest the £1.8m agreed with Preston included performance based add-ons which would have eventually taken the amount to £1.8m)

[mjw]

Might suggest they are taking a loss to get rid.

[capt_oats]

£500k's less than the reported 1st instalment for him right? So even if the balance *is* add-ons they're still taking a hit on him. Lovely.

[thepundit]

Rangers still may be making a slight loss but with the money being spent at the moment I don't think they'd be that bothered.

[BobWilliamson]

6 hours ago, Drew Brees said:

I would probably go with this estimation, but I'm a dunderhead so what do I know

It was actually 'Dunderheid' ya Dunderhead 

[BobWilliamson]

Surely there are enough topics in the Celtic/Rangers Rangers / Celtic forum to have these wee squabbles? 

I know not a popular view on this forum but some Rangers and Celtic posters would like to talk about the football and the comings and goings at the club without having to trawl through nonsense about 'Good Rangers Men' and 'Celtic Minded'

I would think IF Rangers are selling Garner for £500,000 they are taking a hit and no matter what you say every penny should be a prisoner!! 

[calum_gers]

Every penny should be a prisoner but the damage was done when we shelled out £1.8 million for the absolute diddy.

[flood]

2 hours ago, thepundit said:

Joey Garner signing for Ipswich Town tomorrow.

Fee reported to be £500k. (which would suggest the £1.8m agreed with Preston included performance based add-ons which would have eventually taken the amount to £1.8m)

Is it not a bit of an open secret that the fees that your subservient media report, includes wages for the duration of the contract to bulk up the transfer fee??

No fee that is as "announced" in your compliant media is actually handed over to the club selling the player?

[RandomGuy.]

Joey Garner signing for Ipswich Town tomorrow.
Fee reported to be £500k. (which would suggest the £1.8m agreed with Preston included performance based add-ons which would have eventually taken the amount to £1.8m)

I'm fairly sure you'll have to pay Preston a percentage of that fee since there's outstanding payments to be made, it isn't just simply written off, at least I'm certain I've read before that there's a pre-agreed fee for an "early sale". There's a strong chance they'll take half that fee.

[O-Bizzle]

Another Portuguese diddy in the doors at Ibrox?

FACELESS CAST OF THOUSANDS.

[capt_oats]

I'm fairly sure you'll have to pay Preston a percentage of that fee since there's outstanding payments to be made, it isn't just simply written off, at least I'm certain I've read before that there's a pre-agreed fee for an "early sale". There's a strong chance they'll take half that fee.

I'd be surprised if Rangers saw any of the Garner fee tbh. Like others I have my doubts that the fee was ever £1.8m and that figure was more than likely inclusive of add-ons but even still it seems unlikely that you'd be looking at a substantial amount would be based on appearance or performance related payments.

It wouldn't be a huge surprise is they were just covering whatever balance is outstanding on Garner by selling him on.

[naegoodinthedark]

Every penny should be a prisoner but the damage was done when we shelled out £1.8 million for the absolute diddy.

He came from Preston with a pretty decent scoring record though didn't he?
Sometimes it just doesn't work out for players when they move.

Are they still after the 2 Motherwell guys?

[thepundit]

18 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

I'd be surprised if Rangers saw any of the Garner fee tbh. Like others I have my doubts that the fee was ever £1.8m and that figure was more than likely inclusive of add-ons but even still it seems unlikely that you'd be looking at a substantial amount would be based on appearance or performance related payments.

It's been rumoured ever since he signed that the fee was a base rate which would be topped with performance based payments. No one knows for sure how much and no one even knows if that's actually true. Rangers' transfer dealings up until they signed Garner would suggest it's true as the most Rangers had spent in recent seasons was about £400k on O'Halloran. It's seems highly unlikely after many cheap signings and free transfers that they'd suddenly agree a £1.8m fee for Garner.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is Rangers have paid around £1m so far. They might be thinking take the £500k loss as it'll free up some of the weekly budget and prevent any future payments which would be due to Preston. That's my theory, and I accept it may be completely wrong.

[capt_oats]

He came from Preston with a pretty decent scoring record though didn't he?
Sometimes it just doesn't work out for players when they move.

Are they still after the 2 Motherwell guys?

Not really. He had 2 recent seasons where he'd scored double figures at League 1 level. He did score one outstanding goal that Sky used loads in their promo ads. The season before he joined Rangers he'd scored 6 goals in 44 appearances in the Championship. In League 1 he was 27 in 44 for 14/15 and 24 in 44 for 13/14 prior to that he hadn't managed double figures in a season since 2007/08 (again, in League 1)

In honesty I doubt there was ever any real interest in either Heneghan or Moult. With the profile of player they're signing now it'd seem even more unlikely.

[nacho]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Not really. He had 2 recent seasons where he'd scored double figures at League 1 level. He did score one outstanding goal that Sky used loads in their promo ads. The season before he joined Rangers he'd scored 6 goals in 44 appearances in the Championship. In League 1 he was 27 in 44 for 14/15 and 24 in 44 for 13/14 prior to that he hadn't managed double figures in a season since 2007/08 (again, in League 1)

In honesty I doubt there was ever any real interest in either Heneghan or Moult. With the profile of player they're signing now it'd seem even more unlikely.

the moult deal (supposedly 200k and moh) seemed like we were trying to pick up a half decent backup striker and get rid of one of our diddys

Edited June 11, 2017 by nacho

[hellbhoy]

3 hours ago, O-Bizzle said:

Another Portuguese diddy in the doors at Ibrox?

Well I'm sort of thinking a bit different recently about Pedro. He has now brought in 5 Portuguese players all with Benfica ties and who knows maybe 1 or 2 more might be signed. All points to them being the crux of his new look Rangers squad.

Now the main point is whether or not this will work in Pedro's favour? Other than Alve's they are relatively inexperienced and might backfire on a number of variables, are they actually good enough?, will they settle in fucking Glasgow of all places?

It's alright slagging off Pedro but has he actually done some decent signings that will gel into a formidable team or will they fall apart and the ship sinks at an alarming rate?

I'm 50/50 for now, they could put up a decent title challenge or this will be the final straw for the Rangers fans and the club goes into meltdown because the results aren't going their way.

[hellbhoy]

12 hours ago, nacho said:

another one "around 30 points" doesnt indicate exactly 30 points does it, as for your other point, its unlikely to happen but is theoretically possible which was my point

 

12 hours ago, nacho said:

"around 30 points" , you're not the brightest if you read that and assumed it meant exactly 30 points

Would you like a bigger shovel? You are showing levels of stupid not seen since Tedi got binned.

Firstly despite last seasons points tally by The Rangers and Celtic which were 67 & 106 with a points difference of 39 points you are making a claim that the points gap could be AROUND 30 less next season. Now this is the bit were you went stupid because if you had used last seasons points tally then theoretically your bold claim of AROUND 30 points less of a margin then I'd be inclined to agree with you that it could be possible, BUT NAW! you went straight into thick and stupid mode and pushed the boat out and then went on to boast "even if Celtic won all their games Rangers will still cut the gap by AROUND 30 points".

Now if we use last seasons points difference between the clubs of 39 points then AROUND 30 points less of a margin we would arrive at either 28 or 29 because that's about 30 points isn't it? giving us an 11 point margin to use as the MINIMUM amount of points behind Celtic for your claim to be correct. If Celtic won all their games they'd accumulate 114 points and the MAXIMUM points The Rangers could achieve is what? 12 points less because they lost all 4 games to Celtic and that means the gap would have closed by 27 points which is still close to 30 points. BUT? will The Rangers win every other game throughout the season? Are you that confident your club will thrash all in their wake other than Celtic and win 34 games to Celtic's 38?

[YassinMoutaouakil]

It'll be hilarious when Garner does really well at Ipswich and is playing in the Premier League next season.

[nacho]

4 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

 

Would you like a bigger shovel? You are showing levels of stupid not seen since Tedi got binned.

Firstly despite last seasons points tally by The Rangers and Celtic which were 67 & 106 with a points difference of 39 points you are making a claim that the points gap could be AROUND 30 less next season. Now this is the bit were you went stupid because if you had used last seasons points tally then theoretically your bold claim of AROUND 30 points less of a margin then I'd be inclined to agree with you that it could be possible, BUT NAW! you went straight into thick and stupid mode and pushed the boat out and then went on to boast "even if Celtic won all their games Rangers will still cut the gap by AROUND 30 points".

Now if we use last seasons points difference between the clubs of 39 points then AROUND 30 points less of a margin we would arrive at either 28 or 29 because that's about 30 points isn't it? giving us an 11 point margin to use as the MINIMUM amount of points behind Celtic for your claim to be correct. If Celtic won all their games they'd accumulate 114 points and the MAXIMUM points The Rangers could achieve is what? 12 points less because they lost all 4 games to Celtic and that means the gap would have closed by 27 points which is still close to 30 points. BUT? will The Rangers win every other game throughout the season? Are you that confident your club will thrash all in their wake other than Celtic and win 34 games to Celtic's 38?

lets go through this point by point as you seem to have difficulty understanding whats actually happened

1.the first celtic fan to make an arse of himself was westcoastwilly who stated " Getting players from benfica and cagliari instead of accrington stanley is got to be a plus but closing the gap, Celtic would need to lose a game " utter bollocks which was pointed out to him when i said " we could still close the gap by around 30 points " if you win all your games.

2. dree brees then jumps in and gets his arse handed to him because he doesnt understand what the word "around" means and decides i mean exactly 30 points. the english dictionary put an end to his pish.

3. you then dive in with a post not understanding what the word 'could' means after i stated "even if celtic win all their games next season we could still close the gap by around 30 points" you seem to think could means definitely will happen  then in the post quoted above you lie about what i actually said with a fake quote "even if Celtic won all their games Rangers will still cut the gap by AROUND 30 points", at no point did i use the word "still". Then you continue on with some drivel about how around 30 could mean 29 or 28 but not 27 (which is the actual number that is possible in this theoretical scenario) because that would be madness  which you contradict later on by saying "27 points which is still close to 30 points" which means the same thing as around.I simply pointed out that it is theoretically possible for rangers to slash the gap even if celtic win all their games, a concept you seem to have difficulty with

does that clear it up for you? three of you making an arse of themselves, me not doing so

As for you other point, , i doubt rangers will win every game against the other teams but it is possible since the other teams are the weakest i can ever remember them being, i also doubt celtic will achieve the same points total they did this season and i doubt rangers will perform as poorly in the old firm games as they did this season. i suspect celtic will still win the league but rangers will still be challenging at the split

Edited June 12, 2017 by nacho