calscot

I agree that is a terrible mentality. But a cheat should not be allowed to call another player a cheat with the irony being pointed out.

Last year the staff costs were £13.3m (for all staff), this year that will increase quite a bit due to players' wages. That is the transfer in today's parlance. Transfer fees are a different animal these days, and now it's about the total cost of a player and so including wages and signing on fee, with residual transfer out values pretty much ignored as they are not tangible nor reliable. I think the points for transfer fees is that the money will be raised if it's needed for the right player and therefore can be justified. Our total expenditure last year was £26.8M on an income of £16.5m, so all fees will be raised by the shareholders. It's about whether Warburton finds the right players to spend it on. His brief is to get value for money, especially for this season as we still have very low income. As was pointed out, qualification to Europe would have allowed a little bit of speculate to accumulate. Instead of looking at transfer fees, I think it's more accurate to look at the quality of player coming in, and the value and cost of that. I think a lot of what we're trying to do here is similar to the 80-20 rule - where the theory is that for a lot of goals, you can achieve 80% of the results for 20% of the investment - be that money or effort or whatever. But maybe it's more like 90-40. We have to do that because we have 40% of the money we used to have. I think maybe the problem for you is the way DK has said things, and possibly also the way Warburton has spent them money, without much in the way of fees.

Two years ago our total ticketing income for an average of 41,444 was £12,361,000. Now that is similar to the number of season ticket holders we have now. So how much has the increase in price in the last two years? 20% this year, how much last year? 10%. Lets just use a plausible example of 30% and you get £16m. Now that will be added to by the 6k or so buying individual match tickets and hospitality, but we're talking only about season ticket income here. In addition, a lot of the increased income we will receive this year from TV, sponsorship and prize money will not be prepaid, and so we don't have that money yet, as well as the individual match tickets. So we will probably have a bit more money in January, and even more at the end of the season. However, I still expect us to make a loss of up to £5m that will have to be covered by shareholders. That could be a share issue but I think we are waiting to resolve the Ashley situation first.

I think while it is very hard to control large numbers of people intent on causing public disorder the main blame lie squarely with the footballing authorities. The biggest failure is that they have shown that invading the pitch is acceptable and tolerated (as long as you don't support Rangers). They failed to hammer Motherwell when they had the chance, which would have shown precedence and acted as a deterent, and they compounded things after Hibs by their executives dismissing it and calling it, "exuberance". I also think it's really weird that Scottish football expect Rangers fans to show humility for absolutely no wrong-doing but do not have the same demands for Motherwell and Hibs fans for horrendous and dangerous behaviour. In fact both sets of fans have shown an arrogance, denial and twisted values that border on something like psychosis. Completely and utterly bonkers to put it politely. I cannot see how Rangers are to blame in the slightest. Nothing Rangers fans did was out of keeping with the rest of society. A hundred or so people out of 25k reacting to an act of aggression from five thousand or so interlopers, has absolutely nothing to do with the club. In fact, it seems incredibly low and the restraint should be highly commended. You will NEVER be able to prevent that fraction of the population from reacting to such immense provocation, no matter how much liability and punishment you inflict on the club. The response to the Rangers fans has been totally lacking in proportionality and any understanding of human nature. I would say it displays a shocking lack of intelligence, knowledge and rational thinking. And once again we are blamed for sectarian singing and the odd smoke bomb, when most other clubs are equal if not more guilty for such crimes - Hibs especially, Celtic so far more that they are Champions League in this regard, compared to our Scottish Championship in comparison. The answer is that Hibs should have been hammered. Kicked out the cup, closed door games, and European qualification withheld - this would be in proportion of the number of perpetrators. That kind of punishment will really help prevent it happening in future. As we should be punishing the massive cause not the mild side effects, I can't see how Rangers can be punished beyond the pyrotechnics. Entering the pitch needs to be something that is seen as totally unacceptable - as it was when just one fan came on to attack Lennon - and they tried to blame Rangers for that one too. There really is something wrong with the thinking in Scottish football - sickeningly wrong.

I think McKay's value will not be so high at the moment due to playing in Scotland's second tier. A player of the exact same ability playing in the English Championship and showing what he can do, will be worth about 5 times as much. We'd probably get maximum about £2m for him at the moment with add-ons and a maybe a sell on clause. However, a good season the SP could inflate that, and another with a good showing in Europe would start to get him into 8 figures. All in my opinion of course.

Annual report 2015: http://rangers.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AnnualReport2015.pdf

I think you may have miscalculated - 48m? We have about 42k season tickets sold, are you saying the average price is £1140 plus VAT? Ie about £1370? I would imagine the income from that is nearer something like £15-17m. It's not that huge. Our other income is not that great yet as last season we had peanuts from TV, SPFL sponsorship, and prize money. Our merchandising income is also incredibly low. Next summer we will have a lot more income, although still nothing special. Our recent total, annual revenue has been about £16-18m with expenditure about £10m above that - so it's no surprise that we are reluctant to pay for transfer fees - just where does the money come from when we're not even close to running the club withing its budget? He really doesn't have our money, and he's having to use his own (and others) to balance the books - which right now is obviously about a £10m a year investment, hopefully reducing. We're losing about £4m a year due to Ashley, so when you look at those numbers, it's very significant at this time. Before attacking King for pulling the wool over our eyes, I think you have to have a good look at the financial numbers. I may have got it wrong myself, but if so, please show us the real figures.

Just thinking that after last time he's learned not to exacerbate it and just pull up and go off, with ice etc put on immediately. So it might not have been as big a pull as it looked, and quick treatment could mean it heals a lot sooner. I suppose you'd still expect about a month as he'll have to rest for a while and then rehabilitate it for a while. Here's hoping he surprises us.

Except for loanees and very exceptional youngsters, a guy in his twenties will generally get the nod before a teenager, especially when the latter has just arrived without that much of a track record. I think the most we can expect for Dodoo is to be gradually introduced into the first team, grooming him for the next year or two. He can fast track that simply by showing he's better than the other choices to replace Waghorn - if he has that in him. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more of O'halloran and Forester; it's been hard to tell if they are any good so far.

At least he didn't take a penalty afterwards...

Firstly I find the commentary on Kingco's investment as inaccurate. How much have they invested, I think it's over 10 million so far and that's in about a year and a half. The 30 million was always meant as an amount over about five years, and so probably on track. I think people mistake it as how much to spend on transfer fees but with where Scottish football is at the moment with respect to both the OF clubs, large transfer fees are just not value for money and too much risk as even breaking the bank for us, means we are still going for a very mediocre player rather than a superstar like Ronald de Boer. His level of player now costs way over our annual turnover, and even a few Bosmans at that level would eat up a fantastic proportion of our income in wages. I think we still need to be able to spend up to about £2m on a fee for the right player to complete the team, who is nearing his peak and will have sell on value. £1m should be the starting point of a player on 10-20 grand a week with a year or two left on his contract - which then gets inflated if he's in demand. People are obviously right when they say the club have no money - it's simple economics. Our turnover is still relatively low and I expect we're still making a loss year on year. The board are trying to change that, and a couple of years in the top tier (and the increase in income from the top tier due to us being there) combined with some European income will make a big difference. And of course getting a normal level of income from merchandising would go a long way at the moment. So, we really don't have money to spend, BUT Kingco DO have money to spend, should they think it is a good and safe investment of their personal wealth. Most guys don't get rich by throwing money around too easily - of course Murray did, but the same tactics made him a lot poorer again, even if he's still pretty comfortable, due to business rewarding the savvy and ruthless. His hard and fast tactics also led to our recent debilitated state.

What, you haven't seen the warnings? "Nonsense", we have been very publicly warned and those warnings resurface from time to time. People have been warning about King way before administration. That doesn't mean he will ruin the club, and many didn't think Green would either - you often make money by taking care of your asset and making it better. Personally, I didn't like the prospect of Green but preferred that to not existing, and there were plenty of other dodgy looking suitors. On the other hand I'm optimistic with King in charge. However, I'm not going to pretend that people's personal agendas are obvious to me.

Never thought he'd be part of the main squad this year except in an injury crisis, no surprise there. Disappointing thing is that I don't expect any of our academy players to get much of a sniff. Rossiter will probably be the one teenager who does, but he's not from our academy. Hope Liam Burt gets a few run outs... but expect him to be put out on loan also.

If Hill is fit enough, that could be a decent team with quite a bit of quality on the bench eg: Gilks, Hodson, Rossier, Windass, Krancjar, Dodoo, Miller. I thought our bench was a bit weak last season but now not too bad, with Holt and Crooks still to come and Wilson suspended.

Plenty of people have warned us about Dave King... I personally have come to realise that if you've made it in business, you're probably not exactly a very good and benevolent person with a sqeaky clean track record. Business is for ****s, charlatans and narcissists, you just have to hope their hopes, aims and goals somehow coincide with yours. Most of the time, there's not much you can do but wait and see.

Are all fans, players, managers, board members, supporters, and media supporters all absolute weirdos? There doesn't seem to be a normal, balanced, fair minded thinker among them. The fact this can be printed without an editorial comment of WTF is indicative.

Ah, a REAL SPL "sell-out Saturday"...

I personally think that the huge pressure on them to win last time, was a factor in us dominating them on the park - they were too nervous and desperate to match our fast paced rhythm in the game, and drew because they had the quality of player to exploit our weakness at the back with fast counterattacking and their aerial ability which we couldn't match. I think they haven't learned and have set themselves up for another fall for the same reason - they are so expected to win, such a very difficult game, easily, that they have a chance of trying too hard and then losing confidence, rather than assessing the opposition in a calculated way. Their fans and the press will be a liability for them here, and unless things go well from the start, I think they might struggle to settle as a side, and motivational issues will arise. Their transfer policy does seem strange and from the outside it looks like they've spent their money on his wages, and with an over-sized, over-paid, over-rated squad, they don't seem to have much to spare. Maybe he just came for the money, rather than for footballing reasons... I think our mangers has the realistic goal of finishing at least second and putting in a reasonable challenge for the title, even if it's unsuccessful. Their manager MUST win the title, plus his secondary targets will have strong emphasis to do something in Europe, and probably win a cup. Then there is the fact our manager has had a year to build a squad of his own choice, and instil his footballing philosophy, which seems to be improving. The latter also keeps our fans that bit happier. They might have the financial advantage, and a big name manager, but there are so many parts of the jigsaw missing for them. I think if the tables were turned, I wouldn't be too happy or confident.

I mostly agree with you - but for a pundit, I don't think you have to get your predictions absolutely correct - if you could do so, being a professional gambler would probably earn you more. However, I think the issue here is that they are not using football expertise and inside knowledge to make the predictions, the problem is that they are using wishful thinking and bias which is highly unprofessional - I think that IS sackable. It's not even intelligent to say that they are choosing Celtic to win due to their bigger budget (which seems an excuse for their bias) but then ignore that Rangers have the second largest budget. All in all, those that excluded Rangers from the top two did not once make a good or intelligent case for their choices. The anti-Rangers narrative from so many is so consistent that it's really hard to ignore, and once again, there is no reciprocation or equal bias by the Rangers related guys. You really have to wonder why we are the unpopular ones with those from other teams, other than that we are the most successful club. There is a lack of fair mindedness and rationality across the majority of Scottish football which is frightening for the whole of Scottish culture.

I agree, but I think the problem with last season that would affect this one, is that we didn't quite have the consistency we need throughout the season. We struggled at least once against almost every team in the league and didn't really come out on top against our two main rivals, head to head. I think we are addressing that with our latest signings and increase in the size of the main squad, but our two main weaknesses, are still prominent. I think we easily have one of the top two teams, but our ability to win the league requires us to win most of the time even when we don't play well. Lapses in defence combined with wasting chances is a big liability in a two horse race as it's all about not dropping silly points.

I can understand that people would put Celtic top, but I personally think that not putting us in at least second is going to make them look like they are either too stupid to be a pundit or just too bitter. Of course, if they are right, I could be looking stupid - but it's not my job and I'm not getting paid for it. But the point is that putting Celtic top and Rangers second, can both look not stupid and not bitter - even if you are wrong. It's probably the most sensible objective argument. However, I think after the cup game, the fact we've strengthened and they haven't, and looking at the early form of both teams, it's so close that putting Rangers top, with Celtic a close second is hardly stretching it. That's my prediction and I look forward to looking back and comparing the accuracy with the so called, "experts".

I think the more they write us off, the easier it will become... I'm thinking this kind of stuff could be amusing to look at come the end of the season.

What, nurturing him by sending him out on loan? Before 20 years old, he'd have had almost no chance of getting in the team in the last year... Maybe a couple of sub appearances.

Those posts are so lacking in contextual explanation that I never know what they're on about...

Glass half empty thinking would be regretting not putting a tenner on it...