Getting rid of the deadwood

[pete 2,499]

Yet he pretty much wiped the carpet with ALL of them, Celtic included. So he had the 2nd most money to spend but still continued to win the title each year in a two horse race aside from one with extenuating circumstances. By your logic he should have finished 2nd each year... but he didnt. Kind of blows that theory apart.

 

I suspect Celtic had more mney to spend than Walter over that time frame.

 

As for McCoist spending more money than Lennon at the start of the season... what kind of argument is that ? Lennon started this season with what seemed like 50 players whilst McCoist started with 18. Stands to reason he NEEDED to spend more money than Lennon. I really dont understand your argument there.

 

2nd biggest budget in Scotland as you point out..... yet sitting TOP of the league.... by 4 points... reasonably successful at this stage, wouldnt you agree ?

 

I think you may find that Rangers have actually spent more than Celtic over the last few years as the Celtic board refused to spend. Sitting top of the league at this moment is not really a guarantee that we will win the league. I know your Logic had the league wound up in October but I am afraid my logic does obviously work differently from yours.

I think 20 plus years of either Rangers or Celtic winning the league justifies my logic in that the team with the biggest budget will win the league. Obviously there are circumstances that sometimes change normal practices but I think you will find in every country in the world the teams with the biggest budgets are the most successful.

[metlika 0]

If I was manager I would happily get rid of a lot of players but you can't do it in January. I would shift max 3 players and probably try to take on 2 or 3 max. The summer is best to get everything done.

 

I would shift. Healy, Kerkar and one of three from Ortiz, McCulloch or Broadfoot. Harsh on the last 2 but yeah don't think they have much to offer McCulloch legs are gone and Broadfoot is probably not my type of player to have in a team.

[craig 5,199]

I think you may find that Rangers have actually spent more than Celtic over the last few years as the Celtic board refused to spend. Sitting top of the league at this moment is not really a guarantee that we will win the league. I know your Logic had the league wound up in October but I am afraid my logic does obviously work differently from yours.

I think 20 plus years of either Rangers or Celtic winning the league justifies my logic in that the team with the biggest budget will win the league. Obviously there are circumstances that sometimes change normal practices but I think you will find in every country in the world the teams with the biggest budgets are the most successful.

 

Did the Celtic board really refuse to spend ? Serious question because it seems to me that their squad has been ever increasing whilst ours has been decreasing in size. Admittedly they had the likes of Ledley signing up on pre-contracts but did they not also spend a bunch of money on Hooper Wanyama, Murphy et al ? Serious question because I dont think it is clear cut in either direction.

 

Agreed, sitting top of the league is no guarantee we will win it, yet it seems to be enough for you to suggest McCoist is a failure. OK, maybe not a failure, but you are "not impressed up until now" - so sitting top of the league, 4 points clear isnt good enough ? Fair enough, and I can see why - we should be further clear but not one team will go through a season without a poor spell.

 

MY logic didnt have the league wound up by October. MY logic is that we have hit a poor patch but are still clear of the chasing pack. And MY logic is that Celtic are still behind us, despite our poor run. Doesnt mean it will last, but doesnt mean it wont. Would still rather be where we are then where they are. Tell me where I said we would win the league because we sit top in October, or November ? I didnt. I am merely pointing out fact - we sit top of the league whilst playing SHITE. That isnt too bad if you ask me (aside from the palying shite part).

 

How does your logic stand up though ? If Celtic spent 20 million in one year and nothing for 4 more years... but Rangers spent nothing and then 1 mill for each of the next 4 years should we win 4 out of 5 leagues ? Or should Celtic win given they front loaded their spend with far more money ? Serious question again pete, how do you determine ? Year by year or over a period of time ?

 

Walter Smith's squad was far smaller than Celtic's in each of the 3 years he won the league. I think the spend would probably have been smaller too (but cant be sure) - so just how much credit does Walter deserve given all of this ? And yet most of us had the same bitching about his selections as we see now.

 

The reality is we are not professional coaches - we see form players and think they should play regardless of opponents formation and tactics (and yes, I understand that we shouldnt worry about opponents) but the professionals see things differently from us - and if they are successful, who are we to argue ?

[metlika 0]

Walter's net spending in the transfer market in his 4 and a half seasons was relatively small though pete. If he'd got good money for Ferguson, Adam, Miller, Boyd and others who were released and sold his net spending would actually have been practically nothing.

 

Its more than you think.

[pete 2,499]

If I was manager I would happily get rid of a lot of players but you can't do it in January. I would shift max 3 players and probably try to take on 2 or 3 max. The summer is best to get everything done.

 

I would shift. Healy, Kerkar and one of three from Ortiz, McCulloch or Broadfoot. Harsh on the last 2 but yeah don't think they have much to offer McCulloch legs are gone and Broadfoot is probably not my type of player to have in a team.

 

I only find it harsh on Kerkar and possibly Ortiz for the rest I agree with you.

[metlika 0]

Did the Celtic board really refuse to spend ? Serious question because it seems to me that their squad has been ever increasing whilst ours has been decreasing in size. Admittedly they had the likes of Ledley signing up on pre-contracts but did they not also spend a bunch of money on Hooper Wanyama, Murphy et al ? Serious question because I dont think it is clear cut in either direction.

 

They have spent but they haven't spent £4m on a player since Broon iirc. They are ever increasing their squad but their wage budget is probably £100k-£150k a week larger than ours. They also have the sale of McFanny which saves them.

 

Agreed, sitting top of the league is no guarantee we will win it, yet it seems to be enough for you to suggest McCoist is a failure. OK, maybe not a failure, but you are "not impressed up until now" - so sitting top of the league, 4 points clear isnt good enough ? Fair enough, and I can see why - we should be further clear but not one team will go through a season without a poor spell.

 

For me the football post November international break has been very poor from us. Also European results still irk me our opponents got a grand total of 2 points in the Europa league from 36 points.

 

I would have gone through the rest of your post but too lazy

[metlika 0]

I only find it harsh on Kerkar and possibly Ortiz for the rest I agree with you.

 

Kerkar has played very little in a year and half and the amount of negotiating we had to get him and end up not playing just seems odd. It does seem like a buddy for Bougherra.

 

Ortiz hasn't really been up to much but is still adapting but he hasn't been thrown on in some game to mix things up or give him game time.

[craig 5,199]

They have spent but they haven't spent £4m on a player since Broon iirc. They are ever increasing their squad but their wage budget is probably £100k-£150k a week larger than ours. They also have the sale of McFanny which saves them.

 

That doesnt tell the whole story though. If their team is filled with 10 players bought at 2 mill whilst we have one player at 4 mill and the rest being freebie squad fillers... who would you think would be the strongest team ?? Anyone that says us has flawed logic I would suggest.

 

Not sure whether you are arguing with, or against, me on the rest of your post above

 

 

 

For me the football post November international break has been very poor from us. Also European results still irk me our opponents got a grand total of 2 points in the Europa league from 36 points.

 

Any Gers fans that disagrees with you is watching a different game to most of us. We have been DIRE since he international break and, even before, werent playing great.

 

I would have gone through the rest of your post but too lazy

 

Aye, me too - I cant be bothered reading what I posted either

[pete 2,499]

Did the Celtic board really refuse to spend ? Serious question because it seems to me that their squad has been ever increasing whilst ours has been decreasing in size. Admittedly they had the likes of Ledley signing up on pre-contracts but did they not also spend a bunch of money on Hooper Wanyama, Murphy et al ? Serious question because I dont think it is clear cut in either direction.

 

Agreed, sitting top of the league is no guarantee we will win it, yet it seems to be enough for you to suggest McCoist is a failure. OK, maybe not a failure, but you are "not impressed up until now" - so sitting top of the league, 4 points clear isnt good enough ? Fair enough, and I can see why - we should be further clear but not one team will go through a season without a poor spell.

 

MY logic didnt have the league wound up by October. MY logic is that we have hit a poor patch but are still clear of the chasing pack. And MY logic is that Celtic are still behind us, despite our poor run. Doesnt mean it will last, but doesnt mean it wont. Would still rather be where we are then where they are. Tell me where I said we would win the league because we sit top in October, or November ? I didnt. I am merely pointing out fact - we sit top of the league whilst playing SHITE. That isnt too bad if you ask me (aside from the palying shite part).

 

 

 

How does your logic stand up though ? If Celtic spent 20 million in one year and nothing for 4 more years... but Rangers spent nothing and then 1 mill for each of the next 4 years should we win 4 out of 5 leagues ? Or should Celtic win given they front loaded their spend with far more money ? Serious question again pete, how do you determine ? Year by year or over a period of time ?

 

Walter Smith's squad was far smaller than Celtic's in each of the 3 years he won the league. I think the spend would probably have been smaller too (but cant be sure) - so just how much credit does Walter deserve given all of this ? And yet most of us had the same bitching about his selections as we see now.

 

The reality is we are not professional coaches - we see form players and think they should play regardless of opponents formation and tactics (and yes, I understand that we shouldnt worry about opponents) but the professionals see things differently from us - and if they are successful, who are we to argue ?

 

I don't know if I can remember Celtic spending anything like 20 mill but as I can see with Rangers this season we have brought in a number of players who simply don't get a game. Celtic have done the same over the last few years obviously buying a player needs a lot of vision and probably a certain amount of luck. I think your 1mill per year that Rangers has spent is way off target and that it is in fact far more.

 

I can't be bothered dredging through old posts but you said at the time something like Celtic were crap and Rangers were playing much better and you could not see that changing any time soon.

[craig 5,199]

I don't know if I can remember Celtic spending anything like 20 mill but as I can see with Rangers this season we have brought in a number of players who simply don't get a game. Celtic have done the same over the last few years obviously buying a player needs a lot of vision and probably a certain amount of luck. I think your 1mill per year that Rangers has spent is way off target and that it is in fact far more.

 

I can't be bothered dredging through old posts but you said at the time something like Celtic were crap and Rangers were playing much better and you could not see that changing any time soon.

 

My one mill a year was for an example pete, not expected to be as some kind of accurate statement

 

I did say that ? How long ago ? Also doesnt mean that I said the league was done. Does it ?