We have won the last 3 leagues and still managed to live within our means, i would call that sound management rather than lack of ambition. We are now virtually debt free giving us a base on which to spend from a position of strength.
Absolutely. I wasnt critcising Celtic at all mate or your financial management. What i meant was that our own mismanagement during your period of dominance has left us in a weaker position to get back on top than you guys did during ours. I agree with what you say. IMO WGS has done amazing, all things considered, but what I am saying is that, unlike us during the 90's, your club will not have grand ambitions of winning the CL, will not waste £12 million on one player etc, will spend within your means and as long as you stay just ahead of us this will, obviously, keep everyone at your place happy. That will always give us a chance of breaking back. Theoretically you guys have a 23 million pound head start on us next year (make that 33 if you win the league) so I agree with you. Surely my example of your signing of Scott Brown contradicts your argument against me there?? I agree with you ffs!. Success will breed success of course. But, and this is a big but, the thing about football is that nothing is ever certain. I recall when we were going for 10 in a row and you guys signed a certain Mr Larsson for, what?, £600,000 and changed the course of history....
By pushing the boat out just a little we are, imo, in a position to ensure that you guys will be also rans for a long time to come. It pisses me off a little that we have not done this already even though we have won 3 in a row. Given that the be all and end all is to compete in the CL we HAVE to ensure that we are the team going in there as its not too improbable that Scotland will go back down to just 1 entrant. Even if it remains at 2 the new seeding routine for next season means that the SPL runner up will play a formidable side in the qualifying round. So whoever it is as runner up will have a difficult job to get into the group phase. As the TV money for the group stage goes to a nation as opposed to a club it goes without saying that if we are the only club in there it becomes even more rewarding. We have done well to sustain debt etc. but we have to speculate to accumulate over the next year or two. Hopefully we will but I remain unconvinced.
One of the factors that I know has been mentioned on here before about players being signed by Celtic is that in general (with a very few exceptions like Gravesen and now Balde), CFC do VERY well in getting value for money from big signings, and then usually get their money back when they move on. Getting Henrik L. for such a low price showed also how good the Celtic scouting network can be. I mean, when was the last time that Rangers spent less than a million on a player who turned out to be an asbolute star ?? For me, these two factors have had a MAJOR impact upon both clubs in the last few years -- Celtic spent low on tried and tested SPL players like McDonald, Brown and Robson, and each one of those has probably effectively won them a title ... I'm not a 'Tic fan, but I believe that you have to have some faith in your board's intentions. I honestly shudder to think of what is going to happen at Ibrox this summer. Whereas, in all honesty, even if Celtic were to sell off their best players (and I can imagine the profit you would make on them!!) I have little doubt that they ALREADY have decent replacements hypothetically lined up.
Yeah, but that's my point -- that was ten years ago. I know that was the same era as Celtic's signing of Larsson, but since then, on balance, CFC have done better IMO at the lower end of the market. I suspect there are very few Rangers fans who would argue against Celtic having a better system of scouts than what their own club has.
I wouldn't say Celtic have a better scouting network, it seems our money men and negotiators seem to have sod all idea on how to haggle for fair prices.
How about; Carlos Cuellar > Jean Perrier Doumbe Madjid Bougherra > Hinkel Pedros Mendes > Donati Kyle Lafferty > Willo Flood Daniel Cousin > Chris Killen That's like for like players I think..... Quite difficult as Strachan has signed a few "for the future" players who haven't featured much. Eg. Mizuno, Hutchison, Crosas, McCourt, McGinn and Misun
To be fair to him, he played pretty well up till the New Year when his move fell through, and showed what he could do.
Sorry Bundy but some of them are unfair and to say any of them have been a huge success for Rangers is just wrong. They have all had 1 season with no signifigant medals.
Well, the question was I think Cuellar was a fantastic player, and Bougherra has shown himself to be almost his equal. Mendes has been excellent so far for Rangers, much better than Donati was/is for Celtic. I think Lafferty and Cousin are better than Flood and Killen. What difference does medals make? Robin Van Persie has never been in a league winning side. Does that make him shite? During Gazza's career, the hugely talented player won only two league medals, does that make him any less of a footballing legend?
Mendes excellent? Dont think so and as the season goes on more are agreeing with that from what I can tell. Unfair to compare Lafferty and Flood as both were championship players and Flood has only just come to us. Perhaps we are using different barometers here. Take your point to some extent but is also worth remembering that we have/use a much bigger 1rst team squad. Though granted Killen and Doumbe are pretty poor. Re Gazza its probably his own fault that he was so unsuccessful medal wise and would be more than fair to say that he realisticly only had about 18 good months in his whole career outside of Scotland. Cant say he would be on my list of legends but hey its all about opinion. BTW he is a total mess now and I hope he can regain health cos he is looking grim for a young man.
Compared to the Celtic players I mentioned, Mendes has been excellent, no? He has certainly been better than Donati. Why is it unfair to compare Lafferty and Flood? I answered the poster's question didn't I? Should I have compared Lafferty to Mizuno? He has been there longer but done nothing, but he's a prospect. On Gascoigne, I do not consider him a legend personally, but he certainly is to Rangers, Tottenham and Newcastle fans. He was very well liked by Lazio fans also. He was a huge football talent. A truly gifted player who's personal life became front page news regularly, and he drifted into oblivion. BTW, he played for Newcastle for 3yrs, and Tottenham for 4yrs. A wee bit more than 18 months
No. It was less that 6 weeks ago that most bears were moaning about Lafferty saying he was a waste of money and being played out of position so to say he has been a success is doubtful at best. True it was more than 18 months but with little or no success. Yeah the fans like him but, imo, more for being a clown.
Donati is better than Mendes??? Sure mate You misunderstood the Rangers fans then. Most have complained that he would be a waste of money if his manager continued to play him out of position. That was aimed at Walter Smith, and not the player. He has done well when played through the middle as a striker. I'm not saying any of these guys are stars, but I think they are better than the players I compared them to, which was the point
I did not highlight the Donati part and hoped that would have been obvious but to be fair I can see why you thought I meant that but trust me I did not. My answer was supposed to read that by any standard Mendes has not been excellent full stop. Compared to anyone. Average player who has played a lot more games and thats it. I take your point about Lafferty but surely then it justifies me in saying that he has not been a success and by definition cannot be classed as much (or even) better than the others.
