I seem to remember a similar line when he signed for Liverpool
That aside, he would be a great signing, even if only for half a season.
SPL Season 2009/10
- Thread starter Jock Dodds
- Start date
- Status
I seem to remember a similar line when he signed for Liverpool
That aside, he would be a great signing, even if only for half a season.
Ramis a no go
Any transfer news from Rangers? With all this activity at Celtic I've not had a moment to check.
I think you mean "because we don't have any money". Surely Sir Walter of Cardigan can pull another Rothen out the hat in the next 8 minutes?
Why do we have to spend if we are 10 points clear? Might not be able to, but if we could, it wouldnt make much difference.
Rothen? Ohh yeah, i forgot how amazing Mowbray is at signings
You can't seriously be happy with the Rangers squad? Are you not frustrated that you haven't been able to sign anyone? You're in the minority, I can assure you/
10 points can be eaten up pretty quickly, especially with a home game in hand and 2 head-to-heads left.
I said earlier that I had all but written this season off and it would take something special for us to catch up, that something may just have arrived in the shape of a top International goal-scorer.
Put it this way, I'd rather have Robbie Keane at Celtic than anywhere else. He's not going to single-handedly deliver the league title but he'll not hurt our chances.
Then again, maybe not
McDonald should never have been punted to accomodate a stagnant player like Keane who has failed at almost every club he has been at apart from Leeds Utd.
I`ve watched it for years Jock. Loan players` loyalties lie elsewhere. When the chips are down, they have an escape clause in that they can return to their own clubs. A safety cushion which is far too convenient.
Neither OF side should bring in loan players as they very very rarely work. Steve Davis aside, i cannot think of a successful loan spell which either Rangers or Celtic benefitted from.
Neither should entertain loans and Mowbray should be sacked for letting McDonald go. An absolutely insane decision.
You couldn't be more wrong I'm afraid.
McDonald obviously wasn't punted to make room for Keane, he was clearly ear-marked for the off long before the Keane deal came about. Also, you're going to have to explain how you came to the conclusion that Keane is 'stagnant' and 'failed at almost every club he has been at apart from Leeds Utd.', unless of course it's a cheeky troll.
The squad inherited by Mowbray was littered with average SPL quality players. This is the squad, remember, that capitulated against a ****-poor Rangers team last season and has thus far been unable to match them this.
So, the team clearly needed surgery, McDonald was one of the more saleable assets (behind McGeady and Boruc) so he had to go. He was apparently a bad influence in the team and was obviously deemed more trouble than he was worth.
We had two out of three loan players on the park last night, I'm not sure how they've left us any worse off than we were before they arrived?
I've no less confidence in our post-window squad than I did in the pre-window one. Unfortunately it now looks like we've run out of games to make a real fist of it.
The team has improved, if not results. I'm not going to write off Keane and Kamara after one game because they clearly have the talent to score goals in Scotland. If anything was to blame for last night it was Mowbray's tactics, or lack thereof.
Also, the £65k thing. Lawwell has already said that Celtic are only paying a portion of that.
I've no interest in going to find out what the majority of Liverpool and Spurs fans say. Maybe you could link me seeing as you've obviously taken the time to research?
The numbers suggest that he was a success at Wolves, Coventry, Leeds and Spurs, not to mention with Ireland. He was unlucky at Inter and yes, he failed at Liverpool. He seems to be in just the type of situation where a loan move revitalises a player.
What makes you think we got rid of McDonald to make room for Keane? The chronology of events seems to make this unlikely.
I picked up on some stark talk from Walter today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8497395.stm
He's pretty candid about the financial situation at Rangers and has pointed out that, even if they win the treble, it won’t get any better over the summer. When the team is winning on the park, it's easy to forget that off-field success is equally important to a club's prosperity.
This, rather conveniently, throws up a contrast to Celtic's current problems. The incumbent board has always taken a great pride in running the club within sound financial parameters. This prudence has, in my view, meant Celtic have failed to capitalise on recent successful spells and as a result are playing second fiddle to a club who haven't bought a player in 2 years.
Lots of teams have gone from boom to bust (Hearts, Dundee, Leeds spring to mind), is it worth it?
Would I like Celtic be top of the league and chasing a treble? Of course I would. Even if it meant being debt-stricken and financially screwed? No thanks.
Rangers fans, would you take a few trophy-less seasons if it meant your debt was wiped out? Is it hard to care when the team is winning so easily?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8497395.stm
He's pretty candid about the financial situation at Rangers and has pointed out that, even if they win the treble, it won’t get any better over the summer. When the team is winning on the park, it's easy to forget that off-field success is equally important to a club's prosperity.
This, rather conveniently, throws up a contrast to Celtic's current problems. The incumbent board has always taken a great pride in running the club within sound financial parameters. This prudence has, in my view, meant Celtic have failed to capitalise on recent successful spells and as a result are playing second fiddle to a club who haven't bought a player in 2 years.
Lots of teams have gone from boom to bust (Hearts, Dundee, Leeds spring to mind), is it worth it?
Would I like Celtic be top of the league and chasing a treble? Of course I would. Even if it meant being debt-stricken and financially screwed? No thanks.
Rangers fans, would you take a few trophy-less seasons if it meant your debt was wiped out? Is it hard to care when the team is winning so easily?
Even considering how bad we are at football?
I take no comfort in knowing that the PLC is being run by very clever, responsible people when we're being served up dross on the park every week.
:
It's not their fault. they have backed the manager 100% - I don't rate Mowbray at all - i think they shoud get Strachan back - imagine if they had given him that sort of money to spend !
Owen Coyle next year for me i think
Strachan is the man who signed Willo Flood and Chris Killen not once, but twice.
I think he'd be dangerous with that kind of money.Any idea what Mowbray's net spend is? There's been lots of undisclosed fees and loans so it's tricky to know exactly what he's spent.
Pretty sure they were both permanent deals.
I've no idea how much the papers are saying Mowbray spent, but, given your average Scottish football hack's affinity for hyperbole, I think it's safe to say you're right.
I've no idea how much the papers are saying Mowbray spent, but, given your average Scottish football hack's affinity for hyperbole, I think it's safe to say you're right.
Flood has been a bit of a revelation at Boro
Yeah I'd always suspected he'd flourish at a lower level
I image losing to them in a Cup Final would be even worse.
Do you ever make a post about Rangers? Or are you just a little too obsessed with Celtic?
A pretty shrewd bit of business.
What does this actually mean? The debt is reduced by £13.1M? What bearing on the balance sheet does P&L have?
OK a couple of things strike me about the figures, one being that they're 'unaudited' which I would assume means the accountants have a bit more flexibility in what they count. Another is the following quotes:
This carries a very different tone from what the numbers suggest (to the layman at least), which makes me suspect the figures are a bit of spin.
This carries a very different tone from what the numbers suggest (to the layman at least), which makes me suspect the figures are a bit of spin.
Actually the rules of accounting allow figures to be spun one way or another to a surprising degree, pal. Especially when they haven't been verified by an independent auditor. The profit figure is great for a headline but there's no mention of the debt (which leads me to believe it's higher than 31M) and there's no indication of cash flow.
I'm not sure how MIH and Rangers are entangled but I do remember Murray putting in 50M a few years ago when the share issue was largely ignored by the loyal bears. I imagine that 50M is a significant part of the problem.
I know he didn't actually withdraw 50M from his Supersaver account but he still provided Rangers with 50M of liquid assets.
Anyway, this is accountancy, something in which I'm even less qualified to comment than football.
True, but would you rather have not had the glory days in the 1990s if you knew this is where you'd end up?
- Status