Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 what is being fair though? should we not be demanding better? should we not point out the poor results? should we not point out he as no positive attributes? or are we just supposed to be nice while pointing that out? it's a burning issue we can't ignore it. certainly not while we sit second in the league with 10 points dropped already. heaven knows how bad that number will be next season. where is the balance? or what is it? He has been given a fortune to spend in terms of Scottish football and could have built a formidable side. Zappa says we're at our lowest ebb - yeah we are and Ally is as culpable as anyone. We are an embarrassment on the park and that is his doing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I read richard Wilson saying it was well below 60% so how does it figure out guys....what's our turnover and what's our wages bill ? Turnover is around £18/19m with wages for the first team squad and coaching team at around £11.5m. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 He has been given a fortune to spend in terms of Scottish football and could have built a formidable side. Zappa says we're at our lowest ebb - yeah we are and Ally is as culpable as anyone. We are an embarrassment on the park and that is his doing. What is "in terms of Scottish football" when it comes to the quality we expect from a Rangers team? Maybe I miss something, but since admin Ally has spent some 700k on exactly one player, i.e. Templeton. All the rest of them were TUPED over chaps or freebies ... and while you may point out that it was him who wanted and signed them, it was NOT HIM who agreed any wage packages and bonuses. So maybe we keep to facts rather than saying that "he spent a fortune". Unless, of course, you calculate that in with every other manager far and wide as well ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 It's not just a lack of balance though, it's the quality of players too. If we're honest with ourselves and start at the back, we don't even have the 2nd best 1st choice 'keeper in Scotland because Gordon and Alexander are both better than Bell. Then there's our so-called defenders. One of our first choice central defenders is 36 and isn't even a bloody defender and neither of Ally's first choice full backs are particularly good defenders. Our midfielders are consistently inconsistent and 2 of our main strikers have bigger turning circles than a McGill's bus! and one of them was our 1st choice keeper, the other we helped back to full fitness with an option to sign.....both were allowed to leave!!!! Who's decision was that??? We have constantly brought in middle of the road, aging players or "known entity" players. There appears to have been little or no thought on how these players are going to fit into the team, or how it is going to work in the future. Again, looking at Hearts, they trusted the youth that they had, mainly coz they had no option.....but ultimately it has paid off for them. They put a lot of pressure on young shoulders and they stood up to the challenge. These are decisions taken by the manager. It is the managers job to try & shape a team, not just for the coming game/season, but for the future. Our playing personnel has changed quite significantly, yet how the team performs hasn't. Again look @ the common denominator..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 and one of them was our 1st choice keeper, the other we helped back to full fitness with an option to sign.....both were allowed to leave!!!! Who's decision was that??? In Gordon's case it was Gordon, in Alexander's case it was the board, as he was one of the high earners pre and post admin. While it is all right to call the "quality" we have signed into question, especially when said "quality" fails to deliver, you'd also have to ask what sort of quality we were able to attract and (!) pay. Likewise, with so many options out there in the market, who was actually willing to come? I know that people will instantly point at cheaper foreign options or youngsters ... and on hindsight that's a great thing. Yet, I have no doubt that Ally signed the players he did in hope that they would deliver for Rangers - at least where we are. When it comes to "Rangers quality", he scraped the bottom of the pool out there and some of his choices did not match up even to that. Still, that is not something that solely happens to McCoist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 In Gordon's case it was Gordon, in Alexander's case it was the board, as he was one of the high earners pre and post admin. While it is all right to call the "quality" we have signed into question, especially when said "quality" fails to deliver, you'd also have to ask what sort of quality we were able to attract and (!) pay. Likewise, with so many options out there in the market, who was actually willing to come? I know that people will instantly point at cheaper foreign options or youngsters ... and on hindsight that's a great thing. Yet, I have no doubt that Ally signed the players he did in hope that they would deliver for Rangers - at least where we are. When it comes to "Rangers quality", he scraped the bottom of the pool out there and some of his choices did not match up even to that. Still, that is not something that solely happens to McCoist. McCoist signed many players with decent reputations, most from the bigger clubs of the SPFL. They should form a decent team, capable of performing at a high level in the lower reaches of the Pro leagues - yet none have consistently delivered. He basically signed (what he thought) the best he could by offering stupid wages. On paper (I believe) we have a good team.....but on the pitch it's a different story. McCoist has signed players because they have been available....not because we required them. Then...because we don't require them, they either sit on the bench or in the stands - all the while "earning" there £££££'s, only to be released at a later date. As for Craig Gordon.....he claims he wasn't offered a contract - McCoist says he was. Are we to honestly believe that Alexander is on the same contract terms @ Hearts, that he was offered by us???? I think there was more too it than money. There are far too many questions/concerns regarding McCoist management & running of the team IMHO. Lets also not forget, that he's still on a reported £450k per annum salary with rumours that his wage cut was only temporary..... Are his management skill honestly worth over £400k per annum???? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 and one of them was our 1st choice keeper, the other we helped back to full fitness with an option to sign.....both were allowed to leave!!!! Who's decision was that??? I think the situation with Alexander was that Green had initially verbally offered him what he wanted which was a 2 year extension of his deal, then when it came to crunch time several months later he was only getting offered a 1 year deal on reduced wages. I doubt if reduced wages would've been a massive issue, but he wanted 2 years, not 1, so that was that. It wouldn't surprise me if Ally wanted to sign Gordon because bringing back Simonsen was left until the last minute, but there wouldn't have been any spare money in the player wage budget for Ally to sign Gordon unless another high earner or two had left in the summer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 their shouldn't have been any money in the player wage budget to sign anyone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 What is "in terms of Scottish football" when it comes to the quality we expect from a Rangers team? Maybe I miss something, but since admin Ally has spent some 700k on exactly one player, i.e. Templeton. All the rest of them were TUPED over chaps or freebies ... and while you may point out that it was him who wanted and signed them, it was NOT HIM who agreed any wage packages and bonuses. So maybe we keep to facts rather than saying that "he spent a fortune". Unless, of course, you calculate that in with every other manager far and wide as well ... He has been given a fortune to spend in terms of Scottish football. You're not the one who has major problems with facts. What we spent once upon a time is irrelevant. Those days are gone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 He has been given a fortune to spend in terms of Scottish football. You're not the one who has major problems with facts. What we spent once upon a time is irrelevant. Those days are gone. He's been given 700k in transfer fees. That is what he "spent", like it is with any other manager out there. 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.