calscot 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 If we're talking about Eck and "having no money to spend" then he won zero trophies in two seasons and was 2nd and 3rd in the league. For the first season and a half he had one of the most expensive Rangers teams of all time, then spent 6M on one player and won five trophies out of five. For his third full season he spent about 10M and won the league. You can't have it both ways either he was skint and won absolutely nothing or he had a very expensive team and won stuff. He was a decent manager when he had lots of money to spend or inheriting a very expensive team, but pretty crap with a bit less. You can complain all you like about how little money he had but he still had far more than Hearts. He'll do much better now he has a decent budget at Birmingham. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 If we're talking about Eck and "having no money to spend" then he won zero trophies in two seasons and was 2nd and 3rd in the league. For the first season and a half he had one of the most expensive Rangers teams of all time, then spent 6M on one player and won five trophies out of five. For his third full season he spent about 10M and won the league. You can't have it both ways either he was skint and won absolutely nothing or he had a very expensive team and won stuff. He was a decent manager when he had lots of money to spend or inheriting a very expensive team, but pretty crap with a bit less. You can complain all you like about how little money he had but he still had far more than Hearts. He'll do much better now he has a decent budget at Birmingham. Maybe I'm intellectually vacant but this post made little sense to me 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Maybe I'm intellectually vacant but this post made little sense to me I've re-read it and it reads ok to me. Tell me specifically which parts you don't make sense of and I will try to help you understand... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I've re-read it and it reads ok to me. Tell me specifically which parts you don't make sense of and I will try to help you understand... The first bit to the end You go on about 'either he was rich or poor'. Well, no, he was at Ibrox for 4 and a half years and engaged spells of both having cash (Boumsong's fee which bought the Fergusons and Kyrgiakoses of this world) and of having nothing hence guys like Ostenstad joining for free. It was a mixture - he didn't have cash every transfer window, nor was he reliant on bosmans every window. That's why your post is so confusing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The first bit to the end You go on about 'either he was rich or poor'. Well, no, he was at Ibrox for 4 and a half years and engaged spells of both having cash (Boumsong's fee which bought the Fergusons and Kyrgiakoses of this world) and of having nothing hence guys like Ostenstad joining for free. It was a mixture - he didn't have cash every transfer window, nor was he reliant on bosmans every window. That's why your post is so confusing. Funny, that's pretty much what my post was saying. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Funny, that's pretty much what my post was saying. Obviously I worded it far better :devil: 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.