Summer Transfer thread - fun while it lasted!

[djbroxybear 0]

It would seem from our transfer dealing targets we are offering what we think the player is worth and not what the club the player plays for think hes worth.

The thing is before an offer for the player goes in the two clubs would have discussed figures i can understand us going in with a low bid to negotiate from, but to keep going in with low after low bids and getting knocked back makes you look idiotic whoever has been doing our transfer negotiations is a clown. If we couldnt afford the original offer the club wanted we shouldnt be going back with low bids we should be walking away end of, its been building up Rangers fans hopes of these players coming to be a big dissapointment.

[Danny 0]

Hoped to wake up to the news Cuellar had signed. Heard the Murray Park story late last night.

[craig 5,199]

It would seem from our transfer dealing targets we are offering what we think the player is worth and not what the club the player plays for think hes worth.

The thing is before an offer for the player goes in the two clubs would have discussed figures i can understand us going in with a low bid to negotiate from, but to keep going in with low after low bids and getting knocked back makes you look idiotic whoever has been doing our transfer negotiations is a clown. If we couldnt afford the original offer the club wanted we shouldnt be going back with low bids we should be walking away end of, its been building up Rangers fans hopes of these players coming to be a big dissapointment.

 

Hearts wanted 3 mill for Wallace. Are you suggesting we should have just stumped that up instead of negotiating them down to 1.5 million ?

[Danny 0]

Hearts wanted 3 mill for Wallace. Are you suggesting we should have just stumped that up instead of negotiating them down to 1.5 million ?

 

I've noticed from the start you've defended our signing policy, citing that the old way ended up having us in debt. But you (and others) should know that the old way, under Dick Advocaat was about chasing a dream, about signing top players for sums exceeding �£4M on a regular basis. It led to spending of figures around �£72M.

 

I don't think any of us are asking for that nonsense again - it's not our ballpark and we know it.

 

The problem lies in negotiating over a matter of a million pound. There's a difference between paying �£3M for one player and throwing �£6M at several clubs in order to compete with high spending competitors.

 

I can't see how spending �£3M on Wallace would have led us to go bust, just as I can't see how �£2M on Goodwillie would have either.

 

Yes, we managed to get Wallace for �£1.5M which is a nice saving, but the same policy has led to us missing out on many players.

 

Being frugal, tight and trying to get on the cheap is failing on far more occasions than it's succeeding. And it has nothing to do, any more, with stopping us going into crazy debt like we did in more salubrious times.

[craig 5,199]

I've noticed from the start you've defended our signing policy, citing that the old way ended up having us in debt. But you (and others) should know that the old way, under Dick Advocaat was about chasing a dream, about signing top players for sums exceeding �£4M on a regular basis. It led to spending of figures around �£72M.

 

I don't think any of us are asking for that nonsense again - it's not our ballpark and we know it.

 

The problem lies in negotiating over a matter of a million pound. There's a difference between paying �£3M for one player and throwing �£6M at several clubs in order to compete with high spending competitors.

 

I can't see how spending �£3M on Wallace would have led us to go bust, just as I can't see how �£2M on Goodwillie would have either.

 

Yes, we managed to get Wallace for �£1.5M which is a nice saving, but the same policy has led to us missing out on many players.

 

Being frugal, tight and trying to get on the cheap is failing on far more occasions than it's succeeding. And it has nothing to do, any more, with stopping us going into crazy debt like we did in more salubrious times.

 

I dont really disagree with what you are saying.

 

However, to counter that what if each player we were bidding for was at the financial level of Wallace ? For each signing we could be looking at paying 1.5 mill more than what we ultimately get the player for. How long before we are in the shite again doing that ?

 

It isnt a science, we all know that. But simply accepting what a selling club is asking will still but us in the mire again - a selling club will always put a price on a player's head of more than what he actually is worth. A buying club will do the polar opposite - and rightly so for BOTH clubs.

 

But who is to say that you are right and that the club should "just pay what they want" and that the club is wrong by having a value of a player that they wont exceed ? It is similar to a regular job where a prospective employer will offer "up to" a certain amount and it isnt that often that they go over it.

 

Likewise, there is nothing to say I am right either.

 

However, knowing where the club have been - and, in my opinion, yes we were "chasing the dream" but the same premise remains that we were "just paying what the selling club wanted".

 

And dont forget that we largely eradicated the debt from Advocaat's era with the underwritten share issue that SDM put up.... so why is it that we found ourself in the same position AGAIN - and, unless I am mistaken, when it happened the 2nd time we were not paying sums in excess of 4 million for players.

 

So, yes, it CAN happen again.

 

I dont like it any more than you do that we are losing out on transfer targets but if it is due to fiscal prudence then I will grudgingly accept it.

 

I would use Verhoek as the perfect example, bartering over what seemed to be 300k seemed silly to me with a player who would have a resale value.... but then, it would appear that the financial aspect of that deal wasnt a deal-breaker anyway, it was the player's reluctance to move abroad.

 

Sometimes there is more going on than we know.

[djbroxybear 0]

Hearts wanted 3 mill for Wallace. Are you suggesting we should have just stumped that up instead of negotiating them down to 1.5 million ?

 

Wallace was on last year of his contract and to be fair Hearts got a good price for him as we actually started at 300k and last bid was 750k before we landed him. I was referring to the negotiating with the players who are in contract with clubs we have tried to sign Davidson, Goodwilie, Verhoek, Juhasz.

[der Berliner 3,744]

While I do also have the habbit of posting a few things aside from and in reply to rumours, let's try and keep this thread on topic and post the rumours in here ... while debating them elsewhere. Cheers!

[Stefanovitch 0]

Hoped to wake up to the news Cuellar had signed. Heard the Murray Park story late last night.

 

I had hoped for the same news. Avoided t'internet most of the evening after the rumours only to be dissapointed the following morning.

[der Berliner 3,744]

Lot's of international action. I do hope that we get the McKay deal done soonish now. The rumour front remains quite though, bar the odd repeat of Edu being targetted by Auxerre.

[Danny 0]

Ok, Evening Times has Danny Wilson on the front page with a 'come and get me' plea. But I can't see anything online.

 

Anyone able to shed light?