The Summer Transfer Rumour Round-up Thread

[trublusince1982 243]

So £5M - I'd be surprised and a little worried if we spent half that amount (on fees).

Why? We would be running at break even

[JFK-1 1,693]

there should be around £3m available from increased revenue through promotion and the expectation of ending toward top of the league. Wages are pretty much covered by the removal from the wage bill of templeton,shiels, gotomski, durrant, law, Clark, Mccoist, aird( if he goes),zalelem, oduwa and a couple of under 21 players. Also doesn't include larger sales of ST than last year. On top of that I thought we would have seen a loan against shares for maybe £2m ish. All outlays in transfers should be self perpetuating and set the foundation for future growth in the amount we can spend. As in if we spend £1m on X player we should look to sell for £1.5m with it all going back into the pot.

 

We have no idea how any available money is allocated, I presume it's up to the manager to decide and since we don't know who is payed what and how much has been freed up to cover the wages of new signings you can't say a thing about what should be spent on what.

 

You say there should be around 3 million avaialble. Are you aware that Mariappa alone as an example was on an estimated £2 million a year at Palace? I doubt we will be matching that but we're also bringing in the likes of Barton and Hill who will also be accustmoed to large pay packets which is just a brief example of how little £3 million can do in the modern game.

 

If the manger decides to spend the kitty on wages for free agents rather than transfer fees which would leave us little to pay quality players accustomed to large pay packets I will trust his judgement. He does have a background in finance as well as in football.

[CammyF 8,119]

Why? We would be running at break even

 

Really? I am buy my own admission way out of touch of where we are financially and what DK has up his sleeve but would be hugely surprised if we can afford to spend anything near £5M on fees alone - been wrong on these things before tho

[trublusince1982 243]

We have no idea how any available money is allocated, I presume it's up to the manager to decide and since we don't know who is payed what and how much has been freed up to cover the wages of new signings you can't say a thing about what should be spent on what.

 

You say there should be around 3 million avaialble. Are you aware that Mariappa alone as an example was on an estimated £2 million a year at Palace? I doubt we will be matching that but we're also bringing in the likes of Barton and Hill who will also be accustmoed to large pay packets which is just a brief example of how little £3 million can do in the modern game.

 

If the manger decides to spend the kitty on wages for free agents rather than transfer fees which would leave us little to pay quality players accustomed to large pay packets I will trust his judgement. He does have a background in finance as well as in football.

the manager has already said he believes in a wage structure across the squad that sees everyone on relatively the same amount. Don't think Barton will be on much more than the squad average. Definitely will not be above £12k a week. If spending money on transfers that should bring returns is not within our means it would make no sense what so ever to spend the limited funds we have on options that will not bring future revenues. If no money for transfer fees is available we should not be expending large outlays in wages on 30+ year old players. With MW financial back ground I would be amazed to see him not look at growing returns on our initial outlays to help in the future. If you have a limited budget you need to look at growing that budget year on year

 

Might be remembering wrong but sure King also said at one point Rangers running with a wage budget of 30% turnover or there abouts is unacceptable and needs to rise. Would imagine it will be in the business plan to bring our wage budget towards more generally expected levels for our club without the need to sacrifice transfer kitty. We haven't seen enough spent on wages so far to out strip what we have saved by any dramatic amount

Edited June 19, 2016 by trublusince1982

[craig 5,199]

Short memories right enough. We spent £1.1m last season.

 

Nobody wants us to spend out with our means. There should be around £3m give or take profit from the coming year before we even talk board loans. Any signing should be with the expectation of making a return the talk of us losing money or not being able to afford it is just excuses that hold very little weight.

 

If we don't have any trust in our ability to increase revenue year on year or bring in returns on our expenditure we should just shut the doors. Talk of accepting anything other than being the best in Scotland goes against everything we have ever stood for

 

You do realise that "operating within your means" actually means the WHOLE business, not just the footballing operation ? Ibrox needs some TLC, they have recently laid new 4G inside and outside at MP, they have had to increase administrative staffing levels as they had been raped by the previous encumbents, they have had to start a scouting network from scratch - and this is ignoring that we are still stuck with an awful retail deal.

 

You are looking at this from merely the playing staff and saying "X players out on Y wages should be able to be replaced with A players on B wages" - it isn't that simple when the previous encumbents had basically cannibalized the whole club.

 

Where are you getting this 3 million profit figure from ? Based on what exactly ?

 

You don't need to be the best by outspending everyone else. It doesn't have to work that way, and neither should it. You can be the best by getting the LONG TERM planning right. You may wish to see us spend 2 million each on 2 players for a total of 4 million. Me ? I would prefer we spent a quarter of that and spent the rest on the Club's infrastructure from Academy, to Youth Development to Scouting. A short term approach to the Club is what got us in administration - and the lack of a proper long term vision. I prefer the long term vision every day of the week.

[craig 5,199]

we leave for pre season trip in 6 days do we not?any expectation we plan signings other than loans after that would need to go down as poor poor planning. Manager time and again has talked about the importance of pre season and the team being in and ready. Doubt very much our plan is to wait till after pre season and take a squad that doesn't resemble the finished article to America.

 

Even the manager knows that there is little you can do if looking at players still under contract. You are placing him on a pittard for a comment that was meant to be an indicator, not cast in stone.

[craig 5,199]

Why? We would be running at break even

 

Breakeven is only an accident away from being bust again.

 

We should be looking to operate at a profit IF possible.

[craig 5,199]

the manager has already said he believes in a wage structure across the squad that sees everyone on relatively the same amount. Don't think Barton will be on much more than the squad average. Definitely will not be above £12k a week. If spending money on transfers that should bring returns is not within our means it would make no sense what so ever to spend the limited funds we have on options that will not bring future revenues. If no money for transfer fees is available we should not be expending large outlays in wages on 30+ year old players. With MW financial back ground I would be amazed to see him not look at growing returns on our initial outlays to help in the future. If you have a limited budget you need to look at growing that budget year on year

 

Might be remembering wrong but sure King also said at one point Rangers running with a wage budget of 30% turnover or there abouts is unacceptable and needs to rise. Would imagine it will be in the business plan to bring our wage budget towards more generally expected levels for our club without the need to sacrifice transfer kitty. We haven't seen enough spent on wages so far to out strip what we have saved by any dramatic amount

 

How can you possibly say "definitely not more than 12k a week". What proof do you have of this ? Or are you assuming it as it fits with the argument you are looking to make ? You have inside knowledge of the contracts being offered ? You are also, it appears to me at least, to be ignoring that it is highly likely that every single player retained from last year will have seen a fairly significant increase in wages from last season having secured promotion - I have nothing on which to base that either, but it would stand to reason.

 

As for "If spending money on transfers that should bring returns is not within our means it would make no sense what so ever to spend the limited funds we have on options that will not bring future revenues - again you seem to be failing to realise that value for money means more than getting more back than you buy a player for. Having Barton is value for money even though there is no sell on fee - his experience, free agent, on whatever wages, proves value for money - a player of Barton's caliber, in his prime, would cost well in excess of 1 or 2 million. Even at his age, he should be able to stroll SPL. So VFM can be obtained in multiple ways.

 

You also cant treat a football clubs finances in terms of "if I spend 500k this year and sell that guy on for 1 mill next year then I can spend 1 mill next year". You are right that MW has a financial background and I absolutely guarantee you that when he was a trader with HSBC he never had this philosophy - constantly merely spending everything you have made will see businesses going bust in a heartbeat. You are doing no more than operating at breakeven (at best) and therefore if you hit a bad run, or a bad signing, you are in the crapper.

 

Wage levels increasing above 30% though WILL impact on the transfer budget as the transfer budget and wage package will be a total package. Yes, revenues will increase. Yes, wages will increase. And we have no idea how much the transfer budget is.

 

But you know the most pertinent part of ALL of this ?? The transfer window hasn't even technically opened yet. Who is to say that MW isn't keeping his powder dry for one or two marquee signings when the window opens.

 

Interestingly enough, our signings so far :

 

Barton - Free Agent

Hill - Free Agent

Rossiter - Free Agent

Crooks & Windass - pre-contract Bosmans

 

So how do you know that we are done in the transfer market and wont be spending transfer fees ? Answer, you don't....

 

Hill and Barton are experience which we all know we were lacking and, just as importantly, down the spine of the team. Rossiter, Crooks & Windass are the youngsters with sell-on value that we all wanted to see.

 

And regardless of whether MW wants everyone in for pre-season or not, the window doesn't shut for another 2.5 months. Much work and transfers could still take place.

[der Berliner 3,747]

we leave for pre season trip in 6 days do we not?any expectation we plan signings other than loans after that would need to go down as poor poor planning. Manager time and again has talked about the importance of pre season and the team being in and ready. Doubt very much our plan is to wait till after pre season and take a squad that doesn't resemble the finished article to America.

 

As I said before, right now we already have a squad that can see us through the first few weeks if not months of the season. Not ideal, not any sort of finished article but they are there. And we'll sure add people before the season starts. These people will neither sid idly by and wait till the last day and any transfer happening ere keeping themselves fit. MW would sure like them in as early as possible, but two or three might play at the Euros and won't be around anyway for some time. Those still contracted to another club will start preseason there. We simply should relax a little here ... not least since it is the same for all other clubs too.

[ian1964 10,724]