Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 No one is suggesting we gamble on anything especially not king. He's advocating spending millions on building a team to win the Scottish title. If that fails to have the desired effect, what next? Who pays for the sky-high wages of a losing team? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 He's advocating spending millions on building a team to win the Scottish title. If that fails to have the desired effect, what next? Who pays for the sky-high wages of a losing team? He's not advocating spending more than we have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Tbh I can't see that we have ever had a sugar daddy. What we have had is spending more than we have and funding it with debt. That's what we are doing now. It's this board that need to learn from the past not king. I wouldn't mind trying a sugar daddy for a change but again that's not what kings offering. His investment and sensible spending to move us up a level from where we are just now looks much better than debt funded mediocrity as we currently have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Tbh I can't see that we have ever had a sugar daddy. What we have had is spending more than we have and funding it with debt. That's what we are doing now. It's this board that need to learn from the past not king. I wouldn't mind trying a sugar daddy for a change but again that's not what kings offering. His investment and sensible spending to move us up a level from where we are just now looks much better than debt funded mediocrity as we currently have. It's not an either/or situation. King has said that wages need to be trebled or quadrupled for the first year back in the top flight. What is sensible about that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's not an either/or situation. King has said that wages need to be trebled or quadrupled for the first year back in the top flight. What is sensible about that? treble it and you add 14 million to the spend. We should easily earn the bulk of that in sponsorship prize money tv and season book rises. It also gives us 36 million to spare to cover it until revenue rises accordingly. We comfortably afforded 21 million player wage bill in the past. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 treble it and you add 14 million to the spend. We should easily earn the bulk of that in sponsorship prize money tv and season book rises. It also gives us 36 million to spare to cover it until revenue rises accordingly. We comfortably afforded 21 million player wage bill in the past. Sponsorship, tv and prize money? How much does that come to per annum? If we comfortably afforded £21m before, why were we making a loss when there was no CL involvement? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Sponsorship, tv and prize money? How much does that come to per annum? If we comfortably afforded £21m before, why were we making a loss when there was no CL involvement? Because we were spending 30 odd million on wages. TV was 2 million ish. Prize money similar. Our sponsorship was about 1.5 million higher as well. But much of that depends on having a championship winning team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I was merely highlighting the stupidity of gambling on getting entry into Europe. That comment hits the nail on the financial head. If anything highlights the downfall in Rangers' financial fortunes in recent years it is the £20m turnaround between 2008 and 2009 demonstrated in Rangersitis' figures. That miserable wet night in Kaunas watching Christian Dailly in midfield whilst a certain Brahim Hemdani sat on the bench was the beginning of all that has followed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,260 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 That comment hits the nail on the financial head. If anything highlights the downfall in Rangers' financial fortunes in recent years it is the £20m turnaround between 2008 and 2009 demonstrated in Rangersitis' figures. That miserable wet night in Kaunas watching Christian Dailly in midfield whilst a certain Brahim Hemdani sat on the bench was the beginning of all that has followed. Agree our finances took a hit in Kaunus but our problems with the bank began when LBG took over HBOS and Fullerton and Kane were in charge of LBG's Scottish business division. Despite the fact that Rangers debt was 3 percent of the MIH debt why were they so fixated on Rangers debt which was falling year on year with AJ as chairman? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Despite the fact that Rangers debt was 3 percent of the MIH debt why were they so fixated on Rangers debt which was falling year on year with AJ as chairman? I am not going to get into the personalities involved because it is a fruitless discussion but one reason at least why Murray's investment in Rangers was targeted was that it was a lot easier to liquidate than properties. 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.