The Summer Transfer Rumour Round-up Thread

[calscot 0]

Yes - we were starting to steer away from football in the sense of what makes a player "high-profile" - so I thought I would take it to the extreme for a bit of fun.

 

Just thinking that that could be a marketing win which could raise our profile down south... He's got more than 10 times the exposure of the club feed.

 

Had a look at Warburton and he's "only" got 72k but I think it's higher than most other current Scottish football personalities - Joey aside.

[craig 5,199]

I agree - I also think that it would be harsh to judge any player from Villa on last season (look at Sinclair - Villa fans were shocked they got a fee for him - up here he is being lauded as some sort of world beater)

 

I think most EPL players would find it a bit easier up here. Sinclair is being considered a world beater because he signed for Celtic. But that was a high price for them to pay. He will do a decent job for them but I'm not sure he was value for money.

 

Lescott for a free, and undoubtedly on less wages than Toure will have us in pretty good shape.

 

When you look at the two squads I don't think that there is much between them (if we get Garner and Lescott) but the amount they have spent on transfers and wages will be significantly higher than us. We can still compete with them but on a fraction of the cost. Right now, that is pretty much the best we can do.

 

Them spending 3.5 mill on Sinclair is great from a PR perspective, but not quite so good from a proper financial perspective. He too is fairly close to an age where there will be little to no sell-on value.

[Uilleam 5,919]

Gentlemen, ffs!!

 

Please realise -and admit- that the fhilth only ever sign 2 types of player

 

1. Stars of true International class

2. wunderkinder

 

The difference lies not in levels of ability, but merely in age.

 

Depressing, I know, but we cannot deny it.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Them spending 3.5 mill on Sinclair is great from a PR perspective, but not quite so good from a proper financial perspective. He too is fairly close to an age where there will be little to no sell-on value.

 

I noticed some in the media criticising the fee we are paying for Garner because he is "28 years old with little sell on value down the line" yet they throw out twice as much for 27 year old Sinclair and it's a good signing?

 

I feel what's going on here is that they are simply irritated that we can indulge in million plus transfer fees at all. There appears to be a mentality most evident among followers of certain other Scottish clubs that once you have had a financial crisis such as Rangers did then you can't ever afford a transfer fee again.

 

Over at an exuberant ones forum for example they have been obsessing over the Garner deal for days with a topic titled "The Rangers - at it again with signings"

 

Now some of the posts they have in that are so absurd as to be scarcely believable that a normal functioning human being actually said it but on my part I peruse the rambling and glory in the obvious jealousy and inferiority complex of a support who are STILL fixated on a cup win months after the event while obsessing over a team not even playing in their league.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I noticed some in the media criticising the fee we are paying for Garner because he is "28 years old with little sell on value down the line" yet they throw out twice as much for 27 year old Sinclair and it's a good signing?

 

I feel what's going on here is that they are simply irritated that we can indulge in million plus transfer fees at all. There appears to be a mentality most evident among followers of certain other Scottish clubs that once you have had a financial crisis such as Rangers did then you can't ever afford a transfer fee again.

 

Over at an exuberant ones forum for example they have been obsessing over the Garner deal for days with a topic titled "The Rangers - at it again with signings"

 

Now some of the posts they have in that are so absurd as to be scarcely believable that a normal functioning human being actually said it but on my part I peruse the rambling and glory in the obvious jealousy and inferiority complex of a support who are STILL fixated on a cup win months after the event while obsessing over a team not even playing in their league.

The two players have rather different pedigrees. On paper Garner doesn't look a great signing at all.

[craig 5,199]

The two players have rather different pedigrees. On paper Garner doesn't look a great signing at all.

 

Agreed, but I think the point that JFK-1 is making is that when talking about sell-on value you generally take age into account too - if we signed Garner on a 3 yr and they signed Sinclair on a 4 yr - then they effectively see their contracts expire at the same age - and at 31 in the Scottish Leagues the sell-on value I wouldn't imagine would be that high.

 

But they definitely have vastly different histories.

 

Regardless, the only thing that matters with the signing of Garner is that he contributes and scores goals - we need that prolific striker and if he can become that then we wont even WANT to sell him on.

[ian1964 10,720]

It's not always sell on value that is important,the value of winning the league is an important financial value to the club so a couple of signings with no sell on fee is value if we win the title!

[JFK-1 1,693]

The two players have rather different pedigrees. On paper Garner doesn't look a great signing at all.

 

Does that mean Rangers can't spend such money regardless of any opinion from outsiders about how well spent it is? The media elements going down this path are of the exact same mentality as the grunts supporting other clubs they're just not so overt about it though they wish they could be.

 

If Garner bangs in 20+ goals as I think he will which then gives us a shot at Euro competition and the millions available there are these same people going to go back over their previous drivel and change it to money well spent?

[Germinal 27]

If Garner comes here and scores a barrowload, as I think he probably will from what I've seen of him, there is a chance a Championship side in the bottom half of the table come January might lob £3 million northwards. But the criticism seems fair, this appears to be a signing made where the criteria of sell on has taken a back seat to simply getting the goals our play deserves. Doubtless we have been in for, and been knocked back by, players of a similar ability but with sell on value; if the choice is between no new strikers and a striker with limited future value, buy the striker (as long as we can afford it, of course).

 

In all honesty, I can't see much wrong with that.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Does that mean Rangers can't spend such money regardless of any opinion from outsiders about how well spent it is? The media elements going down this path are of the exact same mentality as the grunts supporting other clubs they're just not so overt about it though they wish they could be.

I personally couldn't really care less what outsiders say. We should spend money in whichever way we see fit, preferably on quality.

 

If Garner bangs in 20+ goals as I think he will which then gives us a shot at Euro competition and the millions available there are these same people going to go back over their previous drivel and change it to money well spent?

We obviously have very limited funds available. Spending what is a pretty huge sum for us on a striker not far off 30 who scored 6 goals last season in the English Championship doesn't really make sense to me at all. That said, I wouldn't be overly surprised if he gets a good goal return: Stevie May rattled home 27 goals in Scotland, then 7 the next in the English Championship. Kane Hemmings couldn't hit a cow's arse in the English third tier, then rattled home 25 up here. So it doesn't take much quality to succeed.