Jump to content

 

 

Did Walter Smith underachieve at Ibrox first time around?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, compo said:

We could do with some underachivement right now 

A 2007 version of Walter would be perfect but given the benefit of our time machine, we could ask him to leave Ally McCoist with Sue Barker.

 

:whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I’ve had a quick look at the transfers of the main Scottish clubs over the last number of years compared to the 90s and it does appear clubs had far more to spend back then. In the last few years clubs have spent next to nothing and when they sell players only a % of it goes into their budget. In the cases of Hibs and Dundee United they’ve run huge surpluses over the years. 

 

In the late 80s and 90s it seems the enormous budget inequality we know today wasn’t there, everyone was spending quite a lot of money (even before inflation) and not many were making money out of the transfer market. 

 

On that basis it seems it was definitely a tougher league back then. 

I think it was during the 80's when there was a significant rule change regards gate receipts that had a huge effect on this.

Clubs would keep home gate receipts for league games instead of what they had done previously, ie. sharing them.

 

Over a season this would give both us and them a significant revenue adavantage over the rest. 

 

 

It was also pre Bosman and clubs like Dundee Utd, who had an excellent football operation were able to take full advantage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buster. said:

It was also pre Bosman and clubs like Dundee Utd, who had an excellent football operation were able to take full advantage.

What difference did this make?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would certainly be inconceivable back then that Rangers could afford to hoover up the best of the rest of the league without even having to play them (Christie, Cifci, GMS, Allan, Hayes). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMAA said:

What difference did this make?

It meant that the club had more power, the registration of the player maintained it's value (obviously dependent on form/age).

 

Clubs like Dundee Utd. who had probably the best youth set-up in Scotland at the time got fees/market value for their players and not compensation tribunals setting relatively low numbers (although there was some karma wrt Charlie Telfer move :D).

 

You mentioned Hibs, the Bosman ruling is probably going to cost them a couple of million on John McGinn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I think it would certainly be inconceivable back then that Rangers could afford to hoover up the best of the rest of the league without even having to play them (Christie, Cifci, GMS, Allan, Hayes). 

Yes, regular CL participation is a gamechanger.

Both in short-term revenue (UEFA and TV pyts/gates) and in the medium term (profile wrt resale value of player registrations/sponsership deals).

 

The increasing financial disparities between clubs in most of the leagues means a natural continuation of this is a European Super League of sorts. Celtic are trying to lobby and position themselves to be knocking at such a door if it were to happen.

 

We need to try and up our game considerably in an effort to improve our lot and thus bring them downwards. Or in other words, we need to start winning leagues and getting CL football as soon as possible.

Edited by buster.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/05/2018 at 08:19, DMAA said:

I’ve had a quick look at the transfers of the main Scottish clubs over the last number of years compared to the 90s and it does appear clubs had far more to spend back then. In the last few years clubs have spent next to nothing and when they sell players only a % of it goes into their budget. In the cases of Hibs and Dundee United they’ve run huge surpluses over the years. 

 

In the late 80s and 90s it seems the enormous budget inequality we know today wasn’t there, everyone was spending quite a lot of money (even before inflation) and not many were making money out of the transfer market. 

 

On that basis it seems it was definitely a tougher league back then. 

You’re not wrong there - Hibs brought a certain Andy Goram to Scotland for £500,000. In 1988! 30 years later Hibs wouldn’t spend that on a forward, let alone a keeper. Inflation has left Scottish football behind. Dunfermline paid not far off that for Istvan Koszma! Maybe it’s time to go back to that. The league was better then.

 

On the other hand though, Rangers could outbid most of the English premier league then, so attracted better players then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A stronger league with more money would be in the best interests of all. Scotland's coefficient has suffered by constant first round exits against tiny teams in the Uefa Cup.

Edited by DMAA
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

A stronger league with more money would be in the best interests of all. Our coefficient has suffered by constant first round exits against tiny teams in the Uefa Cup.

Wrt the league in general, swimming against a strong tide won't take us anywhere.

 

If we want to get anywhere, we'll have to do it ourselves but first we have to sort ourselves out so I doubt we'll get far this year.

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.