Totti 0 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 A sorry state of affairs really. The legacy Murray will leave behind at the club is being unable to offer Broadfoot etc enough money and losing one of the best players in years (Wilson) for peanuts. And before anyone says 'it's the economy we're in', funny how Celtic don't seem to have been on the brink of banruptcy several times through the 00's. A disgrace really. And what's particularly pathetic is nobody really seems bothered. this has been coming for years. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 So we are going to get a max of 2 or 3 in with 6 likely to leave? If so that is horrendous, the takeover must happen soon if this is the situation we find ourselves in. all the player speculation will change if a new buyer comes in. this seems to be a worse case scenario to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,677 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Media speculation (and this thread) suggests a budget of �£5million even under same owner as before. Further comments today in the ET now also infer any players sold will mean further monies for the manager. That could mean a budget of around �£12million which we should be able to replace Bougherra, Wilson and Boyd with. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,677 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 PS: I should add the chances of us spending all of any transfer income are slim to none. But I would expect a fair amount to be made available. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) If there are funds available then why are we letting so many players leave on free transfers? For all their faults, i'd be astounded if we signed a better backup left back than Smith, a better winger than Beasley, a better forward than Novo Edited May 11, 2010 by Flying Hippo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,677 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 That is the $64,000 question mate. Obviously Walter doesn't rate all three of those players as they hardly feature even when fully fit and playing well. He must feel he can get better value by allowing them to leave and find cheaper alternatives - probably also free transfers. In addition, Steven Smith rejected an offer as he wanted regular football while Beasley's wage is rather high. I think Smith was also quoted somewhere the other day saying he would be keeping some of our out of contract players so I'd expect Novo and Broadfoot to stay - if they are happy to be fringe players again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 If there are funds available then why are we letting so many players leave on free transfers? For all their faults, i'd be astounded if we signed a better backup left back than Smith, a better winger than Beasley, a better forward than Novo Fleck, little and wylde all come to mind. They will have to be played next season and i dont mind that one bit. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 Fleck, little and wylde all come to mind. They will have to be played next season and i dont mind that one bit. Little is a terrible player imo. Maybe he'll do a job as a backup right back to Whittaker, he isn't a striker in a million years Fleck should be first choice next season. The whole 'bed him in gently' stuff has lasted 2 years now. He's better than Naismith and it's time for him to play every week 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,126 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 If there are funds available then why are we letting so many players leave on free transfers? For all their faults, i'd be astounded if we signed a better backup left back than Smith, a better winger than Beasley, a better forward than Novo These last several years, Rangers have increasingly been dealing from a position of growing weakness. It's cause and effect, decisions taken a decade past are having an effect now. There has not been a long term plan at Rangers in the last decade, it's been crisis management throughout. The overiding outlook has been get over the next hurdle, and face the next one after that when it appears(usually soonest). Murray is very much a product of his conditioning, he is the son of a professional gambler(who took his own life as his creditors moved in). SDM is a gambler too, and he has been on a ten year losing streak. As trophies were won during this period, he appeared bullish and confident, playing master bluff. A growing number of Bears became increasingly concerned that our club became another chip on the table. Even the bluest of blue chips was utilised to thread a dozen or more companies into the very fabric of the club. Currently, the Bank has our club in it's back pocket and it's their turn to take any number of slices from the dripping roast. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,677 Posted May 11, 2010 Share Posted May 11, 2010 I don't rate Little at all. Wylde does look decent though so am happy enough if he deputises for Papac next season. Of course if we still have Broadfoot then he (or Whittaker) can either full back role as well. All in all, Steven Smith is a player we can afford to lose. I reckon he'll go onto do quite well in England though. 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.