trublusince1982

Portugal 1-2Wales Germany 2-1 France

Poland 1-0Portugal Wales 1-3Belgium Germany 2-1Italy France 1-1Iceland

Switzerland 0v 1Poland Wales 2v 0Northern Ireland Croatia1 v0 Portugal France 3v0 R. of Ireland Germany 2v0 Slovakia Hungary 2v 1Belgium Italy 0v 1Spain England2 v 1Iceland

he uses a technique that is well known in politics and debating of replacing negatives with positives reasoning that has no bearing on the original point. They are there purely to get agreement and engineer a feeling of mutual consent and understanding. Starts from a position of referencing us playing in Europe as if its a given. A false pretense that allows him to argue from a point of strength. Very common practice. Unfortunately our expenditure will determine whether we play in Europe rather than the other way round. The discussion should be on how Europe is an achievable goal through this strategy. That's not what he does instead he talks as if it is a small step we will make irrespective of strategy as if its a given. Keep in mind we are supposed to be discussing our transfer strategy at this time. A strategy he says needs European football but says nothing about how we will first actually secure that win fall with only free transfers. With easy use of wording he has easily bypassed a major talking point. How will we secure second place with a frugal strategy in place? He already has people taking about future spending once we reach Europe! talk of not being able to attract top English players like years before. Nobody thought we would be buying Rooney! The only reason this comment is in is to bring agreement and people onside with an irrefutable fact. Again common strategy used in politics and debating. The fact has nothing to do with the original point. Our inability along with the rest of the world to compete with English sides has nothing to do with our transfer policy. absolutely zero. Compete with English sides in transfer dealings. Again same as above it has no bearing on our ability to spend. None. If you offer a £1m for a player and are outbid by a richer English side who are willing to pay over the odds that would still leave you in the market for a £1m player just a different option. The use of the English outlier is simply to stifle argument by placing the argument in the realms of extremes. It has nothing to do with our board sitting down and working out what our available funds are. Again same common debating tactic of using agreed irrefutable facts to deflect from the issue at hand used most commonly by politicians. If asked about the nhs budgets talk about not raising taxes instead and the lack of hospital care out with Britain and not of what the rest of the money is being spent on. If our inability to compete with English clubs framed our ability to move and deal within the market then it would be folly would it not to bring in a manager and chief scout who's main knowledge resides in that same market. Again none of this has any bearing on our ability to raise funds or lack thereof. then we have have the new league stuff! Basically if you don't find what is being said palatable don't worry its not forever a bright new future is ahead! Least said here the better i think! Almost every comment has nothing to do with our ability to raise funds or our decision making process. In fact everything he mentions as being positive outcomes from our decided transfer strategy would be enhanced with the addition of extra funds supporting it ,not reduced as a consequence. Finally he says the final decision on payer selection is down to MW and his team. That's not completely true but the kind of half truth that effectively passes blame if any is to come onto MW. MW and his team are restricted in their ability to select players by the financial restrictions placed on them by the board. MW can only pick from the small reduced pool available. That pool is determined by the board. Again misdirection He has said nothing about the reasons they have choose to not utilise soft loans and he fails to explain why this policy will remain for the for see able future if as expected we are due to grow financially year on year. He makes no mention of how we will compete with a wage budget massively lower than our competition or why using funds cannot become a new revenue stream of its own Nothing he has done is new or surprising its just annoying and quite frankly exasperating when people still fail to cut out all the nonsense and concentrate on the real meat and bones of a statement. As you say maybe he will bring more clarity in future statements.

no I don't want a bank loan. I have already said previously I believe there is money in the revenue streams plus a soft loan. Thought that was the whole point of bringing this board in was to fund the team appropriately in the short to mid term until we were back running full tilt? Guess not What are people not being honest with themselves about? Not sure what can be more honest about. The transfer plan will most likely amount to challenging for second and will need European football or selling of players .That takes time and Rangers fans to accept being what we have never accepted before. Being second.Cant be more honest than to judge his statement on its own merits. Statement is full of absolutely pointless drivel to distract from the main point. They are putting up no money for transfers. We will rely on freebies and loans. Also opens up a new question for me. Will any of the current soft loans be repaid this coming season or will they still stand until shares can be given? The reality of our situation does not mean the approach being taken is the only way forward. This is the best way forward for the board as it minimizes their outlay and financial risk in my opinion. God help us if we lose MW better hope there is someone else able to pull a rabbit out a hat with one hand tied behind his back. They £10m talk is akin to DK distraction techniques. Nobody is asking for £10m just a fighting chance and an appropriate amount of our generated revenue spent on the first team. If the club needs large outlays on other one offs or parts that have been destroyed by previous boards then the investors should cover them. What happened to the share issue? Is that no longer an immediate option? Only positive I can take from the first statement is he answered my question and we are pre planning our signings. On a side note how can getting record ST sales help squad acquisitions this year if they are pre planned in advance?

Only two sizes available. Xxl or small. Wonder if that's something to do with the contract and what they can get away with?

Had always thought that the uefa cup doesn't bring much profit unless you go far? Same goes for retail? If all was running well and we were not being shafted how much profit could reasonably be expected? £2m-£3m? Will that make much of a dent in our transfer abilities?Not sure how the cash flow would affect the clubs ability to run? are RR accounts not separate and just our percentage paid at agreed times? Is that not the way it always ran? Personally think the transfer policy has to be self fulfilling and agree with that part. For that to be a workable reality at Rangers with our expectations on the field then it must be initially funded by a third party and operated wisely and progressively.No other plan keeps us realistically competitive in the next 3-5 years. We fall >10 points behind at xmas and all bets will be off. That is the reality we operate within. Need to agree to disagree on the honesty of the statement. For me it is a master class in the art of distraction.

Basing our transfer policy on European football is also massively risky and a path we have already been down Edit* the only people protected by that approach are the board members. The club runs the same financial risk if the money comes from European football or board members

Looks like The club has already made its move which will hopefully see the end of the retail agreement one way or another in the next year or so. Looks like the club will continue to meet its legal obligations by advertising and wearing the new strip. While Rangers retail will be used to rip up the contract and stop the sale of anything with our badge upon it. That leaves little option for SD and Puma other than too sue Rangers retail which will ultimately see it seek bankruptcy. All SD can do is try and find a way around the licensing and trademark agreements. If they do not find a loop hole they have three options. 1.Do nothing. 2.Sue Rangers Retail 3.Negotiate a new deal that sees both sides happy.

That should be a bonus then. If kids want to use us as a shop window to a league with bundles of cash them bring it on. We should be looking to use the abundance of cash down south to attract transfer fees way above a players true value then use that money to recruit wisely. The bigger question is how do we get the Scottish talent to come to us when we offer less money than Celtic in both transfer fees and wages.

Really shocked so many are falling for the nonsense in that statement. 90% of it has zero relevance other than to bring up points of agreement. Full of contradictions and massive holes. Then the old titbit of a brighter more lucrative future playing else where. Thought we had all learned to cut through the shit by now and focus and the here and now. Tells us zero about how we are going to compete with a wage budget half to a third of our biggest rival with pretty much zero cash to get the ball rolling. This is the same transfer policy utilised by every team in Scotland outwith the old-firm for the last ten years. The parts about youth are years off. You can't just switch on a youth system then expect it to give results that can affect the first team within the first 5 years. Again should have no impact on our transfer policy for first team in the short to medium term. Any player produced in that time frame should be a bonus not a corner stone Frees, loans and development fees based on a fraction of the resources needed will not win the league or put us back top with any regularity or justifiable expectation

Would it not be a better idea to bring in scouts that know the European market better? Why shop pretty much only in England if we can't afford to compete with English lower stature clubs? Makes no sense shopping were you can only afford what nobody else wants. English teams have no bearing on how much we can spend. As Barton said England is an outlier nobody can compete with them. Just an easy excuse to justify no small investment. Don't win the league or heaven forbid don't compete then they can forget their plans, it will be back to square one. Players from other Scottish clubs in the main are not good enough we have wasted enough money on them. Our biggest outlay on MOH is arguably our biggest waste. Our transfer policy for the foreseeable future is spending next to zero? then we better get used to never qualifying for the champions league.

Good news glad to hear it

the manager has already said he believes in a wage structure across the squad that sees everyone on relatively the same amount. Don't think Barton will be on much more than the squad average. Definitely will not be above £12k a week. If spending money on transfers that should bring returns is not within our means it would make no sense what so ever to spend the limited funds we have on options that will not bring future revenues. If no money for transfer fees is available we should not be expending large outlays in wages on 30+ year old players. With MW financial back ground I would be amazed to see him not look at growing returns on our initial outlays to help in the future. If you have a limited budget you need to look at growing that budget year on year Might be remembering wrong but sure King also said at one point Rangers running with a wage budget of 30% turnover or there abouts is unacceptable and needs to rise. Would imagine it will be in the business plan to bring our wage budget towards more generally expected levels for our club without the need to sacrifice transfer kitty. We haven't seen enough spent on wages so far to out strip what we have saved by any dramatic amount

Why? We would be running at break even

there should be around £3m available from increased revenue through promotion and the expectation of ending toward top of the league. Wages are pretty much covered by the removal from the wage bill of templeton,shiels, gotomski, durrant, law, Clark, Mccoist, aird( if he goes),zalelem, oduwa and a couple of under 21 players. Also doesn't include larger sales of ST than last year. On top of that I thought we would have seen a loan against shares for maybe £2m ish. All outlays in transfers should be self perpetuating and set the foundation for future growth in the amount we can spend. As in if we spend £1m on X player we should look to sell for £1.5m with it all going back into the pot.

we leave for pre season trip in 6 days do we not?any expectation we plan signings other than loans after that would need to go down as poor poor planning. Manager time and again has talked about the importance of pre season and the team being in and ready. Doubt very much our plan is to wait till after pre season and take a squad that doesn't resemble the finished article to America.

can you show where anyone said big signings or doing anything out with our financial means?

Short memories right enough. We spent £1.1m last season. Nobody wants us to spend out with our means. There should be around £3m give or take profit from the coming year before we even talk board loans. Any signing should be with the expectation of making a return the talk of us losing money or not being able to afford it is just excuses that hold very little weight. If we don't have any trust in our ability to increase revenue year on year or bring in returns on our expenditure we should just shut the doors. Talk of accepting anything other than being the best in Scotland goes against everything we have ever stood for

Pretty despondent with our transfer dealings (especially the strongly linked players) so far. Really thought we would spend some money on highly rated young players who are ready to burst onto the scene. Like Rossiter, he was a great start and made me think finally we had the right idea and people in place to find and finance these sort of recruits. We have talked a really good game, unfortunately so far we have not walked the walk. The squad as it is plus krancjar and Miappa just doesn't look anywhere near enough for me to seriously think we can challenge over a season. My biggest fear is we end up getting good offers for the few decent young players we have like Mckay and Rossiter within the next 12 months and it just leaves us with the older players too start all over with again. Hopefully in the next week we see the cheque book opening up a bigger pool of players to choose from.

Romania 1v0Albania Switzerland 0v2 France Russia 0v 1Wales Slovakia1 v2 England Northern Ireland 0 v 3 Germany Ukraine 0v 2Poland Croatia 0v1 Spain Czech Rep 2v1 Turkey Italy 3v 0R. of Ireland Sweden 0v3 Belgium Hungary 0v2 Portugal Iceland 0v 1Austria

Wonder if SDOW will get a Facebook message to contact the club tonight so they can have a word with him about leaking transfer targets?! ?

You know it's hit ridiculous when you start comparing nostrils and ear shapes!!! After all that still not convinced!

sorry to hear that condolences to you and yours

means crooks and windass would miss the trip to America. Only the players will be seriously affected by that. Poor from AS.