Jim White 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Former Rangers manager Dick Advocaat has shrugged off accusations that he is to blame for the club's financial woes. More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I don't think Advocaat is blameless. £12M for Flo suggests he overspent. We spent about £72M under him - while SDM had to sanction the signings, Advocaat took advantage of the chairman's ambition and imho acted irresponsibly with a blank cheque book. Did this guy really believe a backwater league like Scotland could support spending on that scale? No matter what your chairman says, there is no way Advocaat could have truly believed spending this kind of money wouldn't ever have repercussions. He also wasted a lot of that money - he beat 2 shit Celtic managers, Barnes then Venglos, and crapped out against MON completely. He also failed to do with a much better squad what Eck managed with an abysmal one - last 16 of the CL. No, I am not saying Dick is the cause of our current financial plight, but I don't think he is a total innocent - he's one of the many contributing factors. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I don't think Advocaat is blameless. £12M for Flo suggests he overspent. We spent about £72M under him - while SDM had to sanction the signings, Advocaat took advantage of the chairman's ambition and imho acted irresponsibly with a blank cheque book. Did this guy really believe a backwater league like Scotland could support spending on that scale? No matter what your chairman says, there is no way Advocaat could have truly believed spending this kind of money wouldn't ever have repercussions. No, I am not saying Dick is the cause of our current financial plight, but I don't think he is a total innocent - he's one of the many contributing factors. It's not Advocaat's job to know the finances of the club or to consider them. He is given his budget and he has to work within that. Are you saying that a manager should overrule a chairman when it comes to how much money he should spend? My information is that the amount of money spent on Flo was nothing to do with Advocaat and it was more of a Murray ego trip (although I'll leave you to decide how credible that is. I'm not 100% sure as to its accuracy). Anyway the level of debt when Advocaat stood down as manager was cleared by the subsequent share issue, so how can he possibly be a contributing factor to the current financial problems? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's not Advocaat's job to know the finances of the club or to consider them. He is given his budget and he has to work within that. Are you saying that a manager should overrule a chairman when it comes to how much money he should spend? I'm not exactly sure he worked within his budget, that's what I'm saying. My information is that the amount of money spent on Flo was nothing to do with Advocaat and it was more of a Murray ego trip (although I'll leave you to decide how credible that is. I'm not 100% sure as to its accuracy). Anyway the level of debt when Advocaat stood down as manager was cleared by the subsequent share issue, so how can he possibly be a contributing factor to the current financial problems? So where does the current 18M debt arise from? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I'm not exactly sure he worked within his budget, that's what I'm saying. I'd argue that he didn't have the ability to overspend. However I think I understand the point that you are making and I guess we will never know. The bottom line is that Murray had to OK all the spending. So where does the current 18M debt arise from? In 2006 (4 years after Advocaat left) our net debt was under £6m. 3 years later it had risen to £31m. Edited March 9, 2012 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd argue that he didn't have the ability to overspend. However I think I understand the point that you are making and I guess we will never know. The bottom line is that Murray had to OK all the spending. I agree, I am absolutely not absolving SDM of anything - but if your bleeding edge manager says 'I want these top stars whatever the cost' then without going as far as to say he's holding you to ransom, he certainly holds all the aces and the chairman would want to satisfy his demands or risk losing him. In 2006 (4 years after Advocaat left) our net debt was under £6m. 3 years later it had risen to £31m. That actually suggests it was the second period under Walter that caused the debt. That signings like Thomson, Naismith, Cuellar et al is how we ended up with this mountainous debt. Because Eck sure had no budget bar the money he received for Boumsong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Eck's budget was being able to sell players left over from the Advocaat era Danny and he did exactly that. Not exactly a small budget when you look at it that way.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A quick recap shows Eck brought in about £30m from selling players and spent about £17m, but he brought in a LOT of free players which probably involved very significant signing fees. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 A quick recap shows Eck brought in about £30m from selling players and spent about £17m, but he brought in a LOT of free players which probably involved very significant signing fees. He brought in a lot of terrible players!! I don't think you can castigate a manager for spending money, the buck stops with the chairman. He's the one who can say no to the manager. Wee Dick couldn't sign anyone or spend a penny without the go-ahead from above. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 He brought in a lot of terrible players!! I don't think you can castigate a manager for spending money, the buck stops with the chairman. He's the one who can say no to the manager. Wee Dick couldn't sign anyone or spend a penny without the go-ahead from above. I agree with you and Bluedell on that aspect juffery, but personally I also think that Advocaat should have been a LOT more prudent in the transfer market and how he managed the playing squad. In the 2000/01 season which was his last FULL season, Advocaat spent £31m (presumably plus fees) and only brought in about £4m (mostly from the sale of Johansson for £3.5m). As well as the big spending during his time at Ibrox, he also released a lot of players and allowed a lot of players to leave who had transfer values, so it just wasn't prudent squad management, it was carefree cheque book management, so I blame both Advocaat AND Murray. 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.