calscot

Depends on the +. I would definitely accept 100M for him.

I think that shows you why it sometimes right to grab a good offer. The same could have happened with Hutton especially considering his history.

I think it's obvious that WS doesn't think he can improve the team. He has plenty of options before Gow and I can't see him getting a game in front of Miller, Valicka, Lafferty, Boyd, Novo, McCulloch, Fleck, Lennon, Darcheville and Cousin. It does seem to me like Gow is being a greedy - some may say he's just asking for his entitlement, but then Rangers are just as entitled to ostricise him from the other players, let him rot on bench for the reserves, make him train on his own and fine him for every minor discrepancy, like being a few seconds late. However, that would be harsh, just as Gow is being harsh with his demands. It's not always reasonable to demand your full entitlements.

This I can agree with and I find it strange for WS as when he came back he seemed to bring a fug [sic] of commonsense to the club. We were crying out for a couple of decent central defenders and it's the first thing he did. He has since been pretty sensible in his personnel choices until now - unless of course he has something up his sleeve. There is the possible mitigation that he may have presumed that he could easily move on Cousin and possibly Darcheville while he wanted to get his new strikers in early. At the same time he may have thought Fulham would be easy to deal with over Davis and there could be deals that didn't go anywhere that we haven't been privy to. I think the despondency from the fans is that while we had a very promising season that was a whisker away from delivering the goods, we're now looking for a significant improvement in the squad to build on last year and do that bit better, with the priority of winning the league. Walter's signings have been good, but not exciting - and certainly not a significant improvement, while we feel we are weak in a few positions that haven't been filled. I think we can now see why we were biting Fulham's hand off when they offered 3M for Cousin but FIFA scuppered that one in a disgraceful fashion. We may be regretting selling Hutton now, but at the time it seemed a great piece of business for a previously inconsistent player who, even after his vast improvement, was valued at between 5 and 6M by Rangers fans - and Celtic fans were even scoffing at that valuation. So it's not surprising that 9M was not turned down. We overspent last year and I'd guess that we increased our debt to about �£25M to do so. That is pretty much at the limit of what we can service and more than 50% of the previous year's turnover. We did it as it was necessary for the future success of the club. We had to spend our way out of trouble. If we do retain �£20M this year including the Hutton money then it would seem prudent to earmark at least 10M to reduce our debt to a more manageable, but still high, �£15M. That leaves us with a very generous �£10M to spend on transfer and signing on fees, while the wages have to be juggled around to keep the costs the same as last year. Getting rid of a few players will help with that and we've already said goodbye to a few with Buffel's the most notable wage freed up. I'm sure we'd love to off-load Cousin, Darcheville and Gow as well. It's all a complicated balancing act.

I think it would be more like 5M left...

What 30M? If you want to see how much extra we have to spend you'll have to wait for the accounts and look for the retained profit. I'll bet it's nowhere near �£30M. If we spend �£10M on transfer fees that will be pretty high considering our current finances and is likely to increase our debt. The wages are another matter and all of them can only be paid out of our likely annual gross profit - ie revenue minus cost of sales. Then there a load of other expenses including servicing debts and of course tax. Balancing the books will be more complicated than just going out and spending a �£30M increase in revenue. I'd estimate our wage budget to be about 20-25M. If we pay Premiership type wages of say 50K per week, that would mean we could only have 10 players. To have about 30 players means we have to average about 15k. If you want to keep your team happy you need a wage structure so that you don't have a couple of guys on far higher wages than the rest, which puts plenty of noses out of joint. After the huge debt we got into, I thought Rangers fans in particular would be a bit more understanding.

Funny how Celtic fans think it's ok to try to wind up the fans by crossing yourself but pretending to play a flute is outrageous... The ironic thing is that you'd think Catholics would be INSULTED by someone using their religion to wind people up. While there's not many who could be genuinely offended by the pretend playing of a musical instrument.

"Kenny Miller worked three decent opportunities but missed them all" Is this not the story of his whole career? He really has to start scoring if he wants to win over any fans.

I don't think the clubs can increase prices for away fans without increasing them for the home fans. There are rules which prevent clubs charging a premium to away fans. They can only charge the same as the home fans for the same quality of seat. Which seems fair to me. Season tickets of course are not included in this. I'm not surprised that Falkirk turned it down, 5% seems extremely excessive. As to whether Rangers are providing a service for free, you first have to ask who are they providing the service for - the away club or Rangers fans? If it's the latter, then why should Falkirk pay for Rangers FC to provide a service to Rangers fans? Therefore if all clubs refuse the fee and Rangers want to distribute the tickets but recoup the 5%, Rangers fans could be charged 5% extra by Rangers for a booking fee for the tickets. Otherwise the smaller clubs might just start using someone like Ticket Master who will also charge a fee. In the end Rangers and Celtic will be providing a poorer service to their fans.

That's a good point, I can't remember a single position where he was consistently good. He was a bit like Ricksen in that the Dutchman was criticised at right back and his excuse was that he played better in midfield, then a year later, while being criticised for his lackluster performances in midfield, he asked us what we expected from a right back... However, Lovenkrands seems not only to be very restricted in his position, but as many of his admirers would even testify, he also needs the "right" players around him. As Walter prefers players with versatility, I can't see our manager being remotely interested. It seems to me that if Pete was truly as good a player as some remember, then he wouldn't be for sale right now. He had his chance to extend his stay two years ago, but turned Rangers down flat. Ironically he had his best chance of in PLG's system, but there little chance he'll fit in with Walter's team.

No-one is saying you have to be quiet but has it ever been shown in any circle that constant criticism works? I always thought that led to less motivation to change rather than more. Imagine a kid in a school team and when he's having a poor game, his father starts shouting and swearing at him, telling him he's shit and booing him. Is that really going to change his mediocrity? And then add to this the fact that this son was the best player in two cup competitions and second best in two others. Not only that, imagine his father makes things up to criticise him that aren't even true or twists things to look far worse than the young boy is. Imagine he even resorts to lies. Now do you really think this father "supports" his son? Is he being constructive? Or do you just cringe and think what a shit father this guy is? Well to me that's what's happening with some of the Rangers support. It's the same mentality which makes some people think that pessimism is being "realistic" when in truth most of the time reality comes nowhere near to that pessimistic view. It is NOT realistic to think that toast always falls butter side down. I think it will be far more supportive to Rangers for the fans to be more like supportive fathers. Giving encouragement, help and constructive criticism. To dwell more on the positive instead of making everything look negative. Then there's also abandoning the weird view that not quite winning the quadruple is a heinous failure. With that unrealistic view, how the hell can WS do his job at all? Not only that but Rangers are expected to play like Brazil every week. How people can call that "support" I'll never know.

Trouble is that most of it seems to sail over you head, and you jump in when you see a few words you recognise. I think it's obvious that Frankie was referring to the uplifting motivational side of Marvin, who made us "keep believing". We listened to him, kept believing and in the end we somehow won the league. Doesn't that make Marvin Rangers class? I would say being negative all the time about Rangers makes you not Rangers class. Maybe you need to open you eyes a bit more and look around some, take time to digest things, have a good think about it - and then call it. You only impress by shooting from the hip when you continually hit the target, nobody is impressed with a guy who shoots all over the place... Back on topic, belief is considered a very powerful thing in psychology. If you read pretty much any book about success, it will almost certainly tell you that if you fully believe you can succeed then you are creating a mindset that will allow you to do as well as you can towards that goal. If you believe you will fail, then you are creating a mindset that will allow you to do as well as you can towards that negative goal of failing. The thing is, when winning is about being the best 1 of 12 teams, not winning is much, much easier to achieve.

I'm not convinced by KM and do think his finishing is poor but I can still see he's a half decent player. He did well in a couple of big games for Scotland under Walter and maybe our manager can get the best out of him. I think the one thing his detractors need to do is to is to give him a chance and save judgments of him for his form in the present instead of the past, but I doubt that will happen. Some people will never accept him due to his Celtic connections and he doesn't have the exciting talent like Mo Johnson to win them over. He's a grafter rather than a flair player, and that type are no longer so popular at Ibrox.

Firstly, I think most people are willing to work for a reasonable wage that reflects their ability. Secondly, I'd be willing to bet money that Rangers offered Shittu a significant pay rise. Who is going to move clubs for a pay cut unless there are other motivating factors (like getting first team football)? So how many people do you know that were offered a job with a pay rise and then got completely knocked back because they tried to screw the company for more? Not many on here rate Shittu very highly yet, he is obviously asking for far more than Rangers are willing to pay, and from what I've seen over the years, Rangers are pretty generous paymasters. I just can't see why so many people are bashing our club for being sensible with our money and not giving in to overinflated demands. To me people are slagging off Rangers for doing something RIGHT.

Yeah right, Ranger officials fly down to London, spend a load of time in negotiations and staying in hotels, knowing they not going to sign someone. And obviously no-one at Rangers wants to win the league... I take it the schools are out for summer? -- comment removed - no dispariging generalisations of other forums please

Someone wants too much money, and you expect Rangers to roll over and agree? Some business head you've got. Let's just give any player and any club whatever they ask for... Hope you're better with your own money, but like most, you probably find it easier to spend someone else's money.

Trouble is Pete, Holland seems to be somewhere that we're no longer looking...

After Strasbourg and Gothenburg and others, I'll never advocate 3-5-2 again...

We weren't so good at the end, which hopefully is down to our hectic schedule rather than anything more intrinsic. However we did have some of our best games for years, including the two wins at Ibrox against Celtic, Barcelona, Bremen and Stutgart at home, Lyon and Sporting away, while turning over SPL teams with more regularity than IBS. Last season was a vast improvement, and to me it was the best since DA's second season. We didn't quite win the league but the mitigating circumstances were obvious. Maybe we used up our good luck under Eck...

I find it funny that some people aren't happy about us looking at a centre back - I really think we need to look for a long term partner for Carlos. Weir is obviously not going to start every game, but I think is now there for back up and to rub some of his experience off on the younger defenders. No idea how good Shittu is though. I also think we need a left back, a right winger and a creative midfielder. I agree with not paying over the odds for Davis and find it strange others want us to to just that, but would they do it with their own money? I wish people would cut out the bollocks about a 6M budget, it's like listening to a bunch of Tims. You're wrong and look stupid, and I want to tell you that now, as when it's proven so you'll all pretend you didn't say any such thing. If we have a 6M budget it means we're offering zero for Davis and Shittu and whoever else we're looking at. For the arithmetically challenged, in the long term money in has to equal money out. You cannot continually spend more money than you earn as there comes a day when you are forced to stop. Just ask Leeds and Gretna, or even Rangers fans a few years ago. You'd think our fans would have learned and they all seem to be castigating SDM when he did it last time, so why are they now castigating him for not overspending again even though he's agreed to a pretty generous budget for the last two seasons? Like I said, the unnecessary and unfounded negativity in this forum recently is making the place a less enjoyable one.

I think Fleck will definitely play a bit this season, albeit as a late substitute. He's hailed as the Scottish Rooney and so it would be criminal not to try to nurture him into the team. I think Walter knows it but he'll be wary of pushing him too hard too soon. I agree it's a shame that Furman isn't on the tour, he did look decent against DunU, although that should be tempered with the fact that he did look quite inexperienced with his positioning, and he wasn't the most composed either. He didn't look that close to being able to walk into the team and hold down a place. But just because he isn't on the tour doesn't mean that he won't be involved next season. He's probably on another tour with the under 19's. As for Lennon, I think his days are numbered. We've got plenty of strikers at the moment and when it's time to put a youngster in, Fleck is bound to get the nod. We should try him on loan for a season and if he's deemed not good enough after that, then just move him on. If we'd loaned MacCormack to Motherwell instead of letting him go, we might have had a decent transfer fee from Cardiff. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has opinions on other young players like Kinniburgh and Efrem etc.

I'd much rather have sex with the second most desirable woman around than the least desirable. To me it's definitely not the same even if it is for you. If your kids don't get the highest exam marks in the class to win the prize, but instead come second, do you call them failures? You don't get 200,000 bears going to a match in the fourth round of UEFA. As for the worst Rangers team, I don't get you unless you prefer style of substance. For me good teams win more than bad and the current one has won more than many a Rangers team and produced one of our top ten European campaigns. I enjoyed last season immensely compared to about the last five. For the first time in ages we looked like we were going to win because we were the better team rather than struggling and sometimes winning anyway. The worst teams I've seen are PLG's, a couple of Eck's, and John Greig's - Wallace's second spell was also dire. I would take this team over them any day. I'm lost to this new attitude where winning games just isn't good enough. It's quite baffling and very sad that some people actually think last season was a complete failure and you are saying you would prefer to slug it out for third place, twenty points behind Celtic than watch our current team...

Sorry but Man U won NOTHING with a team of teenagers. That's just shows you how history is twisted to make it more dramatic. Man U played a bunch of players in their early twenties coupled with the rest of a team full of very experienced players, some of the age that could be described as, "Dad's Army". They do play the odd teenager but it is "odd". We've played home grown youngsters such as MacGregor, Hutton, Smith, Burke and Adam in the same team before coupled with young players such as Whittaker, Thomson, Naismith and Boyd. I can't see how that is different from Man U bar that SAF finds young players of a much higher standard. MU NEVER won the league with kids no matter how much people want it to be true. The truth is that they won the league with four or five, younger players in the team. If it is such a successful model, why don't you see the whole Premiership with teams full of teenagers? Few teams succeed with very young teams. They sometimes show lots of potential and then lose it all with inconsistency and are frequently out-muscled and out-thought by more experienced teams. We've just had a team get to the UEFA cup final, so why do we need to go for LESS experience now? I agree with blooding Fleck and Furman, but unless they make a spectacular impact, regular football is still two or three years away for them.

So what you're saying is we should stop pissing about and start pissing away all our money?

I think there are a few silver linings here. a) Barry will have to stop playing and actually get himself properly fit instead of continuously carrying and injury and hopefully we'll see a better and more consistent Barry Ferguson when he returns. b) It will force Walter to sign a creative midfielder if he wasn't already going to do so. c) We can see whether Bazza enhances or lessens the team. As for playing a bunch of seventeen year olds in the team, what is that all about. I'm really glad we've got a proper manager who isn't that naive. PLG played one of the youngest teams of all time and they were one of the worst Rangers teams I've ever seen. In comes Walter and almost wins the quadruple and suddenly his players are too old? Walter plays many young players in their early twenties and will hopefully give Furman and Fleck more chances next season. But there are those who continually maligning our manager with what is obviously a load of guff when you take a cursory look at the facts. Playing a team of teenagers last thing we need to do to bring us the success we crave, no matter how much it works in your fantasies. What's with this spate of unnecessary negativity on the board that has built up recently, where people are making up a load of nonsense to whinge about?