the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 So let's get this correct. We should have paid people the wage they were looking for and not according to our wage structure at the time? And Kyle would have been a happy chap had he been paid what our u20s or u17s got at the time? And some 14,5k less than McCulloch? We should have oriented our wage structure on the teams around us, with crowds of 200 to 5,000 people? Do you think we would be where we are now had that been done from the off? Serious question this. We could have got any youth player in Scotland for 2k a week. Instead of frankensteins monster. We could have got any number of young players. We could also have got kyle for 500 quid. Why are you defending paying him 2k? Pedantry I expect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,716 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 A few snippets ... and no disrespect to the posters for not replying to all (most of which has already been dealt with): With you at the helm and paying players above their expectations we would be bankrupt again How foolish of us all to think we should pay a player what he expects (if lower than what we are prepared to pay). We did not end up being bankrupt by paying Kyle 2k a week (if we actually did), nor anyone else, including the much maligned Black. If the minimum wage for a first team player was 2k a week, we paid that. It is ten per cent of what people earned pre-admin ... and we all know that the wage bill did not send us into admin - although it sure did not help in the age of Johnston and Muir. But we managed that. By comparison, McCoist and Co. spent peanuts in wages - even if it was astronomical compared to the respective leagues. As for would we be back where we are now had we been paying lower ?! Yes, with the right manager we would still be back in the SPFL. Gretna showed it could be done with a fraction of our resources, a fraction of our crowds and a fraction of our income. Mute point. We were not Gretna, we had much more funds (and they were taken away from the club by people above McCoist) and for what it is worth, McCoist got us promoted twice with his "overpaid" players. In the first season alone he blooded 19 players, most of which youngsters. It is utter conjecture to think that we would have managed that with a team of hopeful youngsters, youngsters who would have been willing to come to us in the 4th and 3rd tier of the Scottish game. This can't be proven either way now, so debating it is beyond hypothetical. And while we are at it, with just a bit of energy, you will find a few dozen club who tried the Gretna way and did not succeed. Never forget Rangers nearly died as a club and Ally as manager almost killed us off completely as a football team. Two promotions on the trott, one league season unbeaten ... albeit his last was marred by dire football, to say the least. Sometimes it is reasonable to talk with the brain rather than the heart. We could have got any youth player in Scotland for 2k a week. Instead of frankensteins monster. We could have got any number of young players. We could also have got kyle for 500 quid. Why are you defending paying him 2k? Pedantry I expect. See above. There sure is and was a wage structure at Ibrox. Limits at the top and the bottom. Where are those youngsters willing to come to us? Apart from those we fielded already? Dozens of people were linked, most ventured south. But the interesting thing obviously is: had McCoist tried that youngster approach and the people had failed, given the expectation at this club and 30 to 50k looking on every other Saturday, he would get slaughtered as well. But perhaps we should give Mr. King a few more words here instead? Read again, and slowly: Ally was a unifying figure for the Club when we were demoted to the lower leagues. As expected of a club with Rangers resources he secured two very comfortable promotions before the team failed to win the Championship and thereby secure the anticipated immediate return to the Premier League. Given Rangers resources, that was completely unacceptable and Ally acknowledged that. However, and importantly, what must not be forgotten is the absolute turmoil at the Club during that season with massive cost reductions on and off the field. The emergence of Mike Ashley via Derek LLambias was guaranteed to spiral the Club further downwards and the overall atmosphere throughout the Club was as dismal and dire as it could possibly have become. I know this from my personal interaction with insiders throughout this terrible period for the Club. The first team was not immune from what was going on and I am absolutely certain that the on-field performance was greatly impacted by the off-field shambles. I am also absolutely convinced that if the present board had been in place during that season (and was able to provide the support that the present manager now receives) Ally and his team would have won that Championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I dont understand why we ever let Ally leave after reading that--------im pining for him as we speak,then again perhaps not! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 So let's get this correct. We should have paid people the wage they were looking for and not according to our wage structure at the time? And Kyle would have been a happy chap had he been paid what our u20s or u17s got at the time? And some 14,5k less than McCulloch? We should have oriented our wage structure on the teams around us, with crowds of 200 to 5,000 people? Do you think we would be where we are now had that been done from the off? Serious question this. We would definitely be where we are now and probably better for it. I would say in that era just about every player we signed had no hunger or desire and probably couldn't believe how lucky they were that Rangers had came along and offered them big money to sign for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 A few snippets ... and no disrespect to the posters for not replying to all (most of which has already been dealt with): We did not end up being bankrupt by paying Kyle 2k a week (if we actually did), nor anyone else, including the much maligned Black. If the minimum wage for a first team player was 2k a week, we paid that. It is ten per cent of what people earned pre-admin ... and we all know that the wage bill did not send us into admin - although it sure did not help in the age of Johnston and Muir. But we managed that. By comparison, McCoist and Co. spent peanuts in wages - even if it was astronomical compared to the respective leagues. Mute point. We were not Gretna, we had much more funds (and they were taken away from the club by people above McCoist) and for what it is worth, McCoist got us promoted twice with his "overpaid" players. In the first season alone he blooded 19 players, most of which youngsters. It is utter conjecture to think that we would have managed that with a team of hopeful youngsters, youngsters who would have been willing to come to us in the 4th and 3rd tier of the Scottish game. This can't be proven either way now, so debating it is beyond hypothetical. And while we are at it, with just a bit of energy, you will find a few dozen club who tried the Gretna way and did not succeed. Two promotions on the trott, one league season unbeaten ... albeit his last was marred by dire football, to say the least. Sometimes it is reasonable to talk with the brain rather than the heart. See above. There sure is and was a wage structure at Ibrox. Limits at the top and the bottom. Where are those youngsters willing to come to us? Apart from those we fielded already? Dozens of people were linked, most ventured south. But the interesting thing obviously is: had McCoist tried that youngster approach and the people had failed, given the expectation at this club and 30 to 50k looking on every other Saturday, he would get slaughtered as well. But perhaps we should give Mr. King a few more words here instead? Read again, and slowly: A wage structure with limits at the bottom. That's just nonsense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,716 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 A wage structure with limits at the bottom. That's just nonsense Some call it the living wage, don't they? But in any case, I'm sure you can back up your remark with some facts? If anything, we might have (and perhaps did) pay someone on a pay-as-you-play deal. And I'm sure WE would set the terms, not the player. We might listen for his wishes, of course. Re Kyle ... you wonder whether he told McCoist what he told the media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) Some call it the living wage, don't they? But in any case, I'm sure you can back up your remark with some facts? If anything, we might have (and perhaps did) pay someone on a pay-as-you-play deal. And I'm sure WE would set the terms, not the player. We might listen for his wishes, of course. Re Kyle ... you wonder whether he told McCoist what he told the media. Living wage is about 400 a week and isn't the law yet. How about you back up your nonsense. I can't prove some notion of yours doesn't exist. You would be as well asking me to prove fairies don't exist. Edited June 29, 2016 by the gunslinger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Your defence of super. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) That's just nonsense. His budget was what it was and he spent it poorly. There's two parts to it. He didn't get value for what he spent. Either through poor choices or bad management. He chose to spend it on players who were on the way down not up. His whole philosophy was wrong. You obviously don't get the paradox. It's obviously contradictory to say he got very bad value for money and then complain he should have done better with these really expensive players. Come, it can't be that hard to just understand the point... I really doubt he chose these players freely - he chose them because they were free. He was dumpster diving and taking what he could find. He didn't have the luxury of a philosophy. Edited June 29, 2016 by calscot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Okay guy's since this is just turning in to a slagging match I am closing the thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts