BBC McCoist told to make cuts

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Yes we are we have the second highest wage bill in Scotland to play in League 1 and if we are not in trouble financially why is this thread on the Forum?

 

I believe the majority of Rangers fans want to see a team that plays good football and gives 100% effort so that you come away from Ibrox feeling entertained or that the players tried their best. I haven't seen or felt entertained at Ibrox in a while.

 

Again if we are not in trouble financially why do we need investment? If the club is run correctly it should be able to sustain itself with no need for additional investment

[Darthter 542]

The big problem we have (as I've said before), Rangers are not a 3rd tier team. They do not have a 3rd tier infrastructure.....and they certainly don't have a 3rd tier fanbase or turnover.

 

Someone previously stated that our player wage budget was something like 35% of turnover - how does that compare to other teams in our league??? Aberdeen for example have a 60% wages to turnover ratio (this looks like it includes ALL staff) (http://www.afc.co.uk/staticFiles/de/b9/0,,10284~178654,00.pdf)

 

Folk are complaining that we need to cut players (and wages), yet those very same folk are wanting to see something better on the pitch - you can't have it both ways. You can't cut the 1st team wage bill while investing in the squad at the same time.

 

What happens when we hit the top division again??? We need to have something resembling a top tier infrastructure & players already in place....if not we run a real threat of being relegated.

If we are to start cutting players & reducing the "quality" that we currently have....how much would we need to spend in order to secure our place in the SPFL??? How many players would we need to bring in???? Would we have the cash @ that point to enable us to do that???

 

I get the impression that folk are looking a wee bit too short term. Also remember that there has been no official indication that any cuts MUST come from the playing budget....

[der Berliner 3,803]

Haven't got the time right now to go through the Annual Accounts. Ibrox, Auchenhowie et al has its costs. Paying police, security et all on a match day with 40k people too. Obviously, people will be looking at the player squad first and foremost and as far as I am aware, we "only" pay our top players a third (at most) of what we paid when were still in the SPL. You could always argue that we could pay them less, which in turn would reduce the quality (a term very much up to debate, btw) of people who you attract. We could have gone with the same squad of last season too. Which might very well have resulted in performances of last season as well. Do you expect that next summer, another 35k would have bought season tickets for somesuch though? IMHO, last summer, the squad was been tailor-made for the challenge of this and next season. Perhaps the first half-year in the top tier too. Without paying anything but wages. The squad breezed through Divi One thus far. In a manner and form to be expected by Rangers supporters, not the sterile diet of last season (against "lesser" teams).

 

What needs to be adressed is where the IPO money has gone, as this is probably the main reason for our assumed financial problems. Where other money has gone. That can be done aside from getting new investment. Investment that remains at the club, not with shareholders, SPIVS, you name them.

[calscot 0]

I think there are two massive myths that people are buying in to, one is that we have a huge squad and secondly our player wage bill is huge. Both may be larger than we need and larger than is healthy for our income but they are a fraction of what we have been used to throughout the history of the club. The wage bill is at about 20% of what it once was and you'd struggle to make two sides out of our squad that were made up of over 21 year old players. That group used to be around 30 with far less home grown.

 

People seem to be panicking about the players wages when to me it seems to be a problem but only a small part and more of a symptom than a cause.

 

It's easy to look back on hindsight and say a lot of stuff about where the money goes but it ignores the fact that we've been "rescued" by self interested people who seen the club as a short term cash cow. They were never going to run the club with proper fiscal prudence as the profligacy was convenient to mask their own massive drain on the club's finances. It's all a bit like complaining how an embezzler ran a company, it's kind of an oxymoron.

 

The money is gone but so are most of the beneficiaries and we're at stage 2 where money can no longer haemorrhage from the club as it has already been bled dry. It's a different game now and we can't go back.

 

It's time to be realistic about what we can afford, what we need to compete and what we can do to optimise our situation.

 

Our wage bill needs to be trimmed but while we're struggling to buy the groceries, it's already a bit lean, there is not much fat to lose, and the flabbiest bits are not easy to remove. We have to be careful not to lose the muscle or health and fitness which we need to thrive.

 

We need a decent base for our assault on the Championship, and at least a main skeleton we can flesh out without too much expense to compete at the top of the Premiership.

 

There are other areas we need to turn our gaze to. The halving of the wages for the management team is a start, and the removal of stupid bonuses for the board are a no-brainer. But there are plenty of other areas where we're not getting value for money or where it is being completely squandered for no gain to the club - like our PR and legal bills.

 

Stadium and training ground costs also need to be brought under control as they seem massive compared to our income which makes you wonder how English Championship sides with large stadiums survive.

 

Where the board have been completely incompetent up to now (among other things) is the low level of income beyond ticket sales. We seem to have little coming in from merchandising and catering, where we used to bring in several millions. We still have a similar number of people attending the games and the number following us has not dwindled so where is that income now?

 

The same could be said of sponsorship when our fan-base is as strong as every - and motivated. Selling the naming rights to the stadium may be contentious but when you have no credit and facing a loss, those principles are just unaffordable.

 

We cannot rely on a share issue every couple of years - although I predict one once we look like a shoe-in for Premiership promotion. It will need to be the last one for a while and you have to hope it will be subscribed and underwritten by Dave King - although that is really taking him and his money for granted.

 

To get back to the subject of squad trimming, I can't see us saving more than a million or so but when actually applying the cuts it's going to be difficult as loads of people are making list of the deadwood the perennial problem for Rangers is that rejects are almost impossible to shed without pay-offs. If you believe the press these pay-offs seem to be the whole value of the contract which seems stupid and lacking in a win-win scenario. It seems you may as well keep the players and not play them while they stagnate their career and future prospects.

 

Surely you'd think there was a compromise where we let them go and pay them the difference between their Rangers basic and their expected wages for whichever new team they find? Surely that is better for us and better for them? The problem is that we reputedly pay them off the whole amount and then they double up on a new wage elsewhere. When you do that, where is their need to compromise? Seems to me we need to let them rot in the reserves until they are desperate to leave.

 

That won't work with those in their twilight years who have lost ambition and are happy to build up a pension before retiring. That is the only real argument I can see against recruiting older players.

 

So in conclusion, I can't see what we can really do to significantly reduce our playing costs apart from outside offers from other clubs and natural wastage. We can only pro-actively look forward and tighten up our recruitment strategy while learning from our many past mistakes.

[Super Cooper 0]

Why over 21? Because it suits you? Players should be ready for the first team around 18/19. Never mind the thoughtless and obvious contradiction before that.

 

Your opinions are so blinded and so biased they are rarely worth debating but when nonsense like your first paragraph is written it must be met head on.

[andy steel 0]

Wow. I was just going to write 'cracking post, Cal' when I scrolled past SC's response.

 

Just goes to show you, I suppose. I thought it was superb.

[calscot 0]

Why over 21? Because it suits you?

 

Why not? What is the universally correct age? Players are considered rookies right up until about 23 which is why you still get U23 sides. There is an U21 league so no matter what your opinion is, it disagrees with pretty much the whole of the profession.

 

But the point that you have completely missed is that if you compare past squads you'll find far more over 21s. YOU want to discount this as it doesn't suit you. You like to count all players above about 17 as part of the first team squad so you can say it's huge, but it's comparing apples with oranges.

 

Players should be ready for the first team around 18/19. Never mind the thoughtless and obvious contradiction before that.

 

Says who? You? Why then do we have U21 leagues? If that is then why don't we release all 20 year olds who are not yet in the first team? Why are there no big clubs full of 18 year olds? Again your using your very unique view compared to most of top professional football to completely miss the point. That is that when we counted the previous squads in the past, we didn't count the youngsters.

 

IIRC We used to have over 30 experienced professionals, and some people like to call our current squad, "huge" and other hyperbole.

 

Your opinions are so blinded and so biased they are rarely worth debating but when nonsense like your first paragraph is written it must be met head on.

 

Your final comment just says you are totally unable to make a convincing argument.

 

Let me ask you something, if I'm blind, how come I can include so much breadth of scope? If I'm biased how come I can compare both sides and also change my mind if the facts or my understanding changes? If I'm talking nonsense, how come I can explain it in much detail, in many ways? Then see if you can apply the same attributes to yourself.

[rbr 1,266]

Why over 21? Because it suits you? Players should be ready for the first team around 18/19. Never mind the thoughtless and obvious contradiction before that.

 

Your opinions are so blinded and so biased they are rarely worth debating but when nonsense like your first paragraph is written it must be met head on.

 

There is hardly a team in Europe who have players ready at 18/19 , also how many do you want ready , 1 . 2 or a whole squad , this bringing kids through nonsense was and is a dream of those living in a footballing fantasy world

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Super_Ally 0]

If we had a team full of 17 year olds they'd only complain that these over the hill has beens are keeping the 15 year olds out of the team!

 

All joking aside the adage if you're good enough your old enough works both ways for me. Whether its a young Wayne Rooney or an ageing Davie Weir. Younger players are generally better for longevity of the current first team and sell on values etc but you need some old and experienced heads sometimes too.

 

The value of the Lee McCulloch's in our squad may be more in their experience and guidance than in their playing abilities.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Super_Ally
Proof read posts!

[calscot 0]

I better point out that SC's post has clouded the main thrust of my point, which is that while cutting the cost of the squad may be desirable but does not seem very practicable, which means while we should do what can be done, and improve recruitment policy for the future, the main focus of cost cutting should be elsewhere, and a parallel emphasis made on endeavours to increase revenue.

 

We have to prioritise what will give us the biggest gains, instead of lustily taking a meat cleaver to what brings in the money in the first place and which already offers very slim pickings.