Big Spliff

I'll comment more on this on Monday...

whats happening on Monday ?

I guess I've just accepted that Boyd will be on his way sooner or later - not cause he's not good enough (IMO) but because he's not really rated highly enough at Ibrox. As I posted the other day; he must feel immense pressure in every game, much more than others becaue of the constant threat of being punted. I suppose that could be a good thing too but it seems wasteful to me

I know exactly what you are saying my man. But by not offering him a new deal they have effectively written off 2 million pounds in transfer value. FFS, surely we should be tying him down to a 3 yr deal and THEN punting him.

 

It isnt rocket science and whilst I recognise that we may not have got rid of Boyd the reality is the guy will still score goals when played, even as a sub. We would still have got over 3 mill for him. So the club are still writing off at least 1 million pounds.

 

Given our financial predicament we need to do what we can to retain players values such that we CAN sell them for decent prices. Offering Boyd an extension would have either a) given us a player who is a proven goalscorer or b) at the very least retained his value at a proper market price. The club/bank seem to be doing NEITHER.

 

The other thing we have to also remember is that without Boyd's goals we may not have won the league last year - and the CL is our saviour this year. Selling him lessens our chances of winning the league - whether you like or loathe him that is the reality.

You're right Craig. You are definitely right.

This isnt true B_S.

I know exactly what you mean mate. The KB situation is weird though - WS refused to play him regularly (and still will by the looks of things) and generally speakeing, RFC wanted shot of him in January to balance the books.

Personally, I'm a Boyd fan (if he does all he can). I cannot for the life of me imagine where his goals will come from if he goes - and these goals mean points imo. But it basically comes down to whether you agree that he's worth keeping or not. If you are in the club's camp, then clearly he's expendable, especially in desperate times -which is probably and ultimately why he's not got a new deal.

Ha ha. I know that feeling.

 

Will no doubt be on there at some point? Maybe start another pointless pissing contest on there.

haha the "I know more than you know" went down a fecking treat!

Aye, sometimes good posts can be lost on there through the high volume of traffic. One of the negatives to weigh up against the positives of such a high number of threads being started.

Well, you could always find it and bump it tomorrow sometime. I spent 15 minutes on that f**ker.

Some people don't know what they're missing you know

�£500k for Adam

�£2mil for Boyd.

 

Bain will be chuffed.

 

Really earning his �£500k a year.

 

Sack him now and over the next 5 years we could recoup those fees from his wages saved and keep a stronger squad.

SA - nobody at Ibrox would gladly give KB away for �£2m. We managed to negotiate (what was it, �£3.5m?) from Birmingham only six months or so ago. They know the value KB has in the market.

If (IF) KB goes for that kind of money then there can be no bigger sign that things are 100% fooked at RFC.

50k a week. He would be crazy not to accept it, if true.

 

2 mill though is a shocking transfer fee. That is what we get for not having players tied up on longer contracts.

Yeah, he would be MAD to decline that kind of money. At the end of the day, he's not really wanted at Ibrox, you can just tell.

Can't win on length of contracts though. More than one player has done JACK for the club (every club actually) by running down his contract which was too long in the first place.

Top post 26chap!

If I wasnt outside the pub on my iPhone I'd elaborate

I don't know if the fact that football fans now take a greater interest in all aspects of the club, above and beyond results on the field and including aspects such as finance and the clubs PR and branding is due to:

 

a) On a personal level at least, as I age and (hopefully) develop growing maturity, I recognise the implications of each of these aspects on one another and ultimately performance and results on the field (which is what it's all about at the end of the day).

b) The internet age and the easier access to and freer exchange of information.

c) A social trend (or whatever you want to call it) of changing attitudes of football fans and a growin interest into all aspects of their club mediated by a factor as yet unidentified by myself or possibly as a result of b.

 

There is of course the possibility that it is a combination of these and other factors.

 

I too find I am far more interested in other aspects of the club than merely results. Personally I would be a growing interest in finances primarily down to (a) and (b). A growing concern with other aspects such as the clubs reputation would be primarily down to (b) I think and as well as a growing awareness of how the club are portrayed in the internet age there is a perceived greater abiltity to "fight back" as the common man is given a voice through various mediums.

 

However, due to my age (being only 24 I can only really comment on the experiences of a football fan from the 90's onwards) I may well have a different perspective to many others.

 

Results are still the be all and end all for me. There is only a greater focus on other issues when we are not achieving on the field of play imo. For the vast majority of the support afflicted with a general malaise towards being an active supporter of the club (more active than merely turning up every week anyway). However, I would say this last paragraph is less applicable now than it was a couple of decades ago.

 

I dunno if I've just wandered off on numerous tangents or if that supports the views expressed in your OP?

 

Edit: Ps. Bloody accountants. BD!!!

Not at all mate, that expands perfectly on what I mean.

Anyway, I'm just happy to get a reply - any old shit would have done because I posted the same thing on FF at roughtly the same time and within 25 mins the thing was on page 2, probably never to be seen again!

I don't. I much prefer to talk about the finance. :devil:

 

lol, yeah i know

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQLWF_ItzYs]Money Talks.[/ame]But it don’t sing and dance and it don’t walk.

More and more I’ll acknowledge I’ve been concerned with the finances of Rangers FC. It used to be that it was only a game to me. Then David Murray came along and I even had a ‘Bank Of Rangers’ fiver on my wall, a big blown up thing that represented our financial might in relation to Celtic – and to be honest, I loved it. It was a kind of ‘We Are The People’ x 10; the ultimate partner for the trophies and happy days – we are much, much richer than YOU. GIRFUY as they say these days!

Nowadays I feel that the off-the-park stuff is more important than it used to be; too important. I scrutinise the reports, I analyse what they mean, I interpret Rangers’ accounts and draw conclusions. I ask for views and points of view; I really do care about Rangers as a business, because I see it as Rangers’ way of securing its future at the level it we are accustomed to. But why?

At the end of the day I got into all this as a young lad who loved football. Even in the early 80’s, I never cared about wages, sponsorship, TV rights, facilities, representation, communication. It just didn’t matter. I heard someone say the other day that back then they didn’t even care who the team manager was; just as long as Rangers were winning.

I love the history of Rangers, but I have to be honest and say I’m more interested in the future. I worry about Rangers. I really do. And now I see what Rangers could be; much more than a football club and a business; more of a social enterprise, serving its community and a hub for all things blue, and the things we stand for. Rangers permeates all corners of life in the west of Scotland and beyond. Everybody knows our name. We are a huge and remarkable club. We are truly unique.

And the more I think about it, the more I am beginning to find the financial and commercial focus on the club to be somewhat distasteful and a million miles from what the game should be all about. I know the world has changed from the 70’s and 80’s - I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I’m not hankering for a fuzzy-wuzzy past where everything was sweetness and light. I’m not pretending that everything was better in the 70’s or that modern life is rubbish. Far from it.

But I do honestly yearn for the day when all we talk about is football. I bet a lot of people feel the same.

You are one of a kind bmck, there's no doubt about it!

More power to your elbow.

Maybe someone has a better idea than me, but i'd say the money to buy a controlling interest in RFC could not possibly be made back in bus rental over a reasonable period. That said, the potential business synergies are quite extensive if you think about it.

If true, sounds like partly an emotional purchase imo - which would be no bad thing.

CIS Cup, yeah no problem.

SPL? Wouldn't go near it tbh.

We are in a two-horse race and we have to win it; the consequences are horrendous if we don't. Sad but true. Interesting idea though!

THis story seems to raise its head every day now. Its getting boring.

wonder what the locals will make of this!

SA - fantastic article, well worth the effort you put into it!

I honestly feel better now, knowing that players genuinely have tailored regimes specific to their history, position, needs and so on. it must be quite a job keeping on top of all this for a squad of 25 players or so. Very interesting.

Can you shed any light on how players' ..erm... bad habits would show up on a week to week basis please? Not bashing anybody, but a handful of our guys (at least) are allegedly prone to fast and greasy food as well as a bit of a bevvy - how do you think this shows up and what do you think the approach is from within the fitness team?

Right, let's ban it officially from Gersnet.:devil:Anyone suggest a suitable sanction?

The only person likely to use it on here is Chick. So the sanction should be death.

I'm sure that the font of all knowledge, 26th of Foot, has previously used story one as the reason.

 

However I can't say that I've ever really heard us being called the light blues.[/quote]

 

You obviously don't look at the official website or the Rangers News! Drives me up the wall when they refer to them as the Light Blues, like they don't want to court Royalist sentiments by calling us Royal Blues, or something.

 

From today;

 

http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Headlines/0,,5~1733077,00.html

 

I think I feel the same as most people - Royal Blue is our colour (although I confess never to having bought a Viva on the strength of it )

Always thought it was something to do with Dundee being the dark blues (Navy) and to differentiate the Gers on the old reels from other teams who were normally in darker colours (or green an grey hoop crap!)

Well, there you go mate!

Dundee were formed in 1893, so this pre-dates that and reels by some considerable way.

Reading the new book 'Rangers 1872 The Gallant Pioneers' at the moment - very interesting so far. Wee bit I was reading last night (which you may or may not know about) regarding the 'light blues' nickname. To summarise, the book says;

Rangers listed their colours as 'blue' (1876 & 1878) in the SFA Annual, but listed as 'Royal Blue' from 1879 onwards. The 'Light Blues' first came to the fore around 1877 when Rangers played Vale of Leven in the SC Final. Two stories compete;

1) the term referred to the 'dash' of the players in the team; the nimbleness of Moses McNeil & Peter Campbell whom The Glasgow News described as 'light and speedy' at the time.

2) As Vale played in very dark blue, an analogy of the Oxford/Cambridge universities colours, where Vale were dressed similarly to the Dark Blues of Oxford, while Rangers resembled the lighter blue of Cambridge.

I've always wondered about this myself, as since I was a lad I've always seen Rangers' tops as 'royal blue' and never really understood the term 'light blues', so this piece (amongst others) captured my imagination.

Hopefully this is not a zzzzzzzzzzz post! (cue zzzzzzzzzz replies )

Would rather hear this than Broadfoot saying we can't compete!

At the end of the day, the last 16 has been proved to be achievable when for a long time it seemed it was not. Anyway, its too early to say given that we dont know who we're playing but with WS's inherently defensive tactics and the ability to score on the break I dont see why it sounds impossible at all. We could easily get lucky.

What is going on? Today, Blanc reckons a deal was basically done but Bougherra changed his mind, while Smith says there's been no contact at all.

Seems 100% clear that the player has been tapped-up via his agent. Bain said the other day that he was told by Boogie's agent there was a bid on its way.

I prefer walter's stuff to chick's tbh.