the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Nope, but e.g. Cribari or Kyle. We need squad folk to see us through the 3rd, not essentially people we can sell on for profit. If we can get both, fair enough. Both McCoist and Green are shrewd enough to know that. But in the end we are where we are and we can count ourselves lucky to have attracted Shiels, Black, Sandaza and co.. I assume you know that?! I wouldn't have signed those two either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk 158 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 all of them if your prepared to give youth a chance. it would take much longer to move up the leagues if we relied solely on our youth players and most of our fans would not like this they still want to see better experienced players than our youths, such as Black, Shiels, Sandaza etc. And then what's to say any of these youth players will turn out to be good enough for the SPL or Rangers in the SPL/Europe? A good mix is what is needed and hopefully this happens and it will not stop any youth players who are good enough to get in our first team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 We will be used by Ashley/Newcastle, and not in the long run for the benefit of Rangers. Ashley will have 10% of Rangers, compared with being in overall control of Newcastle. It is obvious which Club will get the better deal. Hopefully this is just a rumour from the BBC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 It will all depend on the quality of the loan players, if we can get a few good ones every season i see no problem with this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 We will be used by Ashley/Newcastle, and not in the long run for the benefit of Rangers. Ashley will have 10% of Rangers, compared with being in overall control of Newcastle. It is obvious which Club will get the better deal. Hopefully this is just a rumour from the BBC. Have to disagree. Clearly it's not all going to be for the benefit of Rangers and over the course, Newcastle may well benefit more financially than us from the tie-in. Afterall transfer fees are always going to be inflated in better leagues than Scotland. Even taking the example that I suggested previously where our u18's could be taken on loan by Newcastle, you might find one or two of those players are of a standard that Newcastle want to keep them. In that case we'd probably get a fee which by our normal standards would be reasonable, but it's obvious that the player's value on breaking into the Newcastle first team would be significantly higher. However, there are likely to be plenty instances where we get senior players on loan who are not in their plans for reasons other than playing ability. We might even get to hold on to some of them for reduced / no fees. It'll be a balancing act, but as long as it's mutually beneficial for both clubs then it can work. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I wouldn't have signed those two either. its dead easy to say who you wouldnt have sign ed , so pray tell who would you have went for , this is an easy game when using hindsight 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) its dead easy to say who you wouldnt have sign ed , so pray tell who would you have went for , this is an easy game when using hindsight I just wouldn't have signed a player over 26 or 27. indeed I'd have gone for 22 ish and under. I don't have lists of who's available like super does but specifics aren't important the overall tactic is. Edited August 12, 2012 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bluenose80 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I just wouldn't have signed a player over 26 or 27. indeed I'd have gone for 22 ish and under. I don't have lusts of who's available like super does but specifics aren't important the overall tactic is. There does appear to have been something of a scattergun approach taken to offering contracts i.e. your available here's a contract 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeeBlueDevil 0 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 There does appear to have been something of a scattergun approach taken to offering contracts i.e. your available here's a contract I don't think Beattie would see it that way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 shields and black are good signings Sandaza probably is as well. I just can't see what older players earning thousands a week bring to the third and second that we need so much it makes the waste of money worthwhile. 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.