This new regime

[Darthter 542]

According to Transfermarkt.co.uk (here)

 

Season 2008/2009:

Total Spent: £20m

Total Sold: £11.7m

Difference: £-9m

 

Season 2009/2010:

Total Spent: £0.44m

Total Sold: £3.3m

Difference: £2.87m

 

Season 2010/2011:

Total Spent: £6.4m

Total Sold: £4.8m

Difference: £-1.6m

 

Season 2011/2012:

Total Spent: £3m

Total Sold: £1.7m

Difference: £-1.3

 

Note: the total spend for 2011/12 doesn't include a figure for Matt McKay.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Darthter

[calscot 0]

Sorry to cherry-pick calscot, but what if those bankers everyone was so worked up about actually saved the club from administration before the name Whyte had even been heard?

 

Maybe the bank saved us but from where I was watching it didn't seem so. As Darthter said a lot of the extreme squeeze seemed to be to the detriment of the club and if it wasn't for the genius of Walter guiding us through and still winning trophies and bringing in European money, it could have spelled disaster for the club.

 

The indiscriminate way they messed with the squad could have seen us nosediving in the league and losing far more season ticket holders. I think the bank took us to the brink in terms of competitiveness and we were exceptionally lucky to hang in there.

 

The finances needed sorting but as we're seeing elsewhere how hard you squeeze things is a contentious subject. I personally think the bank was being far too austere to our great detriment - and that only came about due to the change in management with Lloyds taking over from BoS.

 

We don't know how much better we could have been in Europe had our squad not been treated so shoddily and so could have had a lot more income. Even if that didn't happen they could have been firm but fair and we might have been say 21M in debt instead of 18M. Hardly a doomsday scenario.

 

I think people are really forgetting that the bank totally reneged on the terms of our loan and forced us to pay more back earlier at a time when we were already suffering financially. We were meeting the payments every year without fail and so what was the bank's problem? The overdraft is a different story but the only real problem there is that we'd lost our copper bottomed guarantor.

 

The way I see it, in a time when the bank was writing off debts left right and centre, they went for our jugular to make sure they got every penny as quickly as possible.

[calscot 0]

What are the new directors paying themselves? How do you know that they are paying themselves less than the old ones?

 

I've no idea so can't really comment - but their wages don't seem to be affecting how much we have to spend on players and renewing contracts. The point of the old ones is that the likes of Bain was increasing his salary by about 50% at a time of very poor performance by him (IMO) and at a time when we were making swinging cuts. I always find that kind of stuff disgusting.

 

Celtic minded? You've been reading too much Leggatt.

 

Perhaps but it certainly seemed that way. A lot of what they did made no sense in terms of keeping the club competitive - which also sustains income streams. I don't think it even made the slightest bit of business sense and they have come under a hell of a lot of criticism from many people more business savy than me.

 

It was the equivalent to Levein's 6-4-0 formation - you didn't need to be an expert to see it wasn't working in a stupidly obvious way.

[Bluedell 5,376]

I've no idea so can't really comment - but their wages don't seem to be affecting how much we have to spend on players and renewing contracts. The point of the old ones is that the likes of Bain was increasing his salary by about 50% at a time of very poor performance by him (IMO) and at a time when we were making swinging cuts. I always find that kind of stuff disgusting.

 

We don't appear to have spent much more on net transfers than we did in the previous summer (despite the assurances of the chairman). While Bain was deinitely overpaid, bringing his salary down to the level that is more realistic for his role would not have made than much difference in the transfer market (although every bit helps).

 

It'll be interesting to see what the new directors are paid and whether Whyte takes a salary, something Murray never did (directly).

 

Perhaps but it certainly seemed that way. A lot of what they did made no sense in terms of keeping the club competitive - which also sustains income streams. I don't think it even made the slightest bit of business sense and they have come under a hell of a lot of criticism from many people more business savy than me.

 

It was the equivalent to Levein's 6-4-0 formation - you didn't need to be an expert to see it wasn't working in a stupidly obvious way.

 

There was business sense behind it. They were taking a no risk approach. I can understand the logic behind it, even if I disagree with it, and think that there was a far better way of doing things, but I fail to buy into the idea that it was due to the football allegiences of some retired bank official with an catholic sounding name. Banks are just like that these days. I can give some examples of nonsencial decisions by banks were there was no risk to them. They just have a very weird way of looking at things.

[calscot 0]

We don't appear to have spent much more on net transfers than we did in the previous summer (despite the assurances of the chairman).

 

I think this is a bit unfair as two things weren't taken into account in previous years - the tax case and no European football. The time we went out to Kaunas we spent loads but probably shouldn't have - that White didn't do this and kept the head is not to me, a stick to beat him with. With CL football and the tax case dropped, I'm sure we'd have spent a lot more than the previous few seasons. The previous regime were stubbornly ignoring the elephant in the room - the one they were complicit in bringing it in.

 

While Bain was deinitely overpaid, bringing his salary down to the level that is more realistic for his role would not have made than much difference in the transfer market (although every bit helps).

 

I'm sure we could have saved 400k a year on Bain's salary which could have been a player of the standard of Naismith or a couple of Papac's. It doesn't change the fact that the pay rises were inappropriate and could have otherwise have kept quite a few average earners in a job at Ibrox and able to pay their mortgages.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the new directors are paid and whether Whyte takes a salary, something Murray never did (directly).

 

I'd be interested in that too. A while back I made the point that an investor could make quite a lot of his money back by paying himself and a couple of cronies a director's salary. SDM may not have taken a salary but sometime you have to wonder what money he actually bled from the club which was overly generous to himself.

 

If the we lose the tax case then all bets are off for SDM and he will have been a net negative force for the club. There's no point saving the club a wage when you create a £50M tax hole.

 

There was business sense behind it. They were taking a no risk approach. I can understand the logic behind it, even if I disagree with it, and think that there was a far better way of doing things,

 

There may have been business sense behind it but not "good" business sense. Acting purely selfishly is not good business unless there is a clear and present threat of never getting what you owed. It's also clear that a lot of the reasoning behind it came from the financial situation that Lloyds put themselves in which in turn came from the incredibly poor business practices of the BoS which they took over.

 

You can't just rub out the fact that while Rangers were run badly, the bank situation would not have been there had the banks not been run in an even worse way. You could also point out that Rangers would have been fine if they were offered the same kind of government bail out as the banks.

 

but I fail to buy into the idea that it was due to the football allegiences of some retired bank official with an catholic sounding name. Banks are just like that these days. I can give some examples of nonsencial decisions by banks were there was no risk to them. They just have a very weird way of looking at things.

 

Fair enough and deep down I agree with that. But sometimes it's fun to be a bit glib about such things. One thing is for sure, they may not have been deliberately working in Celtic's interest but it is a clear fact they were inadvertently doing so.

[Bluedell 5,376]

I think this is a bit unfair as two things weren't taken into account in previous years - the tax case and no European football.

 

I would agree that it is unfair if it had not been for Whyte's assurances about the £5m we would be spending. We didn't ask him to say it and he didn't know if we had won the league and even had a chance of the CL when he said it and he also knew all about the tax case. He can point to the small print all he wants but it's a very Murrayesque way of dealing with the support

 

 

I'm sure we could have saved 400k a year on Bain's salary which could have been a player of the standard of Naismith or a couple of Papac's. It doesn't change the fact that the pay rises were inappropriate and could have otherwise have kept quite a few average earners in a job at Ibrox and able to pay their mortgages.

 

Agree on the first part. However if the "average earners" weren't required then we shouldn't be employing them.

 

 

I'd be interested in that too. A while back I made the point that an investor could make quite a lot of his money back by paying himself and a couple of cronies a director's salary. SDM may not have taken a salary but sometime you have to wonder what money he actually bled from the club which was overly generous to himself.

 

If the we lose the tax case then all bets are off for SDM and he will have been a net negative force for the club. There's no point saving the club a wage when you create a £50M tax hole.

 

I haven't seen much over the years that have suggested that Rangers were screwed by MIH, but there's lots of ways that it could be done to keep it under the radar. I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

Yeah, the tax case could be Murray's ultimate legacy to the club.

 

 

 

There may have been business sense behind it but not "good" business sense. Acting purely selfishly is not good business unless there is a clear and present threat of never getting what you owed. It's also clear that a lot of the reasoning behind it came from the financial situation that Lloyds put themselves in which in turn came from the incredibly poor business practices of the BoS which they took over.

 

You can't just rub out the fact that while Rangers were run badly, the bank situation would not have been there had the banks not been run in an even worse way.

 

I don't totally agree with this. A vast majority of the blame for the initial situation has to go with the club and not the bank. The bank had their money well secured. I would more blame the bank for lending short term to MIH.

 

You could also point out that Rangers would have been fine if they were offered the same kind of government bail out as the banks.

 

It's hardly the same situation.