Fiogh 178 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's not often that Mediawatch pays much attention to the Scotch league, largely because if we wanted to sit in the cold watching brutes with limited skill hit each other, we'd go to the ice hockey. However, Rangers chairman David Murray's words this morning caught our eye. We asked the resident Ger in F365 Towers to explain what the hell Murray was on about, but we couldn't understand what he was saying through the mouthfuls of shortbread, haggis and Special Brew, so we're going to have a stab at it ourselves. Justifying the imminent sale of Kris Boyd, Murray said: "Rangers have to be run on a sound fiscal basis. "We did not budget for losing to FBK Kaunas, we have a squad of 28 players and we simply cannot sustain the level of outgoings compared to what is coming in." Whoa there Davey boy. Surely you're asking for trouble if you follow 'sound fiscal basis' with 'We did not budget for...', but anyway, the most curious part of Murray's 'defence' was to follow. "We are paying between £5m and £7m in wages per year for players who are not required. You cannot choose who you may wish to put out the door because it is dependent on offers coming in." Seems sensible on the face of it, but Murray went on to say: "I stress we are not promoting the sale of Barry Ferguson and to say we are a selling club is ridiculous. I repeat: I have no intention of promoting the sale of anyone else." So you have too many players, but you're not planning on selling anyone but Kris Boyd? Glad that's clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 What is this rubbish ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiogh 178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 What is this rubbish ? An article from the website http://www.football365.com/mediawatch/0,17...4764210,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's actually a good article, Murray stated years a go that we must budget without taking Europe in to account. The man twists and turns more than John Travolta on the dance floor. Murray, just be honest, we can handle the truth. Tell us exactly where we stand and perhaps we can work together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddrock 107 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 SCOTCH league , that comes in a bottle scotch does , bunch of feckin clowns Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 but we couldn't understand what he was saying through the mouthfuls of shortbread, haggis and Special Brew racist wankers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 but we couldn't understand what he was saying through the mouthfuls of shortbread, haggis and Special Brew racist wankers Oh piss off. If I said I couldn't understand Nicolas Sarkozy through mouthfulls of snails, frog legs, champagne and Carla Bruni's beutiful quim would I be hauled before the European courts ? Take that massive stick out of your arse and develop a sense of humour Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueminawful 0 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Carla Bruni's beutiful quim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Oh piss off. If I said I couldn't understand Nicolas Sarkozy through mouthfulls of snails, frog legs, champagne and Carla Bruni's beutiful quim would I be hauled before the European courts ? Take that massive stick out of your arse and develop a sense of humour m8 i was kidding, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's actually a good article, Murray stated years a go that we must budget without taking Europe in to account. The man twists and turns more than John Travolta on the dance floor. Murray, just be honest, we can handle the truth. Tell us exactly where we stand and perhaps we can work together. Thats what I thought. He has said time and time again that all our budgets are drawn up without the European money being taken in to consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Thats what I thought. He has said time and time again that all our budgets are drawn up without the European money being taken in to consideration. I honestly believe he reckons he can say any old shite to the Rangers support and we'll lap it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerson 2 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I seem to remember we went daft in the transfer market AFTER the Kaunus game when we knew full well what our budgets were going to be this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 So why was Smith allowed to spend so much after the kaunus debacle? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's actually a good article, Murray stated years a go that we must budget without taking Europe in to account. The man twists and turns more than John Travolta on the dance floor. Murray, just be honest, we can handle the truth. Tell us exactly where we stand and perhaps we can work together. It's an awful article written by someone who thinks they are funny.... :unionflag: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I honestly believe he reckons he can say any old shite to the Rangers support and we'll lap it up. I must admit to bieng a supporter of him, until now! I am totally dissilusioned with the way the club is heading. Yes a lot of it is paper talk and lazy journalism but there is no smoke without fire, as they say. It looks like worrying times ahead Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiogh 178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's an awful article written by someone who thinks they are funny.... :unionflag: You're thinking of McBoyd Kiddin, I liked his idea for MM grave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 So why was Smith allowed to spend so much after the kaunus debacle? Pressure from the support, if Murray had been honest and said Cuellar had to be sold to balance the books when he met with the support there would have been deep resentment but we would have dealt with it. There was so many unnecessary signings during the summer that you have to wonder just what the hell Murray is doing allowing Smith to be so reckless with the clubs cash. £8million on Velicka, Edu and Lafferty if you include agent fees etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It's an awful article written by someone who thinks they are funny.... :unionflag: Point out what's wrong with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 it's as funny as a bart simpson tie on the office joker..... also it's clear what the chairman meant about selling players, if the guy couldn't grasp that he must be even dafter than i thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The jocular nature of the piece isn't very funny but the overall sentiment is correct: 1. Our budgetary and strategic planning for an important CL tie is questionable at best. 2. The fact we went on to compound those mistakes via the purchase of 3 central midfield players for £9million when we knew we'd then face problems (Cuellar sale or not) only adds to the negiligence. 3. Our chairman then bizarrely concludes we're not promoting the sale of anyone but that he wants to trim the squad and the wage budget further as we have players that are not required. Eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimenez 1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 it's as funny as a bart simpson tie on the office joker..... also it's clear what the chairman meant about selling players, if the guy couldn't grasp that he must be even dafter than i thought Is it really ? Well seeing as you seem to have a better understanding of the chairman than I do, can you decipher this gem for me ? 'Cos I've read it over and over again and no matter what angle I look at it I fail to make head nor tail of it. But at the same time we have to make sure we win matches and that's why I am sorry it looks as though Boyd is going Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie! 8 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Going by his word, if we released the players not required on a free, we'd be saving £5-£7m a year? I'd let them go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The jocular nature of the piece isn't very funny but the overall sentiment is correct: 1. Our budgetary and strategic planning for an important CL tie is questionable at best. 2. The fact we went on to compound those mistakes via the purchase of 3 central midfield players for £9million when we knew we'd then face problems (Cuellar sale or not) only adds to the negiligence. 3. Our chairman then bizarrely concludes we're not promoting the sale of anyone but that he wants to trim the squad and the wage budget further as we have players that are not required. Eh? Frankie, in the context of the article should that not be Jockular? I'll get my coat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Going by his word, if we released the players not required on a free, we'd be saving £5-£7m a year? I'd let them go. We'd have to pay off their contracts mate so in real terms it could still cost millions... It seems the Hemdanis of this world are not interested in doing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The jocular nature of the piece isn't very funny but the overall sentiment is correct: 1. Our budgetary and strategic planning for an important CL tie is questionable at best. 2. The fact we went on to compound those mistakes via the purchase of 3 central midfield players for £9million when we knew we'd then face problems (Cuellar sale or not) only adds to the negiligence. 3. Our chairman then bizarrely concludes we're not promoting the sale of anyone but that he wants to trim the squad and the wage budget further as we have players that are not required. Eh? He was refering to first team players and squad players. It's obvious who he wants rid of but failing that then he will have to get rid of someone who people are actually bidding for If he hired a cheif exec. able to do his job and move these guys on then he would have far less worries. If we hadn't purchased any of the three midfielders we did we would have been fighting for 2nd place not the title Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.a322702824af812fc5dda416706c52ad.jpeg)
Recommended Posts