rbr 1,270 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 No, the playing squad. sorry thats what i meant , the entire squad from youths right trough to first team players and including coaches and all associated staff like physios etc 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 sorry thats what i meant , the entire squad from youths right trough to first team players and including coaches and all associated staff like physios etc No, just the playing squad. Coaches and other staff is separate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 GA, many of the players were already at the club when we were demoted to Division 3 and were on SPL contracts. We also lost pretty much a full team. Who did we bring in - Cribari, Sandaza, Black, Shiels, Kyle, Faure, Argyriou, Templeton - any others I am missing ? Given we had lost pretty much a full team we needed replacements. If you take the above out we have very little experience left in the squad and would be relying on the kids. And it is all very well to say "then rely on the kids, they will do fine" but the reality is that we had no idea how they would cope playing for Rangers first team. Add to that the fact that we as a support are very impatient and it is easy to see why McCoist went with experience. Were there not rumours that Argyriou & Faure were forced upon McCoist (could be wrong....) but when you look at the others, they were in the SPL and were probably their respective teams best players - I suspect that McCoist felt that we would get back to the SPL reasonably swiftly thanks to reconstruction so wanted dependable players at reasonable wages for doing so (reasonable when considering what players who left were getting). What also needs to be taken into consideration is that you cant just say "we want to sign you Temps but we will wait till we are back in the SPL and then sign you and give you SPL wages". It isnt just about spending SFL3 wages - you also have to consider whether you WANT the player (we ALL were ecstatc at getting Templeton) and if you WANT the player you sometimes have to just go for it - when we get back to the SPL Templeton wouldnt have been available to us, he would have been elsewhere. You are arguing a very simplistic point in that we dont need a wage budget of 7 mill to win SFL3 - which is fair enough. However, there are other factors at play other than just the 7 mill "magic number". We can pretty much all agree about the standard on the pitch - and we also are suggesting we would buy into a "philosophy".... and if you look at players such as Shiels & Templeton (and even to a lesser extent Sandaza) - they are players who, on their day, can be exciting footballers. Maybe, just maybe, McCoist DOES buy into an attacking philosophy given he purchased those types of players - but the players arent performing as they should and McCoist himself is getting bogged down in "3 points at all costs" mentality instead of demanding flowing football and let the results take care of themselves, which they eventually would do if you move the ball at pace and show some movement. The wage bill isnt the biggest issue we have. If we simply sign players to replace current ones without properly evaluating WHY current players are under-performing then it will be cause for great concern. By the way, you dont honestly believe Green is going to give McCoist 10 mill to spend do you ? No way is that happening. We could've built a squad capable of winning Div3 for a lot less money that is my point, we seem to have learned nothing from the past. When we get back to the SPL there will be plenty of players available to us, we didn't need to bring in any SPL players to win this league and the money could've kept in the bank for when it is actually needed. The comeback should've been split into 2 parts out of Div3/2, then SPL players to build for Div1/1st year SPL. Instead we started as if we were actually still in the top flight. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,270 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 No, just the playing squad. Coaches and other staff is separate. but that covers not just first team but all players 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 We could've built a squad capable of winning Div3 for a lot less money that is my point, we seem to have learned nothing from the past. When we get back to the SPL there will be plenty of players available to us, we didn't need to bring in any SPL players to win this league and the money could've kept in the bank for when it is actually needed. The comeback should've been split into 2 parts out of Div3/2, then SPL players to build for Div1/1st year SPL. Instead we started as if we were actually still in the top flight. We could have signed some good SFL players on 1K a week or so and gotten the same outcomes, possibly better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 but that covers not just first team but all players Well i'm actually not sure if youth contracts count in there, but they won't be worth much anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 We could have signed some good SFL players on 1K a week or so and gotten the same outcomes, possibly better. Exactly mate, there was no need to sign players on the wages we have, and to make it worse we seem to be following on with the same strategy for next season as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 We could've built a squad capable of winning Div3 for a lot less money that is my point, we seem to have learned nothing from the past. When we get back to the SPL there will be plenty of players available to us, we didn't need to bring in any SPL players to win this league and the money could've kept in the bank for when it is actually needed. The comeback should've been split into 2 parts out of Div3/2, then SPL players to build for Div1/1st year SPL. Instead we started as if we were actually still in the top flight. And in building a squad capable of winning SFL3 would have required us to dismantle it for SFL2 - that is as short-sighted as simply signing players each year as we move through the leagues too. GA, we arent spending THAT much more money than we would have been anyway. We brought in seasoned pros who still have plenty of years left in them (Kyle aside) so these guys, if performing, could very easily have saved us money by the time we got back to the SPL - Whittaker, McGregor et al were on how much in the SPL ? Yet we got these guys for a fraction. Templeton and Shiels have proven themselves in the SPL as have Sandaza and Black (although I have personally never liked Black as a player and was very disappointed we signed him - but he has that combatative edge that SFL3 needed, so it is easy to see why McCoist signed him. Also, sadly, whether we like it or not, a premium would have had to be paid to get these guys to drop 3 divisions to play for us. Counter-intuitive I know but that is how these things work - they are effectively giving up 3 yrs of their career in the top flight, so you have to compensate them for that. Keeping the money in the bank for "when it is needed" is also a short-sighted view too. You are one of the many, me included, who want this new "philosophy"... yet want us to keep money in the bank and then spend it when we get back to the SPL. What is wrong with spending it NOW on players who can help foster this philosophy that we want ? Who is to say that McCoist wasnt thinking about spending the money now to get these players in, get a philosophy on how to play football (you cant really argue too much that Shiels & Templeton are attacking players with some creativity - and Black likes to play the ball too) - and those guys are also young enough to still be playing SPL football when we get there. Kyle & Cribari are the only ones who dont fit the bill, and even with Cribari he likes to play it on the deck, though will be too old for the SPL when we get there. Then on top of all of that nobody has known for certain, and even now we dont know for certain, what league we will be in next season. It MIGHT (though unlikely) be SPL - so these guys we were "wasting" money on could have been for just one season. As I said, there are many factors that you are refusing to give credence to because it will never fit your "we are wasting 7 mill a year on wages to win SFL3" agenda. I for one dont see it as simplisticall as you do. There are many factors at play here and quite possibly some that neither you nor I are aware of ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,270 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Well i'm actually not sure if youth contracts count in there, but they won't be worth much anyway. very possibly , but what i,m trying to get to the bottom of , is how many people/players the £7 million covers , we are quoted as paying £7,000 to certain players , others are on more IE Alexander , McCulloch etc , others will be less , however if you use the £7000 as an average , that only gets you 19 players . This is no excuse fort the shite we have been playing before anyone thinks it is 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 We could have signed some good SFL players on 1K a week or so and gotten the same outcomes, possibly better. So take the short term approach that we all are demanding we DONT do ? 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.