Jump to content

All Barton Chat.


theiconicman

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

As I said did or didn't sign him is opinion, the debate is why would Warburton go against everything he believes in. 

Was it simply dazzled by the big name or was it a panic buy when all of his first second and third targets weren't getting funded by the board. 

I don't particularly agree that, at the time, it went against everything believes in, quite the opposite in fact. That's the difference between your opinion and mine (tu) 

I think given what's happened it's now very easy to point out, that given his past, he was likely to cause dis-harmony, when actually the  suggestion would be that for the last few years he has been a good influence in the dressing room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

At the time MW was in the process of contract renewal. I believe this would have been when DK fulfilled his promise 

What has the manager's extension got to do with anything? 

Are you suggesting the signing was done as a sweetener, or a punishment or warning, or at a time when DK felt he could get away with it? What exactly is your inference (given you don't make claims)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

You want to explain why Warburton went against everything he believes in then. 

because he had the opportunity to sign burnley's player of the season for rangers, a player who his "best friend in football" sean dyche vouched for, a player who on paper would improve the squad, a player who had apparently turned the corner, and a player who could potentially add that bit of class in the middle of the park where we were glaringly short in last season. 

he got it wrong. it happens. its happened to ferguson, mourinho, klopp, ancelotti, guardiola.... it happens. a player is misdjudged and sometimes it just doesnt work. 

you seem insistent on this paranoid delusion that the board were behind this and undermined the manager, yet cant see how preposterous that sounds as a conspiracy. Again, david weir was driving him around town and he was swanning around playing golf and having dinner with our players. The manager himself said that he spoke to dyche about barton before he signed. Warburton left brentford following disagreements regarding recruitment, so why would he put up with it here?

i'll ask you the most pertinent question though, why, if he wasnt wanted, did the manager choose to play him when available, and why throw him in against the filth if he didnt want him, didnt believe in him, and didnt trust him to do the job required of him ?

he fucked it up. simple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

What has the manager's extension got to do with anything? 

Are you suggesting the signing was done as a sweetener, or a punishment or warning, or at a time when DK felt he could get away with it? What exactly is your inference (given you don't make claims)?

None of what your opinion suggests. I believe DK chose that time so has not to disrespect the manager so he could fulfil his promise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

None of what your opinion suggests. I believe DK chose that time so has not to disrespect the manager so he could fulfil his promise. 

Ah right, brought in a player over and above his managers head, going against the recruitment strategy FM has quoted we always follow, and done to a manager under contract.

That's not disrespectful? Yet you deem it to be done specifically at that moment to be respectful. How?

I have no idea how you even get to that conclusion, it's illogical.

But then that's been the common theme throughout your posts imo.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

As I said did or didn't sign him is opinion, the debate is why would Warburton go against everything he believes in. 

Was it simply dazzled by the big name or was it a panic buy when all of his first second and third targets weren't getting funded by the board. 

@Courtyard Bear

this is a valid point. I'm refusing to accept however that there is some weird as fuck board conspiracy to sign players when the links to burnley permeate our scouting and managerial department. 

IMO warburton completely fucked the transfer window. Imagine someone comes up to you right after the final whistle against hibs and says "we'll have the defence fixed by signing senderos and hill"..... you'd chase the cunt. i've struggled with warburton's contradictions regarding recruitment for a while now. We were lead to believe that he was creating a young, hungry, talented squad full of potential and that he would create an environment for players who are lost to find their way. For whatever reason, he's binned that fucking policy and opted for cunts in their 30s with a smattering of youngsters who spend 95% of their time on the treatment table. 

for me kranjcar, hill, senderos and barton all represent shite signings. why did he go for them? some suggest that his preferred targets were unattainable and that the board hadnt the money to sign them - however, clint hill was one of the first fucking names in the door which indicates to me that they didnt have to go very far down the list of potential targets before landing upon him. On what planet is clint hill a good signing. And what the FUCK was he doing on the manager's list of wanted names? its unbelievable. 

its the clint hill signing, for me anyway, which indicates how rudderless our recruitment policy has been. its been a fucking shambles, shopping in one particular market for veterans who havent ever been that great, in england only, and refusing to actually seek out talent on the continent who we could easily sign if we diverted the wasted money on those mentioned above. remember also that barton was an early doors signing - so how quick were we off the mark in pursuing the targets on the manager's list? must have had a hefty few knock backs in the first week or so of the window being open to end up at the un-wanted joey barton, if that was indeed the case (which i highly doubt, as warburton clearly wanted him) 

its a mix of not being backed by a fucking potless board, and our manager not having a fucking clue what he is doing - he is a complete rookie remember.

like it or not we are a fucking mess right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OhW said:

I know, I know. I was civil at the beginning of the exchange. Sweetheart's non-existent reasoning is just so infuriating. 

If @Bluepeter9 was making the comments that Sweetheart is nobody would be defending him against me.

A bad buy has to be written off and move on regardless of the reasons, the way the board have handled the signing policy this summer has cost us any hope of winning anything and Barton is going to cost more than the total signing fees spent, years ago we wouldn't have batted an eyelid and yet its big news and to this board big money, across the city they are talking about making ten million plus for Dembele while we argue over pennies, We are a laughing stock, how can anybody take this board seriously and the manager is looking like a chump with no idea on the park or off it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Ah right, brought in a player over and above his managers head, going against the recruitment strategy FM has quoted we always follow, and done to a manager under contract.

That's not disrespectful? Yet you deem it to be done specifically at that moment to be respectful. How?

I have no idea how you even get to that conclusion, it's illogical.

But then that's been the common theme throughout your posts imo.

 

MW was in the process of renewing his contract, the old contract had run out

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

MW was in the process of renewing his contract, the old contract had run out

Are you on the fucking wind up?

Google it.

You are either talking shit or deliberately lying. All to try to fit a non existent scenario.

Or maybe you are just trolling after all....

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OhW said:

Mark Warburton's contract had not run out. 

"On 15 June 2015 Warburton was appointed manager of Scottish Championship club Rangers on a three-year contract"

She didn't claim it had run out, it was only an opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, danger ranger said:

A bad buy has to be written off and move on regardless of the reasons, the way the board have handled the signing policy this summer has cost us any hope of winning anything and Barton is going to cost more than the total signing fees spent, years ago we wouldn't have batted an eyelid and yet its big news and to this board big money, across the city they are talking about making ten million plus for Dembele while we argue over pennies, We are a laughing stock, how can anybody take this board seriously and the manager is looking like a chump with no idea on the park or off it.

I agree with this mate. 

I have seen some cunts say that we couldnt get dembele because he's on £40k a week at the scum. I can absolutely 100% guarantee that Dembele is on nowhere fucking near that. Absolutely fucking no chance, with fulham's go-to media rag "getwestlondon" (who are generally pretty accurate on all things fulham and chelsea) stating that he was to be moving for £20k a week. 

meanwhile we are scratching around singing dodoo who will obviously never play, and pulling in "big names" like kranjcar, barton, senderos and hill, who collectively have been shite for years with only barton having performed (to an extent) in recent seasons. 

the board is fucking potless, but as i mentioned above, barton and hill were fast in the door. they were two of the first players signed up. that to me indicates that they were, for whatever fucking reason, on the manager's list of targets. if they had been deadline day signings i would suggest panic buys, but clearly they werent. Perhaps warburton knew he was being handed £0 for signings and felt he had to go for these elder pros as he would have more chance of signing them, but IMO he has made an absolute cunt of the recruitment which is partly attributable to the fact that the board doesnt have a fucking pot to piss in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KWBear said:

because he had the opportunity to sign burnley's player of the season for rangers, a player who his "best friend in football" sean dyche vouched for, a player who on paper would improve the squad, a player who had apparently turned the corner, and a player who could potentially add that bit of class in the middle of the park where we were glaringly short in last season. 

he got it wrong. it happens. its happened to ferguson, mourinho, klopp, ancelotti, guardiola.... it happens. a player is misdjudged and sometimes it just doesnt work. 

you seem insistent on this paranoid delusion that the board were behind this and undermined the manager, yet cant see how preposterous that sounds as a conspiracy. Again, david weir was driving him around town and he was swanning around playing golf and having dinner with our players. The manager himself said that he spoke to dyche about barton before he signed. Warburton left brentford following disagreements regarding recruitment, so why would he put up with it here?

i'll ask you the most pertinent question though, why, if he wasnt wanted, did the manager choose to play him when available, and why throw him in against the filth if he didnt want him, didnt believe in him, and didnt trust him to do the job required of him ?

he fucked it up. simple. 

Your missing the point, nobody is saying Barton can't play. 

But from the very first day Warburton has went on and on about bringing a certain type of player to Rangers, that player is the exact opposite of Barton. 

If he got dazzled by the name and thought Barton had changed then he's made a massive mistake, Barton may have stopped being a nutter but he's still the same self opinionated tosser he's always been. What did Warburton think  would happen when you put that kind of personality into the cauldron that is us and them and the media in this country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Your missing the point, nobody is saying Barton can't play. 

But from the very first day Warburton has went on and on about bringing a certain type of player to Rangers, that player is the exact opposite of Barton. 

If he got dazzled by the name and thought Barton had changed then he's made a massive mistake, Barton may have stopped being a nutter but he's still the same self opinionated tosser he's always been. What did Warburton think  would happen when you put that kind of personality into the cauldron that is us and them and the media in this country. 

yep i replied to your other point above. i see what you are getting at - with it being irrelevant as to who signed him... ultimately why has the manager chosen to go down this route against his philosophy? who knows. but we're a fucking disaster right now, largely a result of ineptitude in our recruitment department. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, KWBear said:

yep i replied to your other point above. i see what you are getting at - with it being irrelevant as to who signed him... ultimately why has the manager chosen to go down this route against his philosophy? who knows. but we're a fucking disaster right now, largely a result of ineptitude in our recruitment department. 

Agreed mate, which then brings us back to the board unfortunately. As Warburton said he had his new signings pick out early did he give the board a list very early on even as early as the last weeks of last season. But it became very obvious to him he wasn't going to get them so he took what he could get even though it went against what he's trying to build at Rangers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Agreed mate, which then brings us back to the board unfortunately. As Warburton said he had his new signings pick out early did he give the board a list very early on even as early as the last weeks of last season. But it became very obvious to him he wasn't going to get them so he took what he could get even though it went against what he's trying to build at Rangers. 

i'd say that's a fair summation. 

i'm still absolutely astonished that we limited ourselves to england though. even when pressed on signings the manager would only reference the english market and kept on banging the drum stating that the market was tough, that it was over inflated etc. If that was the case, and if he knew we didnt have a pot to piss in, then why on earth wasnt he looking for players in the scandi region or eastern europe? I cant believe for a fucking minute that there is no central defensive pairing available in europe other than clint hill and senderos. baffling. 

personally i think this board have done a lot of good work in stabilising the club and getting us on an even keel, but they are not fit for purpose when it comes to the issue of progression. without being dismissive of what they have done, there really needs to be some acceptance at board level that they simply dont have the funds to take rangers forward. they should be seeking out any and all investment possible - whether or not that is happening remains to be seen. 

the one thing that fucks me off though is that if the scum were going to the wall and were in administration, there'd be a queue of "rich businessmen" lined up to pump money into them. you can bet your fucking bottom dollar that a sugar daddy would appear from somewhere. why are our board so completely incapable of sourcing external investment? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

I hope this clusterfuck ends  will

toon. :(

Theres at least 135 more pages to write about on here before IT will all be fixed, INfact I will go for 180 more once Bartons lawyers start wanting their share of cash and drag IT out.:001:

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KWBear said:

i'd say that's a fair summation. 

i'm still absolutely astonished that we limited ourselves to england though. even when pressed on signings the manager would only reference the english market and kept on banging the drum stating that the market was tough, that it was over inflated etc. If that was the case, and if he knew we didnt have a pot to piss in, then why on earth wasnt he looking for players in the scandi region or eastern europe? I cant believe for a fucking minute that there is no central defensive pairing available in europe other than clint hill and senderos. baffling. 

personally i think this board have done a lot of good work in stabilising the club and getting us on an even keel, but they are not fit for purpose when it comes to the issue of progression. without being dismissive of what they have done, there really needs to be some acceptance at board level that they simply dont have the funds to take rangers forward. they should be seeking out any and all investment possible - whether or not that is happening remains to be seen. 

the one thing that fucks me off though is that if the scum were going to the wall and were in administration, there'd be a queue of "rich businessmen" lined up to pump money into them. you can bet your fucking bottom dollar that a sugar daddy would appear from somewhere. why are our board so completely incapable of sourcing external investment? 

If I could've given that 2 likes I would've. 

Mirrors my thoughts as well, some of the decisions made have been baffling the biggest one for me as you said is why only the English market an overinflated price market for mediocre players it makes absolutely no sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, KWBear said:

i'd say that's a fair summation. 

i'm still absolutely astonished that we limited ourselves to england though. even when pressed on signings the manager would only reference the english market and kept on banging the drum stating that the market was tough, that it was over inflated etc. If that was the case, and if he knew we didnt have a pot to piss in, then why on earth wasnt he looking for players in the scandi region or eastern europe? I cant believe for a fucking minute that there is no central defensive pairing available in europe other than clint hill and senderos. baffling. 

personally i think this board have done a lot of good work in stabilising the club and getting us on an even keel, but they are not fit for purpose when it comes to the issue of progression. without being dismissive of what they have done, there really needs to be some acceptance at board level that they simply dont have the funds to take rangers forward. they should be seeking out any and all investment possible - whether or not that is happening remains to be seen. 

the one thing that fucks me off though is that if the scum were going to the wall and were in administration, there'd be a queue of "rich businessmen" lined up to pump money into them. you can bet your fucking bottom dollar that a sugar daddy would appear from somewhere. why are our board so completely incapable of sourcing external investment? 

One quote from King suggested that anybody( Sarver ) putting in money would just be a shareholder or investor and would not be running the club, the shares are spread over too many people who put nothing into the club and unfortunately we are stuck with it, If I had the money to run Rangers then they would have to step aside and that doesn't look like happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, danger ranger said:

One quote from King suggested that anybody( Sarver ) putting in money would just be a shareholder or investor and would not be running the club, the shares are spread over too many people who put nothing into the club and unfortunately we are stuck with it, If I had the money to run Rangers then they would have to step aside and that doesn't look like happening.

The problem we have is that there appears to be no sugar daddy out there willing to invest at this time, which actually tells it's own story. If there was, king couldn't stand in the way. He could be awkward, but at the end of the day he is a minority shareholder and could be swept aside. The other problem we have, is the level of debt owed to the board and the HK investors, which will increase the price. Any stalking horse will just watch to see the how the cash flow goes and if they can come up with more loans to keep us liquid. If not, then they will strike and make the deal from a position of strength and there will be nowt king can do about. The question is, is there a stalking horse out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...