The agony of last night

[Danny 0]

Seemed true to me. Show me where the insight is in comparing a time when you're relatively rich and still spend far more than you can afford to a time when you're relatively poor, in debt and can't spend at all.

 

 

 

 

I see elsewhere you start to compare NET spend with this - why don't you compare like with like? So Walter has spent about what an average, mid-table Premierhsip team would spend on about three players. Could you say the same for Advocaat?

 

Why don't you compare Advocaat's teams' wages with the average in the Premiership at the time and compare Walter's current squad in the same way. Do you think you'll still have an argument?

 

The point is of course the team has declined and it would be a miracle if it didn't. Boom followed by credit boom gets followed by a big bust. It doesn't matter who you have as manager.

 

If you can't get that then how can you say you were insulted?

 

If anything, under Walter we're on the slight rise out of a deep trough which reached rock bottom under PLG.

 

 

 

See above - especially using the Premiership as a barometer. Do you still REALLY think that Advocaat's and Smith's spending on players and wages are comparable? (And HOW much has been spent in the last year?)

 

I'd like to add that despite Advocaat vastly out spent Smith in relative and absolute terms and yet still lost the league twice by huge margins. How does that compare to today?

 

Just what is the point of your comparison?

 

We will never learn anything from the past if our goal is to repeat mistakes that almost put us into oblivion.

 

If you can come up with a way of increasing our spending to be comparable of that of Advocaat ie comparable to the top four in the Premiership, without getting the club into any more debt, then please tell us about it. You'll be a miracle man of biblical proportions.

 

I'm not now sure who you are trying to blame and what you are blaming them for. You can't even use SDM as a scapegoat as you are actually strangely lauding his spending during that time, as that is what built DA's squads.

 

Actually what is your point again?

 

I could ask you the same given you're banging on about Premiership clubs - 2 minutes ago you were trying to compare past economic climates with this one. What you'll bring into the debate next is anyone's guess. I feel you've missed my point entirely and are making your own, to quote your own word, erroneous arguments which don't address it.

 

I also see you're doing the same with Andy Steel. You appear to be trying to weave a way around our points, dismissing what we've said and making new unrelated points which don't pour cold water on what we've said.

 

All I said was the last time we had class was Advocaat. At no point did I say that overspending was acceptable - but that said, most clubs do it. You're the one screaming at me regarding points you seem to be attributing to me.

[calscot 0]

Let me quote your orignal post:

 

The quality of our squad has been declining since Advocaat departed.

 

It's been a decade long degradation - from having the likes of de Boer, GVB, Mols and even Amoruso, to the current lot of total workmen.

 

There has been no overhaul, just painting over cracks.

 

The overhaul this club needs is new ownership, but that seems far off.

 

Seems to me you're saying that the top of our game was during the Advocaat era and that nothing has been done to get us there again and so we've declined.

 

The point that you now admit but is conspicuous absence is that the Advocaat era was at a time when we were easily one of the 10 richest clubs in the UK, we had a massive influx of equity from the likes of ENIC and King and yet after a pretty averagely successful spell, ended up between 70 and 80 million in debt.

 

You seem to be implying that there is some way we can achieve the same standard of squad again - which to me doesn't make good sense as we should never have allowed the accumulated spending of those players in the first place (including wages).

 

It could even suggest that while we're hopefully going to be shot of the owner who put us in that precarious position, you would like a new owner to do the same bad budgeting at at time of decreasing revenue streams and much greater competition for players from so many clubs from the big five countries, who have far bigger budgets.

 

Like I've explained and you've not given an answer to is that during Advocaat's time our budget was of the order of the top 4 clubs in England. Just where are we realistic going to get the money to achieve that level now? Not only that how are we going to do it sustainably?

 

Now if I'm misinterpreting you, and my points are unrelated, it seems to me that you could do worst than explain your points in far more coherent way.

 

You're post, as is, seems to clearly suggest that since we no longer have top European players at the club, the current owner is at fault for this (even though he stupidly gave us them in the first place) and your new owner hypothesis is hardly new but at the same time, you seem to have a fantasy of what a new owner can actually achieve.

 

Instead of just having a go at me without addressing any of my rebuttals, perhaps you should make your obviously very lost point, a tad clearer?

 

to re-iterate my point: we couldn't come close to affording that squad at the richest point in our club's history, and so in the current financial situation where TV money is king and we're getting bugger all of it, thinking that someone can get back to those levels is pure fantasy - unless some bored Oil Sheik wants to do a Man City with us.

 

So to me, that kind of thinking is totally out of context and a complete red herring when realistic solutions would be far more helpful.

 

We'd be better focusing on the need to find a way to compete while working within our financial constraints rather than tackling mission impossible.

[andy steel 0]

Sorry, could you explain this?

 

How is finishing champions as poor as finishing 5th? You can go on about how there were better teams around then but how does that translate to now? If Aberdeen and Dundee Utd were producing such great teams in the last few years, don't you think we'd have bought their best players - or the Premiership would?

 

We can only deal with our current environment where we've less money than some Championship teams and our local talent pool is at it's poorest.

 

Every year it's about choosing from the talent available and beating the rest. If your team is poor compared with other eras but you are still winning then it suggest there just isn't the affordable talent available.

 

Scottish football is in a terrible low point at the moment, as Rangers fans, why are so many quick to blame only Rangers?

 

Of course I can explain, no trouble at all.

 

When I started watching the Rangers in the period mentioned, the quality of play on offer was dreadful. When I wander up now, cough up considerably more for the priviledge of sitting in pretty much the same conditions the quality of play on offer is, to my eyes, at the same level as it was back in the day. As you say, ending the season as champs is plainly more edifying than crawling home in a miserable mid table slot - but this does not in any way mean the football we are playing THIS season is anything but poor, in a very poor league. So the competition is pish. I won't argue, I agree. But that's no reason why we should be too, especially with what I consider an excellent manager in place and with players who are capable of far better than they are showing at the nonce.

 

You mustn't assume a mildly critical post is a blast at all things Rangers, you know.

[Danny 0]

Let me quote your orignal post:

 

 

 

Seems to me you're saying that the top of our game was during the Advocaat era and that nothing has been done to get us there again and so we've declined.

 

No, I'm saying the last time we had players of class was during the Advocaat era. Can't you read what's actually there rather than putting a critical spin on it?

 

The point that you now admit but is conspicuous absence is that the Advocaat era was at a time when we were easily one of the 10 richest clubs in the UK, we had a massive influx of equity from the likes of ENIC and King and yet after a pretty averagely successful spell, ended up between 70 and 80 million in debt.

 

You seem to be implying that there is some way we can achieve the same standard of squad again - which to me doesn't make good sense as we should never have allowed the accumulated spending of those players in the first place (including wages).

 

I didn't imply anything of the sort. All I said was the last time we had players of class was during the Advocaat era. What in the name of all that is holy moves you to misinterpret in such a way?

 

I think anyone, to quote Totti, 'with half a brain' knows we will never spend like that again. Doesn't mean we'll never have players of class again.

 

It could even suggest that while we're hopefully going to be shot of the owner who put us in that precarious position, you would like a new owner to do the same bad budgeting at at time of decreasing revenue streams and much greater competition for players from so many clubs from the big five countries, who have far bigger budgets.

 

Like I've explained and you've not given an answer to is that during Advocaat's time our budget was of the order of the top 4 clubs in England. Just where are we realistic going to get the money to achieve that level now? Not only that how are we going to do it sustainably?

 

Yet more attempts at imbuing my comments with more than was actually there.

I have nothing against you Calscott, but you've wildly misread a single sentence and taken meaning which wasn't there.

 

Now if I'm misinterpreting you, and my points are unrelated, it seems to me that you could do worst than explain your points in far more coherent way.

 

You're post, as is, seems to clearly suggest that since we no longer have top European players at the club, the current owner is at fault for this (even though he stupidly gave us them in the first place) and your new owner hypothesis is hardly new but at the same time, you seem to have a fantasy of what a new owner can actually achieve.

 

You're not just looking between the lines here, you appear to be splitting the sheet of paper.

 

Instead of just having a go at me without addressing any of my rebuttals, perhaps you should make your obviously very lost point, a tad clearer?

 

to re-iterate my point: we couldn't come close to affording that squad at the richest point in our club's history, and so in the current financial situation where TV money is king and we're getting bugger all of it, thinking that someone can get back to those levels is pure fantasy - unless some bored Oil Sheik wants to do a Man City with us.

 

So to me, that kind of thinking is totally out of context and a complete red herring when realistic solutions would be far more helpful.

 

We'd be better focusing on the need to find a way to compete while working within our financial constraints rather than tackling mission impossible.

 

Couldn't agree more. This is the problem. All I ever said was the last time we had players of class was the Advocaat era, and we have been declining ever since.

 

I never said this was avoidable, nor did I 'advocate' big spending again.

 

I called a spade a spade and you've turned it into a JCB.