Jump to content

 

 

Rangers need £10m to stay afloat - Malcolm Murray


Recommended Posts

I said arguably because we have more than enough income to support playing staff costs. You could argue that a lesser standard of player would affect crowds, enjoyment etc. I agree that a lot has been wasted though with Sandaza/Kyle etc. Our playing costs can only get higher as we progress. I don't see much wiggle room for cut-backs on the playing side. Not enough to impact on the direness of our position.

 

£14m loss says we don't. As a fan i want to see the kids. I don't want us paying Dean Shiels or Fran Sandaza £4/5/6 grand a week. I want to see MacLeod and Murdoch in midfield running the show with McKay and Aird wide feeding a couple of strikers, that excites me. I don't want us paying Jon Dalys or Ian Blacks £6/7/8 grand a week. I don't want to see that. Watching the kids excites me, watching Shiels and Black bores me to tears.

 

We have a squad of around 30 players. We could easily cut out the weakest 10 and not affect the first team. That 10 could save us £3m per year.

Edited by Super Cooper
Link to post
Share on other sites

£14m loss says we don't. As a fan i want to see the kids. I don't want us paying Dean Shiels or Fran Sandaza £4/5/6 grand a week. I want to see MacLeod and Murdoch in midfield running the show with McKay and Aird wide feeding a couple of strikers, that excites me. I don't want us paying Jon Dalys or Ian Blacks £6/7/8 grand a week. I don't want to see that. Watching the kids excites me, watching Shiels and Black bores me to tears.

 

We have a squad of around 30 players. We could easily cut out the weakest 10 and not affect the first team. That 10 could save us £3m per year.

 

Do you agree with me that it is imperative we get back to the top division and into Europe in the shortest timescale possible?

Do you think that is more likely to be achieved with a bunch of untried kids or experienced pros who've been over the course many times?

I know you'll say play the kids but last season many got opportunities in the first team and didn't make the best of those opportunities in my opinion.They are simply not good enough for where we are going whichever way you look at it.Ally McCoist is not prepared to take risks on the way back to the top and I can fully understand this.If there really are as many kids in our youth teams who are as good as you say they are then I'm sure they will get their chance towards the end of this season when hopefully we'll achieve one of our earliest ever titles.Let's hope they take their opportunities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree with me that it is imperative we get back to the top division and into Europe in the shortest timescale possible?

Do you think that is more likely to be achieved with a bunch of untried kids or experienced pros who've been over the course many times?

I know you'll say play the kids but last season many got opportunities in the first team and didn't make the best of those opportunities in my opinion.They are simply not good enough for where we are going whichever way you look at it.Ally McCoist is not prepared to take risks on the way back to the top and I can fully understand this.If there really are as many kids in our youth teams who are as good as you say they are then I'm sure they will get their chance towards the end of this season when hopefully we'll achieve one of our earliest ever titles.Let's hope they take their opportunities.

 

Yes.

 

It can be done with the correct balance. What we have is not a balance.

 

Forget last season, not one person connected with the football club done themselves justice last year, MacLeod aside. Last year was a write off, a financial disgrace and footballing embarrassment.

 

This title was on before a ball was kicked. They should have seen more game time than a few minutes at the end of the season. They should have been on the bench instead of Shiels, Smith and Cribari or in the team instead of Peralta, Black and Foster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting he says they can't go back to the institutional investors yet they are the ones that by in large voted the current board back on?

 

perhaps because they knew they wouldn't go back. infact i suspect the vote came down to those prepared to see more money go in and have shareholdings diluted and those who weren't

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.