It Always Ends Up With Murray

[calscot 0]

I think the type of player we signed under Holmes demonstrated by Craig shows that later signings under Murray were not a novelty. If my memory serves me correctly, Holmes also balanced the books.

[maineflyer 0]

I think the type of player we signed under Holmes demonstrated by Craig shows that later signings under Murray were not a novelty. If my memory serves me correctly, Holmes also balanced the books.

That's absolutely the point. the notion has emerged, based largely on Murray's own protestations, that the sucesses of the 1990's were only possible because of the debts racked up and that without Murray's largess none of those successes would have been possible. Rangers were already a successful, well-run company and team before David Murray showed up on our doorstep. The way in which Murray has drawn all credit to himself is nothing but typical of the man and fans are doing a huge disservice to a great man in David Holmes by buying into this myth. That's not to say everything Murray did was dreadful but his legacy is definitely one of leaving the club in a far worse condition than when he took over - and that is the measure of any leader.

[rbr 1,247]

Anyone who thinks less of David Holmes only need look back at the way he publically brought Souness and the players to heel after the Hibs debacle , and everyone respected him for it , he took no prisoners , staff or press , but alas those days are well in the past

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think mucking up the original Sky deal had a greater influence than the Kaunas game slipping from a deal of 48mill to 8mill that Scottish football got from the BBC was a crushing blow imo.

 

I think I am right in saying it cost us around a million a year, Kaunas cost us �£10 million.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

With respect, you can have absolutley no idea what players we might have seen at Ibrox if David Murray hadn't bought Rangers. You can comment on what happened during his tenure but you cannot claim the good times would have been any worse without him. Rather than focussing on a few good players, wouldn't it be more relevant in terms of his success or failure to compare his entrance with his exit. In my opinion (and that's all it can be) he came in on a steep upslope and is going out with the club on its arse. That is the Murray legacy, that's the sum of his achievement and mentioning the odd good time or good player is by comparison meaningless.

 

 

I knew my comments would get you going!

 

I totally accept that it is impossible to know what players may or may not have been here if Murray had not been (here) and equally that your measure of judgement is valid, all I am saying is that I was able to watch some outstanding players during his tenure (RdBoer having the best out and out football brain I have ever seen) and that overall I think Murray has been a good thing for Rangers.

 

That said I also agree his time is well past due and he acknowledged that three years ago.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

No, being pedantic is saying let's just forget about how wasteful Advocat was with quality players and how much debt the club went into allowing him to be wasteful. The buck undoubtedly stops with SDM, but who's fault was it for letting quality players go for less than they were worth and bringing in other quality players at prices we couldn't afford? We can blame Murray till we're blue in the face, but it doesn't excuse the managers who've made mistakes, including Walter Smith. Murray's biggest mistakes with the Rangers management have been allowing Advocat to do what he did, allowing PLG to bring in as many French staff and allowing Walter/Bain to spend on players when we went out of Europe in 2008.

 

Excellent points about the major managerial mistakes, if I may say.

[ascender 352]

So, are some of AJ's comments today designed to try and force Murray's hand a bit in terms of making a decision quickly and also what the potential consequences are of him not coming to an agreement with Whyte?

[ascender 352]

Also, this 2.8M for the other tax issue going back to Advocaat's reign, is this the first its been mentioned? Why now? Does make you wonder just what else is lurking in Murray's closet...

 

With Muir leaving MIH, is he away from the Gers as well?

 

Lots of wee interesting bits and pieces from the last couple of days or so.

[rbr 1,247]

Muir leaving MIH was just a cover , he WAS placed on the Rangers board by Lloyds , AJ made that point well known to journo's today , it was also Muir who held the financials back

[BrahimHemdani 1]

For all those players mentioned.... you could likewise say that were it not for the vision of David Holmes and the Marlborough family we would never have seen the likes of Butcher, Woods, Gough, Francis, Roberts, Walters, Wilkins or even Souness himself.

 

Yes, you mention some wonderful players but, IMO, the names I list above can stand with their heads held high when compared to the list you provided.

 

Both sets of players are wonderful players to have in your team and David Holmes, along with Souness, made those signings happen. World class players most of them and SDM was nowhere in sight.

 

As MF says, we have no idea what type of player we would have had were SDM not to have owned the club. One thing we DO know about SDM's tenure is that Rangers has probably never been so volatile over such a short period of time - SDM's tenure has been boom and bust at its best (and then at its worst... and then best...and then worst - you get the picture).

 

Stability is what we have needed and SDM has provided very little of that throughout his ownership.

 

Some may say the club is not on its arse - but I would suggest that even if you have that belief I cant for a minute imagine that we ALL have a level of concern at the future of our club. And if you have a concern about its future then it might not be, technically on its arse, but it more than probably has fallen to its knees.

 

I agree that the position of the Club, not just financially, is not where any of us would want to be.

 

Yes, it has been a roller coaster.

 

I also agree with the list of players you mentioned of the Holmes/Souness era. The sole reason that I did not mention them was that I thought I would be criticised on the grounds that some part of the reason that the English contingent were here was that English Clubs were out of Europe at the time, so it was not just financial in terms of fees or wages.