garner

[K.A.I 36,183]

Agreed on the sell-on value point.

Whilst we'd all like to be able to punt new signings a couple of years down the line for big bucks like the tarriers manage to do it's a secondary thing.

First and foremost they need to be a good player and we need to get a solid return from them playing for us.

If you set up your scouting and transfer policy with sell-on values in mind then you don't get the right player in to start with IMO.

Even more so the way we are just now. 

For example, what we need are solid, proven quality. Not people with potential that we could make a few quid on later down the line.

Good example would be Kenny Miller when we signed him the second time around 2010 .. absolutely no sell-on value but would get a solid 2-3 years out of him.

Don't get me wrong if we sign a player and we get those 2-3 solid years out them and we can still sell them for a good profit then happy days. That would be great.

But we need talent for our team that will do a job on the pitch first and foremost - not our balance sheet. 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

The balance needs to be what can we afford, and what can they bring to the team. If we are not targeting a transfer budget that is aiming to improve the quality of the defence and midfield in the summer in particular, but starting in this window to come as well, then that will indicate a lack of ambition. We need midfielders who are way better than what we have at present; and not for their sell on value, but for what success they can bring to Rangers. Anything additional to that is a bonus.

[BertContraband 282]

1 hour ago, K.A.I said:

Agreed on the sell-on value point.

Whilst we'd all like to be able to punt new signings a couple of years down the line for big bucks like the tarriers manage to do it's a secondary thing.

First and foremost they need to be a good player and we need to get a solid return from them playing for us.

If you set up your scouting and transfer policy with sell-on values in mind then you don't get the right player in to start with IMO.

Even more so the way we are just now. 

For example, what we need are solid, proven quality. Not people with potential that we could make a few quid on later down the line.

Good example would be Kenny Miller when we signed him the second time around 2010 .. absolutely no sell-on value but would get a solid 2-3 years out of him.

Don't get me wrong if we sign a player and we get those 2-3 solid years out them and we can still sell them for a good profit then happy days. That would be great.

But we need talent for our team that will do a job on the pitch first and foremost - not our balance sheet. 

We signed Miller in 2008 and we did sell him on for money.

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, BertContraband said:

We signed Miller in 2008 and we did sell him on for money.

600k or something to Bursaspor it was ... that's not my idea of sell-on value in the way it's talked about on here.

What did we pay for him from Derby 1.5-2 million? so we've not sold him on for any big profit. That's my point. 

[BlueAvenger 10,408]

Let's be honest, his lack of goals is a concern.

[Teddybear123 215]

 

4 hours ago, Creampuff said:

 

This point is grossly misused on this site, constantly. You don't buy a player because he has re-sale value, because any re-sale value is inseparably linked to their performance while they're at the club.

You sign players because they'll improve the side. You sell them because it makes financial sense.

This place is fucking obsessed with re-sale value, which is something almost impossible to determine at time of purchase. 

Don't sign players 28+ there's no re-sale value. Don't sign players under 24, they've no experience. Don't spend so much money on one player, it's too risky. 

Just sign all the free, 26 year old, established first team players who are used to the pressures of winning and who have played consistently with no injuries ever. Only reason we can't find them all is that we don't scout Scandanavia or the fucking Ukraine, according to the geniuses on here. 

When did I say all that shite? I'm just saying that I think it would be far from impossible to find a striker better than garner for 1.8mil. And tbf this would be made a lot easier if we scouted outside the UK.

[Creampuff 22,628]

Just now, Teddybear123 said:

 

When did I say all that shite? I'm just saying that I think it would be far from impossible to find a striker better than garner for 1.8mil. And tbf this would be made a lot easier if we scouted outside the UK.

 

I didn't say you did say all that. I said that it's constantly mis-used on the site. 

[bam74 1,003]

The amount of excuses trotted out for his lack of goals and general play is unreal. It's the midfields fault.. he needs to play with a partner.... He just need to get into goal scoring positions.

Let's be honest, he hasn't looked liked scoring a goal in weeks. A very poor football player who has to run a lot about make up for it. 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

2 minutes ago, bam74 said:

The amount of excuses trotted out for his lack of goals and general play is unreal. It's the midfields fault.. he needs to play with a partner.... He just need to get into goal scoring positions.

Let's be honest, he hasn't looked liked scoring a goal in weeks. A very poor football player who has to run a lot about make up for it. 

Complete nonsense.

[TheKingObv 10,649]

He's absolutely horseshit.

Decent strikers at least give themselves a chance to score, he just never gets into positions.

Would love to be proven wrong though.

[TheKingObv 10,649]

Also frustrating as fuck when he launches himself to the ground after being brushed off the ball, leaving us with no striker in play. 

[bam74 1,003]

10 hours ago, Turnberry18 said:

1.8 million, in relative terms, is very little. Halliday was not with anyone, but the Garner fee should be the standard at least for this club. I'm hoping we will be spending more than that in the summer for any player we expect to make a difference. The Garner fee looks about right in terms of his experience and other things considered. It didn't tell me that we were getting a world beater. Not every player can be bought with the appreciation value in mind either; first and foremost they should be signed for what they can bring to Rangers on the park. He is better than most players in this league, in my opinion.

In general footballing terms it is very little but taking our limited funds it is huge. It looks like a waste of what little money we had. IMHO this is why he's getting stick. Years ago we would've shrugged it off but now it's just an astonishing waste of money.

 

As for being one of the better players.... Based on what ?  We would have been better keeping Hardie.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

51 minutes ago, bam74 said:

In general footballing terms it is very little but taking our limited funds it is huge. It looks like a waste of what little money we had. IMHO this is why he's getting stick. Years ago we would've shrugged it off but now it's just an astonishing waste of money.

 

As for being one of the better players.... Based on what ?  We would have been better keeping Hardie.

We still have Hardie, and it isn't certain that he would have contributed greatly. I'm a huge fan of Hardie, but he is one for the future. Garner is one of the better players in this league based on what is evident in the game he gives opposition defences. They don't don't look comfortable playing him. Apart from the last match he was on a good run of form.

[bam74 1,003]

I know we still have him, what I mean is we should've kept him in our squad rather than loan him out. I think we are clutching at straws thinking that defenders are scared of Garner. He did have a couple of decent games against Aberdeen and Hearts but everyone in our team raised their games for those ones. He's obviously one that splits opinion. I think he's pish and not even in the top 10 of current Rangers players never mind the league and you think he's a player. 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

14 minutes ago, bam74 said:

I know we still have him, what I mean is we should've kept him in our squad rather than loan him out. I think we are clutching at straws thinking that defenders are scared of Garner. He did have a couple of decent games against Aberdeen and Hearts but everyone in our team raised their games for those ones. He's obviously one that splits opinion. I think he's pish and not even in the top 10 of current Rangers players never mind the league and you think he's a player. 

Not in the top 10 of the squad we have right now? I'm surprised you think that, but if you do then okay you are not a fan clearly. 

[Prso's headband 35,779]

When he gets service he will finish. His highlights at Preston show this. Against Hamilton he was chasing his own headers ffs. Mckay looked back to his lackadaisical self on Saturday not interested at all. Waghorn is too greedy out on the wing, rightfully so as he is a striker.

You take a step back and watch our midfielders and wing backs 9/10 never beat the first man with a cross or corner and when they do its over hit. He needs proper service and if the team aren't prepared or simply aren't good enough then they come in closer to him to win his knockdowns and link up with him better. 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

2 minutes ago, Prso's headband said:

When he gets service he will finish. His highlights at Preston show this. Against Hamilton he was chasing his own headers ffs. Mckay looked back to his lackadaisical self on Saturday not interested at all. Waghorn is too greedy out on the wing, rightfully so as he is a striker.

You take a step back and watch our midfielders and wing backs 9/10 never beat the first man with a cross or corner and when they do its over hit. He needs proper service and if the team aren't prepared or simply aren't good enough then they come in closer to him to win his knockdowns and link up with him better. 

It's amazing how the criticism for the lack of goals mostly omits the fact that our strikers are playing alongside such an ineffective midfield,

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,112]

2 hours ago, TheKingObv said:

He's absolutely horseshit.

Decent strikers at least give themselves a chance to score, he just never gets into positions.

Would love to be proven wrong though.

I too wish that he could be Hateley, mccoist, boyd and mols rolled into one.

Because in this team that's what he's going to have to be.

He stayed central, got isolated and no chances.

Eventually we played longer, he brought us up with a more direct style of play. Still got few chances due to lack of crosses.

On Saturday the whole team was shite. None more so than the midfield. Still creating no chances for forwards.

And yet he hasn't got 30 goals so far ffs.

We simply do not create chances for a CF either through midfield supplying, or wingers with decent crosses. Never done it since MW had been here. 

So Garner battles to be involved, drive us on, but gets blamed for not scoring tbe chances he doesn't get.

YES he could be a bit sharper, but our successful forwards were created chances which they took advantage of. This team didn't do it for Miller earlier in the season and aren't doing it for Garner now. Hence how far he is from danger areas trying to contribute.

The system has improved as it's been more direct. But it's far from effective in creating chances for him or other forwards currently.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

3 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

I too wish that he could be Hateley, mccoist, boyd and mols rolled into one.

Because in this team that's what he's going to have to be.

He stayed central, got isolated and no chances.

Eventually we played longer, he brought us up with a more direct style of play. Still got few chances due to lack of crosses.

On Saturday the whole team was shite. None more so than the midfield. Still creating no chances for forwards.

And yet he hasn't got 30 goals so far ffs.

We simply do not create chances for a CF either through midfield supplying, or wingers with decent crosses. Never done it since MW had been here. 

So Garner battles to be involved, drive us on, but gets blamed for not scoring tbe chances he doesn't get.

YES he could be a bit sharper, but our successful forwards were created chances which they took advantage of. This team didn't do it for Miller earlier in the season and aren't doing it for Garner now. Hence how far he is from danger areas trying to contribute.

The system has improved as it's been more direct. But it's far from effective in creating chances for him or other forwards currently.

Great post, and it was evident he was dropping back to get involved, as you rightly point out,  because of their total lack of creativity. How anyone can single him out with that midfield as it is is beyond me. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,112]

14 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

Great post, and it was evident he was dropping back to get involved, as you rightly point out,  because of their total lack of creativity. How anyone can single him out with that midfield as it is is beyond me. 

I don't think he's been great. I dont think he'll get us the goals poachers and clinical finishers of our past have done. But I do think much of our improvement in form is down to adapting our play to benefit from his presence and style.

Without him v the bheasts I dread to even consider.

And for those doubting him, consider a Boymccoist etc hovering in there, waiting for chances. They'd be wasted, they'd be useless and on similar scoring rates to our current forwards.

We just don't create clear cut chances for forwards.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

I don't think he's been great. I dont think he'll get us the goals poachers and clinical finishers of our past have done. But I do think much of our improvement in form is down to adapting our play to benefit from his presence and style.

Without him v the bheasts I dread to even consider.

And for those doubting him, consider a Boymccoist etc hovering in there, waiting for chances. They'd be wasted, they'd be useless and on similar scoring rates to our current forwards.

We just don't create clear cut chances for forwards.

This is the worst midfield I've seen playing for Rangers; I mean in top league football. It's unreal how few chances they create. If it isn't resolved beginning in this transfer window then you have to wonder how far we can go in the long term.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,112]

21 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

This is the worst midfield I've seen playing for Rangers; I mean in top league football. It's unreal how few chances they create. If it isn't resolved beginning in this transfer window then you have to wonder how far we can go in the long term.

Agreed ?

[GMacK 26]

Garner does not have enough quality to play for the teams we all remember, but we are where we are i'm afraid.

Was a huge mistake paying £1.8m for him IMO. There are loads of more prolific strikers that we could have picked up for pennies.

I also worry that his misses in the box aren't close, or he's not snatching at it or drawing good saves. It's like watching the last pick in the playground when the ball comes to him and he falls over it when he tries to kick it because he's so nervous.  Absolutely awful

BUT

Folk are saying that he doesn't suit our style of play, but we have been moaning that the manager needs to be able to mix it up.

Folk say that he is close to a red card, yet we slate other players for being soft and lily-livered.

Against Aberdeen we changed how we played in first 10 mins. Lumping the ball to his head put them on the back foot and didnt let them press our defence. The crowd got a lift, the other players got a lift and it was our best performance of the season IMO.

We build players up too quickly then knock them down to fuck.  Let's judge him at the end of the season. Remember everyone wanking over Zelalem after the Airdrie game last year. This time next season he'll be serving KFC buckets!

 

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

On 24/12/2016 at 5:16 PM, STEPPS BOY said:

He's fantastic in the air but as you say you cant expect him to flick the ball twenty yards to the left or right..

We dont have the players to play 4-3-3 so dont understand why we persist with it.

No one understands that, it's completely baffling.

[To Be A Ranger 4,032]

Forget about the transfer fee or wages and look at the players in the jerseys. Before Garner was given a week in week out run in the side we were at a loss why the urgency and 100% effort had gone from our play. This is something Garner brings and I see it being a positive influence on the rest of the team. The commitment has stepped up and he gives us additional options with his aerial presence. We just need some more players to weigh in with goals from the chances we create