der Berliner 3,240 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Your naive if you think green wanted them to transfer. Is that the point? 15 to 20 players left the club after admin, with very little return in terms of loyalty and money. Not least from those who all claim to be Bluenoses. At a time when the club - from a supporter's and player's point alike - was needing money to get out of tier 4 badly. What consequently followed with Green was hardly envisable for us or them. They took the easiest option possible, i.e. becoming freebies and thus being able to negotiate better deals with clubs down south or elsewhere. No matter how you turn it, the Bears have every right to angered by what they did. And while it is all nice and fine claiming that they have "open" stuff and a(nother) point to prove at Ibrox, we are not exactly in need of more late 20s or early 30s players right now. As you, if I remember correctly, have also said quite a few times these past few years? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Is that the point? 15 to 20 players left the club after admin, with very little return in terms of loyalty and money. Not least from those who all claim to be Bluenoses. At a time when the club - from a supporter's and player's point alike - was needing money to get out of tier 4 badly. What consequently followed with Green was hardly envisable for us or them. They took the easiest option possible, i.e. becoming freebies and thus being able to negotiate better deals with clubs down south or elsewhere. No matter how you turn it, the Bears have every right to angered by what they did. And while it is all nice and fine claiming that they have "open" stuff and a(nother) point to prove at Ibrox, we are not exactly in need of more late 20s or early 30s players right now. As you, if I remember correctly, have also said quite a few times these past few years? It's off topic but we did not need to spend any extra money on players to get out of League 3. The team that was there already should have been more than capable of coasting it, Edited March 25, 2015 by Crimson Dynamo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It wasnt that he left, it was what was said at the news conference that turned a section of fans sour on him. And yet some of our fans still say we are a new Club too.... what is the difference ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Is that the point? 15 to 20 players left the club after admin, with very little return in terms of loyalty and money. Not least from those who all claim to be Bluenoses. At a time when the club - from a supporter's and player's point alike - was needing money to get out of tier 4 badly. What consequently followed with Green was hardly envisable for us or them. They took the easiest option possible, i.e. becoming freebies and thus being able to negotiate better deals with clubs down south or elsewhere. No matter how you turn it, the Bears have every right to angered by what they did. And while it is all nice and fine claiming that they have "open" stuff and a(nother) point to prove at Ibrox, we are not exactly in need of more late 20s or early 30s players right now. As you, if I remember correctly, have also said quite a few times these past few years? And no matter how YOU turn it, other bears have every right to see through what Chuck Green wanted. He didn't want them to TUPE, it was too much of a risk to him. Are we forgetting that he needed a 50k overnight loan just to keep the lights on ? Having to pay the TUPED salaries to Naismith, Whittaker etc would have crippled the Club for a 2nd time and Green knew it. He wanted them to stay even less than they themselves wanted to. Green had no guarantees of getting even a mediocre transfer fee on these players - the sharks were already circling and knew we would have to take any kind of fee. I believe that whilst there is anger at the press conference that there is also a fairly sizeable element to our ire because of the quality that Naismith brought to our team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Is that the point? 15 to 20 players left the club after admin, with very little return in terms of loyalty and money. Not least from those who all claim to be Bluenoses. At a time when the club - from a supporter's and player's point alike - was needing money to get out of tier 4 badly. What consequently followed with Green was hardly envisable for us or them. They took the easiest option possible, i.e. becoming freebies and thus being able to negotiate better deals with clubs down south or elsewhere. No matter how you turn it, the Bears have every right to angered by what they did. And while it is all nice and fine claiming that they have "open" stuff and a(nother) point to prove at Ibrox, we are not exactly in need of more late 20s or early 30s players right now. As you, if I remember correctly, have also said quite a few times these past few years? loyalty to greens con was indeed thin on the ground. the players though by leaving almost certainly stopped us going bust again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) And no matter how YOU turn it, other bears have every right to see through what Chuck Green wanted. He didn't want them to TUPE, it was too much of a risk to him. Are we forgetting that he needed a 50k overnight loan just to keep the lights on ? Having to pay the TUPED salaries to Naismith, Whittaker etc would have crippled the Club for a 2nd time and Green knew it. He wanted them to stay even less than they themselves wanted to. Green had no guarantees of getting even a mediocre transfer fee on these players - the sharks were already circling and knew we would have to take any kind of fee. I believe that whilst there is anger at the press conference that there is also a fairly sizeable element to our ire because of the quality that Naismith brought to our team. Fees of any size that we would have received (or which would have ended up at the SFA HQ) would have helped the club at the time. When did we need the 50k? Shortly after GreenCo took over and all the players took their hats? Methinks that is not exactly the case, but I haven't got that info handy here and now. The press conference was only an episode and more important Rangers people have stepped into that new club minefield before, unwittingly or not. At the end of the day, loyal Bears went to Ibrox still and coughed up the share issue money for the sake of the club as well. cdynamo1 It's off topic but we did not need to spend any extra money on players to get out of League 3.The team that was there already should have been more than capable of coasting it, Indeed, but we still had the running costs of an SPL team with 40 to 50k people coming to Ibrox et al. That aside, isn't it more something of principle? gunslinger the players though by leaving almost certainly stopped us going bust again. I'd believe that when I see facts in black and white for that. Edited March 25, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Indeed, but we still had the running costs of an SPL team with 40 to 50k people coming to Ibrox et al. That aside, isn't it more something of principle?. the money that was brought in was more than enough for what we had, it was all the needless signings we made that compounded matters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Fees of any size that we would have received (or which would have ended up at the SFA HQ) would have helped the club at the time. When did we need the 50k? Shortly after GreenCo took over and all the players took their hats? Methinks that is not exactly the case, but I haven't got that info handy here and now. The press conference was only an episode and more important Rangers people have stepped into that new club minefield before, unwittingly or not. At the end of the day, loyal Bears went to Ibrox still and coughed up the share issue money for the sake of the club as well. cdynamo1 Indeed, but we still had the running costs of an SPL team with 40 to 50k people coming to Ibrox et al. That aside, isn't it more something of principle? gunslinger I'd believe that when I see facts in black and white for that. It was in greens IPO prospectus 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Is that the point? 15 to 20 players left the club after admin, with very little return in terms of loyalty and money. Not least from those who all claim to be Bluenoses. At a time when the club - from a supporter's and player's point alike - was needing money to get out of tier 4 badly. What consequently followed with Green was hardly envisable for us or them. They took the easiest option possible, i.e. becoming freebies and thus being able to negotiate better deals with clubs down south or elsewhere. No matter how you turn it, the Bears have every right to angered by what they did. And while it is all nice and fine claiming that they have "open" stuff and a(nother) point to prove at Ibrox, we are not exactly in need of more late 20s or early 30s players right now. As you, if I remember correctly, have also said quite a few times these past few years? We don't know what was done or said behind the scenes. It seems both the players that left and stayed sign the contracts that offered them the most money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 the money that was brought in was more than enough for what we had, it was all the needless signings we made that compounded matters. That is all fair enough, but why discard more money (for the upkeep of Ibrox et al*) from transfers out? *Whether GreenCo would have invest that or not is another matter. 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.