gillRFC 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Murray said that rangers wont be selling our "best stars" unless it is a "unrealistic offer" and then he will have to give it serious consideration however he accepted a 4m bid for bougherra wtf? 4m is unrealistic offer for someone like lee mcCulloch but Bougherra? he is the best player we have. anything less than 6m is totally unacceptable. so its about time Murray tells us whats really happening at the club, because if any1 makes a bid for a player that is slightly more than what we payed for him Murray will accept. so before the "we deserve better" banners start to unravel(dnt agree wit this tho) he shud just tell us what is goin on and then people will get off his back. There is a credit crunch but teams like hearts are signing 6players and we cant evn afford a player at 1m by the way things are going. tbh im worried about next season because atleast the tims are trying to strenghten their squad. God help us in the champs league group stages. Also it doesnt help when murray has to pay wages to useless martin bain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 While I saw this 'story' in the Sunday Mail - I gave it little credence - it doesn't tie up wuth all the other rumours - so dont bite! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillRFC 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 While I saw this 'story' in the Sunday Mail - I gave it little credence - it doesn't tie up wuth all the other rumours - so dont bite! tbh im just worried that they are strenghtening their squad and we arent. but hopefullt smith is lettin them panick buy and then we will get atleast two good players - a cb and lft winger n thn i think we will be fine in the spl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 While I saw this 'story' in the Sunday Mail - I gave it little credence - it doesn't tie up wuth all the other rumours - so dont bite! tbh im just worried that they are strenghtening their squad and we arent. but hopefullt smith is lettin them panick buy and then we will get atleast two good players - a cb and lft winger n thn i think we will be fine in the spl. .. and our squad is young, a year stronger and champions ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjorkland 13 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 To be fair I think Murray has been quite transparent with telling us that 'every player has their price'. The club own the players hence they set the price, not us. Also market value has a lot to do with it, players in the SPL just aren't worth as much as we'd like to think, notable exceptions being Hutton, Gordon, Cuellar in recent years. Also Murray has stated that the club does have some amount of debt, and that the squad does need to be trimmed and people moved off the wage book. Murray has also said the debt is managable, and the way it is being managed is to not spend, and also to sell IF a offer comes in that meets the clubs valuations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 You should all know by now he speaks with forked tongue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis 277 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 A few points a) Where was a 4m offer accepted? b) The tims are strengthening? Really. They have yet to replace the squinty eyed one who was responsible for some 60% of there goals whether directly or indirectly c) They have spent some 7m+ (Bobo Loyaltly, Fortune, Management) and have only a goal shy striker and a loan signing to cover Hartleys loss to show for it Granted we ain't streaking forward but rumours of our demise are much exaggerated I'd rather people dealt with the facts before going off on one cos it is really starting to get on my fukin nerves Stand firm bears. Nowt to fuckin worry about with these over hyped candle humphin dancin in the rain for a wash t****** cretin fucks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillRFC 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 A few points a) Where was a 4m offer accepted? b) The tims are strengthening? Really. They have yet to replace the squinty eyed one who was responsible for some 60% of there goals whether directly or indirectly c) They have spent some 7m+ (Bobo Loyaltly, Fortune, Management) and have only a goal shy striker and a loan signing to cover Hartleys loss to show for it Granted we ain't streaking forward but rumours of our demise are much exaggerated I'd rather people dealt with the facts before going off on one cos it is really starting to get on my fukin nerves Stand firm bears. Nowt to fuckin worry about with these over hyped candle humphin dancin in the rain for a wash t****** cretin fucks. it says on Sky sports that there was a bid accepted, but bougherra pulled out at last min. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillRFC 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 To be fair I think Murray has been quite transparent with telling us that 'every player has their price'. The club own the players hence they set the price, not us. Also market value has a lot to do with it, players in the SPL just aren't worth as much as we'd like to think, notable exceptions being Hutton, Gordon, Cuellar in recent years. Also Murray has stated that the club does have some amount of debt, and that the squad does need to be trimmed and people moved off the wage book. Murray has also said the debt is managable, and the way it is being managed is to not spend, and also to sell IF a offer comes in that meets the clubs valuations 20mil or 21mil isnt alot of debt for a football team. the truth is murray is using every penny we put into the club to clear the debt so that he can sell the club or try n make it easier to sell the club with low/no debt which would make it more attractive for a buyer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 25,246 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 it was the bordeaux chairman who said we had accepted a 4mill bid lying cheese eating surrender monkey can go to fuck if he even thought 4 mill would be acceptable well seen nothing has came from OUR club regarding the bid if bougherra HAD knocked back the offer, rangers would be showing off how everyone wants to stay at the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper1989 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Boogie for 4 mill? roughly 100% profit in 1 year. Take the deal. Wattie will find another CB -- nae bother at all. of course.. this is all rumour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilRFC 10 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdunsmb 43 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilRFC 10 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. yeah obv...but their still in debt and still do signings so whats the difference between us and them regardless of income? their not getting pushed around to lower their debt, but Murrays making a big deal about it but says he's getting no pressure from the banks, but i reckon he is. So why isn't Man UTD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillRFC 0 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. yeah obv...but their still in debt and still do signings so whats the difference between us and them regardless of income? their not getting pushed around to lower their debt, but Murrays making a big deal about it but says he's getting no pressure from the banks, but i reckon he is. So why isn't Man UTD clubs like man utd n liverpool are in around 700mil debt or sumfin like truth is murray wants to sell the club, which means he wnt giv alot for new signings and any offers will be accepted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 If we accepted a bid for Boogie of 4m then i would be shocked. Murray said only a ridiculous bid would be considered for our star players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo 28 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Typical, Murray gets it again 1) There was no official bid for Bougherra (which means there was no bid accepted) 2) Am I the only person confident that we have a far superior team than Celtic? 3) If anything, I believe not signing anyone will actually HELP us, It will allow the team to become more Consistent and also allow our really good young talent like Fleck and Wilson to get a chance, when they probably wouldn't have got that chance if we where signing players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamteuchter 1 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Is this another thread to kick Murray again. We dont have anyone else that wants us....We dont have the investers and his companies are taking a kicking in the recession and he has no personal money to fire into the club. Sponsorships are down, we just lost a shit load of money because of the tv disaster. It doesnt paint a pretty picture. We are in the red big time and dont have the turnover to improve that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 To be fair I think Murray has been quite transparent with telling us that 'every player has their price'. The club own the players hence they set the price, not us. Also market value has a lot to do with it, players in the SPL just aren't worth as much as we'd like to think, notable exceptions being Hutton, Gordon, Cuellar in recent years. Also Murray has stated that the club does have some amount of debt, and that the squad does need to be trimmed and people moved off the wage book. Murray has also said the debt is managable, and the way it is being managed is to not spend, and also to sell IF a offer comes in that meets the clubs valuations 20mil or 21mil isnt alot of debt for a football team. the truth is murray is using every penny we put into the club to clear the debt so that he can sell the club or try n make it easier to sell the club with low/no debt which would make it more attractive for a buyer. Our debt will be around the £30m mark, which may not seem like much but when your bank facility is only £35m, it is a lot. We can't go higher than £35m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. yeah obv...but their still in debt and still do signings so whats the difference between us and them regardless of income? their not getting pushed around to lower their debt, but Murrays making a big deal about it but says he's getting no pressure from the banks, but i reckon he is. So why isn't Man UTD Its also a question of being able to sevice (repay) the debt. A Huge part of the debt Man U owe was due to the structure of the finance when the glaziers bought them - a lot of this was debt. Man U are making big profits and so their debt is not only being serviced but reducing. We have debt and have been making losses - so our debt increases - and there is onlly so far you can/would want to go down that road. Murray is trying to provide some financial stability while still putting out a SPL winning side - in the past he has secured debt to fund big buys and loook at where that took us, and these (as every man and his dog will tell you) are different times. Murray has a difficult financial balancing act to perform and some some support for him is, in my opinion, due. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffbear 4,123 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 People are losing the plot here. We will sign a centre half i'm sure...Walter knows we'll be weak at the back with Weir now closing in on 40....but lets look at our first team squad. GK McGregor,Alexander...2 good keepers FB's Whittaker,S.Smith,J MacMillan,Papac....i'm happy with that if MacMillan proves his coaches right. CB's Bougherra,Weir,Bambi,Wilson......Needs another top centre half as Weir is old and Bambi is pish. Midfield. Thommo,Davis,Mendes,Edu,Fleck,Aaron,Beasley...best in the country by a mile Strikers....Boyd,Lafferty,Miller,Novo,Naismith,Little...countries top scorer past 3 years,most improved striker(Laff),hardest workers(Novo,Miller) and young guys tipped for the top(little,Naismith) A centre half and either an attacking left back or left winger and i'll be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeGowse 13 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. yeah obv...but their still in debt and still do signings so whats the difference between us and them regardless of income? their not getting pushed around to lower their debt, but Murrays making a big deal about it but says he's getting no pressure from the banks, but i reckon he is. So why isn't Man UTD Its also a question of being able to sevice (repay) the debt. A Huge part of the debt Man U owe was due to the structure of the finance when the glaziers bought them - a lot of this was debt. Man U are making big profits and so their debt is not only being serviced but reducing. We have debt and have been making losses - so our debt increases - and there is onlly so far you can/would want to go down that road. Murray is trying to provide some financial stability while still putting out a SPL winning side - in the past he has secured debt to fund big buys and loook at where that took us, and these (as every man and his dog will tell you) are different times. Murray has a difficult financial balancing act to perform and some some support for him is, in my opinion, due. Thats a really sensible post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 People are losing the plot here. We will sign a centre half i'm sure...Walter knows we'll be weak at the back with Weir now closing in on 40....but lets look at our first team squad. GK McGregor,Alexander...2 good keepers FB's Whittaker,S.Smith,J MacMillan,Papac....i'm happy with that if MacMillan proves his coaches right. CB's Bougherra,Weir,Bambi,Wilson......Needs another top centre half as Weir is old and Bambi is pish. Midfield. Thommo,Davis,Mendes,Edu,Fleck,Aaron,Beasley...best in the country by a mile Strikers....Boyd,Lafferty,Miller,Novo,Naismith,Little...countries top scorer past 3 years,most improved striker(Laff),hardest workers(Novo,Miller) and young guys tipped for the top(little,Naismith) A centre half and either an attacking left back or left winger and i'll be happy. Broadfoot also does OK at RB (IMHO) - CB a priority (as eveyone will have spotted - including Walter!) If we go with the rest its a decent squad - and theres Adam and McColloch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Its also a question of being able to sevice (repay) the debt. A Huge part of the debt Man U owe was due to the structure of the finance when the glaziers bought them - a lot of this was debt. Man U are making big profits and so their debt is not only being serviced but reducing. We have debt and have been making losses - so our debt increases - and there is onlly so far you can/would want to go down that road. Murray is trying to provide some financial stability while still putting out a SPL winning side - in the past he has secured debt to fund big buys and loook at where that took us, and these (as every man and his dog will tell you) are different times. Murray has a difficult financial balancing act to perform and some some support for him is, in my opinion, due. The Man Utd debts actually increased to £699m. Murray is also showing an inability to control the debt (again): 2006 - £6m 2007 - £17m 2008 - £22m 2009 - ~£30m He has taken us right to the limit of our borrowings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 25,246 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 How can Man UTD be in debt worse than us and still be able to do signings and stuff, theres got to be more clubs than us in worse debt and they still manage signings...so why can't we? I'm not sure but I THINK Man Utd have more income than Rangers. yeah obv...but their still in debt and still do signings so whats the difference between us and them regardless of income? their not getting pushed around to lower their debt, but Murrays making a big deal about it but says he's getting no pressure from the banks, but i reckon he is. So why isn't Man UTD i remember i seen something like this on an english forum, the owners of man u and liverpool use both the income from a year in the EPL and the CL PLUS they personally assure the banks with their own finances so maybe murray has been asked the same thing regarding his other businesses and he's said no (in his own right i suppose) basically the glazers have told the banks that while man utd are in 500mill+ debt, they are willing to put up their other institutions incase english football goes tits up but seeing as man utd and liverpool both pull in mega money a year, the banks couldnt give a shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts