Costly Duds

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

Rate was around 1.65 back then.

Wow. Apparent it reached 1.76 that year. Hard to believe it when you see the crumbs we are offered today. 

[compo 7,051]

Personally i thought the French player Guivarch was a total waste of the clubs money as was Salaenko 

[Rousseau 10,640]

2 hours ago, yuddie said:

I know we got 55 out of him but 3m for Helander does look a bit silly now in hindsight. He wasn't a dud per say because I thought he was a good player but 36 league appearences in 4 seasons was laughable. Might have my maths wrong here but isn't that like 100k per appearence?

3M for a player of that quality is not bad, IMO. 

 

However, as you rightly say, his appearances are far too few for it to be worth it. 

 

If he played as much as Jack, for example, I think it would have been fine. He is just injury prone. 

[Rousseau 10,640]

Maybe a better question would have been who's been value for money?

[JohnMc 2,763]

I'm not sure it's fair to say someone who got a serious injury is a dud. Kuznetsov, Rosenthal, Helander and even Roofe have been unfortunate, the former two had their careers completely derailed. No one thinks Michael Mols was a dud, but he was never the same player after his injury. 

 

For me a dud could be someone who simply wasn't up to the job despite the all realistic expectations. Basil Boli for example looked like a truly world class defender at Marseille but like a comedy act with us. Guivarc'h had won the World Cup but looked like he'd struggle in the Challenge Cup with us. Salenko had set goal scoring records in the World Cup but looked like he'd won a competition to play when he was with us. Even Maurice Edu, lionised for scoring a last minute winner against them from 2 feet out, never came close to living up to his price tag or expectations. 

But all of those players had to move country, learn a new language, or try and settle into a new culture. As supporters we probably under estimate how difficult some players find that and what affect it can have on them. 

 

The real duds are those who simply never tried. Kyle Lafferty, particularly second time round. A total waster who will no doubt spend years appearing at fan forums and pub openings in the future. Grezda, Pena and Negri fall into this category. Andy Webster is another, he didn't cost us a transfer fee however he was waste of a wage. Alan Gow is another who I always felt could have done so much more. 

 

Those who simply weren't good enough. Konterman, Sebo, Billy Urquart, Beattie, i'm not sure you can really blame them for that, the club needs to take the blame. They at least tried their best. 

[Devil's advocaat 1,541]

19 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Maybe a better question would have been who's been value for money?

Morelos, Tav and Kamara, much to the annoyance of many on here! 😆

Edited July 11, 2023 by Devil's advocaat

[yuddie 1,693]

27 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Maybe a better question would have been who's been value for money?

I'm ready to take some flack for this take but I geniunely thought Ryan Kent had the talent to be a modern great for Rangers. I'm 26 and really started following the club during McLeish and in that time I'd still say he's one of the most talented we've had, we just haven't had players who could go to a place like Dortmund and skin a defence with Hummels and Akanji  in it for 90 mins, certainly in the last 20 years.

 

Fans will always hold the transfer fee against him which I don't agree with but can understand, but he definitely could have done more with the ability he had.

 

Wanted to say this as a few fans think he was a waste of a shirt, although he definitely could've done a lot more with his ability.

[Devil's advocaat 1,541]

Agreed Yuddie.

 

Wee point on your post, McLeish was bloody good value for money!.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

Dundee has been okay in terms of getting good value players - Novo and Kamara.

[Uilleam 5,948]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Maybe a better question would have been who's been value for money?

I'll risk opprobrium and abuse, here, but I'd argue that Brian Laudrup was value for money.