Stimpy 0 Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Either of the 2 options.. With the transfer window closing soon and the net spend being below (Transfers only) �£2m is this a sign that all is not well at Rangers? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Either of the 2 options.. Or more probably neither. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 With the transfer window closing soon and the net spend being below (Transfers only) �£2m is this a sign that all is not well at Rangers? The commitment for this year is "to provide �£5,000,000 for investment in the playing squad". This may well have been provided. There is no commitment that the sum will actually be spent. In addition, there is nothing to say that the �£5m would be net. They may argue that any income received has to go towards costs and not netted off against transfer funds. They may argue that any signing on fees for Davis, McGregor and Whittakers' new contracts was part of the �£5m. It's Murrayesque in its phrasing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 The commitment for this year is "to provide �£5,000,000 for investment in the playing squad". This may well have been provided. There is no commitment that the sum will actually be spent. In addition, there is nothing to say that the �£5m would be net. They may argue that any income received has to go towards costs and not netted off against transfer funds. They may argue that any signing on fees for Davis, McGregor and Whittakers' new contracts was part of the �£5m. It's Murrayesque in its phrasing. Cheers BD. All those failed bids were surely a smokescreen. From �£2m+ bids to penny pinching. I can also assume that the income from the CL which will not be used on the playing front will help offset next years "possible" losses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I always took the 5mill to mean fees and wages so the new contracts for shagger Davis and bambi would eat into it a fair bit. That said he also stated some of the money could be front ended if needed on this one I think he has let the club down. Could also mean he knows more about the tax case and keeping money on hold to pay the bill. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djbroxybear 0 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The commitment for this year is "to provide �£5,000,000 for investment in the playing squad". This may well have been provided. There is no commitment that the sum will actually be spent. In addition, there is nothing to say that the �£5m would be net. They may argue that any income received has to go towards costs and not netted off against transfer funds. They may argue that any signing on fees for Davis, McGregor and Whittakers' new contracts was part of the �£5m. It's Murrayesque in its phrasing. I was of the understanding that the season ticket money covers the wage bill, we spent 6m last summer under Lloyds and Whyte was funding Ally 5m to buy players so far we have spent just over 1m. Whyte has done up Ibrox with Catering Contractors Fee so far has he put his hand in his pocket. Could the old board have been right about Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I was of the understanding that the season ticket money covers the wage bill No, it doesn't. If we look at 2008/9 when we got put out by Kaunus we made a loss of �£8.5m before taking account of any player sales, writing off player purchases or interest. I don't think a great deal has changed since then so we would probably be looking at a similar loss this season. The on-going day-to-day funding of the club has not been clearly explained but if we assume that the bank will not extend us any further credit then Whyte may have to end up funding it (or getting the finance from somewhere else). Getting knocked out of Europe so early must be Whyte's worst nightmare but it was always a risk when buying us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I always took the 5mill to mean fees and wages so the new contracts for shagger Davis and bambi would eat into it a fair bit. That said he also stated some of the money could be front ended if needed on this one I think he has let the club down. Could also mean he knows more about the tax case and keeping money on hold to pay the bill. He used the term "investment" which suggests that it does not apply to wages. As for the tax case, it depends on what sums they are looking at. If it's �£20m+ then he's not keeping the cash for that as it's not getting paid. Administration and a pre-pack looms and the tax man would possibly get very little. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I was of the understanding that the season ticket money covers the wage bill, we spent 6m last summer under Lloyds and Whyte was funding Ally 5m to buy players so far we have spent just over 1m. Whyte has done up Ibrox with Catering Contractors Fee so far has he put his hand in his pocket. Could the old board have been right about Whyte. Regardless of how much has actually been spent, or whether Whyte has put his hand in his pocket.....things ARE happening!!! The previous administration had neglected Ibrox...that is either being sorted, or has been sorted. How it is being funded is irrelevant....its getting done The playing squad needed bulked up....6 (i think) new players brought in in THIS transfer window - when was the last time that happened??? Several KEY key players have been re-signed on LONG-TERM contracts.... How much of the above would have happened if Whyte hadn't taken over the club??? Miller was allowed to go coz the previous administration couldn't put a decent contract on the table.....Papac & Weir would have been off, and probably McGregor/Davis. Possibly a number of the younger ones as well. Whyte may not have splashed out on several 2/3mill players, but he is building a stable platform for the Club to build on & hopefully increasing revenue streams to generate more income, which can then be put towards transfer budgets in the future - which should hopefully make the club more self funding!!! Yet, regardless of the above....folk still criticise him!!! Being realistic, I think Whyte would have been reckless/irresponsible if he was basing the spending on making the CL/EL etc. I think he would view that as a bonus, possibly for the next transfer window. It makes poor business sense to spend money that you don't have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Have to agree things are getting done and will take years after the mess the last guy left would love to see two more really good signings before the deadline, would shut all the Rangers haters up and show us that Whyte will put his money where his mouth is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.