Jump to content

 

 

Rangers will need to match Celtic's £24million wage spend to challenge...


Recommended Posts

I make it 33 percent. Which makes him more right than wrong.

 

We won it with a 16 million wage bill (according to your good self). To get to a 24 million wage bill (increase of 8 million) that is a 50% increase in the wage bill we last won it with, not 33%.

 

Regardless, when it comes to something like this I don't believe that %ages dictate "right or wrong". Leicester City are proving admirably that you do NOT need the biggest wage bill, or even close to it, to be challenging for honors. Regardless if that is a one-season wonder they are indeed proving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where your coming from.

Guess we will find out on the 17th. (Despite it being a cup game)

But I don't think so. Hearts have went straight up and into 3rd. Aberdeen are just bottle merchants. Celtic really should have lost there title this year if the sheep didn't have there annual meltdown

 

Hearts and Aberdeen don't have strong enough squads or good enough players to challenge Celtic for the title. As others have said we need better quality additions to our squad to mount a sustained challenge for the title.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We won it with a 16 million wage bill (according to your good self). To get to a 24 million wage bill (increase of 8 million) that is a 50% increase in the wage bill we last won it with, not 33%.

 

Regardless, when it comes to something like this I don't believe that %ages dictate "right or wrong". Leicester City are proving admirably that you do NOT need the biggest wage bill, or even close to it, to be challenging for honors. Regardless if that is a one-season wonder they are indeed proving it.

But he says 24 and he's 8 million wrong........

Link to post
Share on other sites
But he says 24 and he's 8 million wrong........

 

Statistics eh..... To get from the previous number that you provided when we won it of 16million to Celtic's 24 million requires a 50% uplift in our wage bill (8 million.... the difference is 8 million regardless). I wasn't the one that decided to use 16 million as our last winning championship number, you did. Seeing as you used that number you essentially make that your starting point.

 

Or perhaps we should go from where we currently are which is what, circa 10 million, maybe less ?? And need a 140% increase in wages. I don't buy that for one second either.

 

Using either 33% OR 50% is irrelevant to me - because I don't think that you need even close to what Celtic are spending on wages to challenge them. In fact, I think we would be foolhardy to do so - we don't have that level of finance at present and don't want to take steps further back again.

 

Robbie Neilson is completely ignoring the single most important factor in his assertion - the management of the team. Deila is a pub-team manager (I would be surprised if anyone felt otherwise) whilst Warburton has, for the most part, assembled a pretty efficient squad, albeit in the 2nd tier, for about the same price as McCoist paid for Templeton.

 

I just don't believe that we need to increase the wages by 50% from when we last won it to compete with them. I believe we have a management team that can source the quality of player needed on a fraction of the wages. Time will tell I guess, but we should be able to pick up a player as good as Commons for less than half of the wage he is on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistics eh..... To get from the previous number that you provided when we won it of 16million to Celtic's 24 million requires a 50% uplift in our wage bill (8 million.... the difference is 8 million regardless). I wasn't the one that decided to use 16 million as our last winning championship number, you did. Seeing as you used that number you essentially make that your starting point.

 

Or perhaps we should go from where we currently are which is what, circa 10 million, maybe less ?? And need a 140% increase in wages. I don't buy that for one second either.

 

Using either 33% OR 50% is irrelevant to me - because I don't think that you need even close to what Celtic are spending on wages to challenge them. In fact, I think we would be foolhardy to do so - we don't have that level of finance at present and don't want to take steps further back again.

 

Robbie Neilson is completely ignoring the single most important factor in his assertion - the management of the team. Deila is a pub-team manager (I would be surprised if anyone felt otherwise) whilst Warburton has, for the most part, assembled a pretty efficient squad, albeit in the 2nd tier, for about the same price as McCoist paid for Templeton.

 

I just don't believe that we need to increase the wages by 50% from when we last won it to compete with them. I believe we have a management team that can source the quality of player needed on a fraction of the wages. Time will tell I guess, but we should be able to pick up a player as good as Commons for less than half of the wage he is on.

We will get a glimpse of where we are soon. My bet is millions away but we shall see.

 

We might win one league in ten with the current gulf. Like a Leicester.

 

I believe we will have to close the gap significantly to be properly competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We will get a glimpse of where we are soon. My bet is millions away but we shall see.

 

We might win one league in ten with the current gulf. Like a Leicester.

 

I believe we will have to close the gap significantly to be properly competitive.

 

Spunking money on it is not necessarily the right answer though. With a proper footballing philosophy you don't need to spend the same as those that won the title.

 

I don't think that ANYONE doubts that we are "millions away" - however, you are now looking at different numbers yet again. Our current wage bill is what, about 10 million ? Do you honestly believe we need to more than DOUBLE that to compete with Celtic ? I don't.

 

Do we need to spend more than we currently are ? Yes, I wouldn't hesitate to say yes - for one we need a deeper squad which means increased wages and, secondly, we need a few quality signings - at least one CB, a RB, a DCM and a prolific striker are needed IMHO. That will cost a bit - but in terms of wages it wouldn't need to double the wage bill to catch Celtic up.

 

I am not impressed by their defence at all, although Craig Gordon is decent enough for this level. But their back 4 is weak IMHO. In midfield Brown is the same as he has always been, a headless chicken that brings little to the team. I'm not going through the rest of their team but I don't think it is that impressive at all for the money they have spent assembling it and the wages they are paying.

 

We will need to spend more, nobody doubts that. But doubling our wage bill ? I don't think that is needed.

 

"Closing the gap" should not be about spending the same on wages and transfer fees. Properly coached you don't need to. If you believe that closing the gap is all about what you spend then you are missing the point I believe.

Edited by craig
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.