bmck 117 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 calscot, there's no doubt that it made good financial sense & that our business ken has improved after the wakeup call of the uber-debt. my objection is more one of principle, or ambition, or whatever. we can never know what went on behind the scenes, but if alan had any inclination at all to stay i would have liked to seen us do our utmost to keep him. i just think, rightly or wrongly, that we while we might not have gained financially for keeping hutton on, it would have had a less quantative though more qualitative gain. we are not in such a bad state that we just Had to sell hutton. i think the kind of things gained by keeping a player of his quality, his age, his nationality, for the team, the club and the fans outweighs the 8 million or so we got for him. yes, it made good business sense to sell him, but i fear it is going to be more costly in other areas less easily measured. i certainly dont blame murray for making the decision he did in accepting the offer, because it makes sense, but i just tend to want more in a leader. its not that i think he is deficient, i just cant help but think someone with bigger ideas for the club than domestic success every couple of years would have at least attempted to persuade him to stay. the world in which it is plainly obvious that someone should move up from rangers to totenham, the world of this transfer, is not my world yet. i still think rangers should theoretically have more to offer - if we were a club headed in a sort of forward looking way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I see you point and can't add much to it, so will leave it there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Calscot The problems people have are that the undue haste employed to force Alan H and Cousin out the door are not related to team strengthening, long term planning or 'chasing a dream'. They are related to SDM wanting his �£12m back, the �£12m of the 'revolving credit facility' we've used which is due to be repaid in March 2008. The hangover from the years of mismanagement is not being cured, despite what people are saying. AH would have been sold in May, the nonsense about us not receiving any other offers even again cannot be believed, and we may have won SPL. The deal satisfied SDM, not the fans. We were never going to re-invest the �£9m, and that is what sticks in my craw. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Sorry, the last line just doesn't make logical sense. If the 9M HAS to be paid then getting a 9M windfall still gives you 9M more to spend than you would have had. Unless SDM pays a dividend or takes the money out in another way, Rangers are definitely �£9M richer than they were. Money doesn't just disappear. For example if I won some money and paid off my mortgage with it, I would have nothing left to spend. However I would have say a grand more in my pocket every month thereafter. This ruins any credibility in your post and I also don't like you basing whether we win the league on one player. If we don't win the league you have a ready made excuse and reason to whinge and say how right your were (and maybe that'll somehow make you happier). But if we win, will you be eating humble pie? I think not, you'll be celebrating like the rest of us and probably still be going on about "what if" with Hutton in the probable event of being knocked out of the UEFA cup at some stage. Laudrup stayed and we lost the league, WS stayed and we lost the league etc, etc, etc. The logic just does not follow. The mismanagement was spending more than we earned, now your complaining when we don't... Like I said before, people need to make their minds up, and if you're going to slag of the board, at least do it for real reasons rather than just making up some perversely negative fantasy about losing the league that we're on top of by 4 points. I would rather we lost the league this year but used the transfer windfall to build a consistently high quality squad which will be successful for years to come than cut off our noses to spite our face of some weird faux offence at a skewed interpretation of a player's treatment by the club. It's not long ago that many fans were talking about Hutton as a bit of an arsehole and now they are say, "poor wee lad" when he's offered a golden handshake and triple his wages? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earl of leven 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 1. We had a far better chance of retaining league by keeping squad together, that is a fact. 2. It is a gamble to believe we'll win it anyway because 'the mhanks are pure sh***' 3. The revolving credit facility was not paid off as we went along, it is to be paid off in one lump sum next month. We won't be better off month by month after repaying it. Frankie has fuller details than I do. 4. To add insult to injury we pay SDM �£100,000 'placement fee' for having the credit facility. 5. The �£9m won't be spent on players as Frankie has already said. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 It still doesn't add up, if we're to pay off the revolving credit next month it either comes from the profit/loss account or the 9m extra-ordrinary item. Therefore there is no doubt that we are �£9M better off. Money is a fluid thing and the fact we have 9M more means that we have 9M more to spend whether now or in the future. This is so obvious to me that I don't think I can explain it more simply. If you have a 9k credit card bill that you must pay next month and you win 9k on the lottery, if you spend all the 9k of the lottery on the bill, you are still 9k better off. The 9M WILL be spend on players whether you like it or not. How can we NOT be better off month to month after a 9M windfall that has paid a debt??? Put it another way: supposing you pocket money is �£2 but you owe your best mate �£1. You were going to pay your friend his money back out of your pocket money and spend the rest (�£1) on Panini football stickers. However, the boy next door offers you pound for a spare Panani Hutton sticker you have that he needs to complete his Spurs team page. So you can now give that to your friend to repay your debt. Now, although you gave your friend the actual pound coin from the boy next door, and theoretically cannot spend ANY of that pound on stickers as you no longer have it, you STILL have �£2 to spend on stickers instead of �£1. Get it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 PS 1. Maybe, but very hard to prove and is balanced by the fact we can spend more in the summer. 2. Irrelevant 3. Irrelevant 4. Rip off but irrelevant 5. Wrong. The next 9M we spend will effectively be from the Hutton sale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wija 0 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 It still doesn't add up, if we're to pay off the revolving credit next month it either comes from the profit/loss account or the 9m extra-ordrinary item. Therefore there is no doubt that we are �£9M better off. Money is a fluid thing and the fact we have 9M more means that we have 9M more to spend whether now or in the future. This is so obvious to me that I don't think I can explain it more simply. If you have a 9k credit card bill that you must pay next month and you win 9k on the lottery, if you spend all the 9k of the lottery on the bill, you are still 9k better off. The 9M WILL be spend on players whether you like it or not. How can we NOT be better off month to month after a 9M windfall that has paid a debt??? Put it another way: supposing you pocket money is �£2 but you owe your best mate �£1. You were going to pay your friend his money back out of your pocket money and spend the rest (�£1) on Panini football stickers. However, the boy next door offers you pound for a spare Panani Hutton sticker you have that he needs to complete his Spurs team page. So you can now give that to your friend to repay your debt. Now, although you gave your friend the actual pound coin from the boy next door, and theoretically cannot spend ANY of that pound on stickers as you no longer have it, you STILL have �£2 to spend on stickers instead of �£1. Get it? Because incomings every week are not much. The vast majority of income is at the start of the season - Season tickets... Yes we get a few million fron CL, But the majority of this goes on the debt figures to mask the amount of debt. Every club do this, it is not a Rangers thing. But the 9 Million or so we get, at least 50% will go on the debt balance to clear the credit facility. At the same time Murray will be paid x amount for holding this for Rangers... We need to have a fresh head at Rangers as we are stagnating and we need fresh impetus... Murray is not providing us with anything apart from splitting the support. And that is something he must not be allowed to do! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Didn't Arsenal sell Kanu for 22M then brought in Viera, Henry etc with cash to spare and won the league? All clubs sell when the price is right. Fans are quick to forget the pound shop spending of 2 years ago. We spent more in the summer than we could afford or expect - we can't be as blazy with money as some short memories think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyharley 5 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 It may be bacause its late and im tired but i dont really get this debate. Are you guys argueing that that specific 9M will/wont get spent on new players?? Surely if some/all of the money goes towards debt this will influence what kind of budget we get next season. Also doesnt Murray Park get some of this money? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.