Mediawatch analyse Murray's comments

[Frankie 505]

Frankie, in the context of the article should that not be Jockular?

I'll get my coat.

[Mikhailichenko 90]

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.

Trouble is most of these players are on good wages and would not accept a free. They would rather sit tight and milk us than go to a lesser club on half the wages.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

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.

Boyds goals are important, we need money, we can’t sell or move on the squad players we would like to so we need to part with a first team player .

[Wullie! 8]

Trouble is most of these players are on good wages and would not accept a free. They would rather sit tight and milk us than go to a lesser club on half the wages.

I'm sure I read Hemdani say something along those lines.

[skins 20]

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.

I think they would if they could mate but they would have to pay them off as nobody is daft enough to bid for them so would not actually save any money

[Mikhailichenko 90]

I'm sure I read Hemdani say something along those lines.

To be honest you cant blaim these guys. Hemdani done a decent job for us at times and probably feels mucked about by the club. Especially the unprofessional manor in which they have been conducting their business i.e. whoring everyone of our players to the first, not the highest, bidder.

[Jimenez 1]

Boyds goals are important, we need money, we can’t sell or move on the squad players we would like to so we need to part with a first team player .

It's the 'we have to sell him to win matches' part that I'm struggling to understand.

[Frankie 505]

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

C:

I don't see much different between 1st team and fringe players at is stands. Adam, Burke and McCulloch often appear from nowhere (as did Hemdani last season) so one could be pedantic there...

Regarding the three midfielders, there was no doubt we needed at least one central midfield player - possibly two. However, the purchase of this player(s) was required before the CL tie - not after we'd just kissed bye-bye to £5-12million. Three such players were not required - as the sporadic appearances of Edu has shown. The sanctioning of that money was a mistake - one we're paying for now by having to sell Boyd (or AN Other).

I agree Bain being unable to move on players is a huge problem. Certainly Murray is going nowhere anytime soon so if he's serious about improving the club while he remains then the appointment of a new CE would be most agreeable. For a number of reasons.

Either that, give Bain the support staff he requires to do his job.

No matter, I'm glad we cautiously agree the club needs to be run far better. Instead of complaining about external factors, I'd much rather Murray concentrated on that, took responsibility and got his hands dirty.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

C:

I don't see much different between 1st team and fringe players at is stands. Adam, Burke and McCulloch often appear from nowhere (as did Hemdani last season) so one could be pedantic there...

Regarding the three midfielders, there was no doubt we needed at least one central midfield player - possibly two. However, the purchase of this player(s) was required before the CL tie - not after we'd just kissed bye-bye to £5-12million. Three such players were not required - as the sporadic appearances of Edu has shown. The sanctioning of that money was a mistake - one we're paying for now by having to sell Boyd (or AN Other).

I agree Bain being unable to move on players is a huge problem. Certainly Murray is going nowhere anytime soon so if he's serious about improving the club while he remains then the appointment of a new CE would be most agreeable. For a number of reasons.

Either that, give Bain the support staff he requires to do his job.

No matter, I'm glad we cautiously agree the club needs to be run far better. Instead of complaining about external factors, I'd much rather Murray concentrated on that, took responsibility and got his hands dirty.

The Edu signing puzzles me greatly to be honest, we without doubt needed Mendes and Davis and you are correct there is no logic in Signing Edu only to have to turn round and sell your toip goalscoer in January to finance a move for a reserve player.

Frankie i have said for the last two years that it's time for the chairman to move on, bain should have been moved on long ago for failing To do what I would see as his core activities time after time. As you point out though the chairman is going nowhere in the short term and they must make the best of what we have got. I realise he will have his hands full with the rest of his business empire and if that is the case he must leave the day to day running of the club with someone who is up to the job. I have seen nothing over the years to suggest that Martin Bain is that man.

I cannot believe he doesn’t employ someone across the Murray group who would be able to do a better job

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

It's the 'we have to sell him to win matches' part that I'm struggling to understand.

I think you may have picked him up wrongly mate......

[CanadianGer 1]

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?

Well summed up Frankie.

You could also add that it is surely bizarre for someone who has been in charge for 20 years to make announcements as though he were coming in out of nowhere to set things right. "Rangers need to be on a sound financial footing" is like saying "I would encourage all of you to breath regularly". It sounds still more bizarre when you point out that AFTER we are knocked out of Europe and know we will be strapped for income that he sanctions GBP9m in signings.

[Briton 394]

To be honest you cant blaim these guys. Hemdani done a decent job for us at times and probably feels mucked about by the club. Especially the unprofessional manor in which they have been conducting their business i.e. whoring everyone of our players to the first, not the highest, bidder.

Hemdami has every right to see his contract out. Smith should not have bought Edu and should be using Hemdami. It strikes me that he is being ignored because he refused to leave. If that is true it is unprofessional and not in the club's best interest.

[Briton 394]

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

Well we had no choice in the Cuellar sale, I don't see any dishonesty there. I agree that it seems mad that Murray allowed WS to buy those players.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Well we had no choice in the Cuellar sale, I don't see any dishonesty there. I agree that it seems mad that Murray allowed WS to buy those players.

Jiminez believes the chairman said he would not sell Cuellar, i have told him he is mistaken but he doesn't beleive me......

[Wreckedroy 33]

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

Pot - Kettle surely?

[Jimenez 1]

Pot - Kettle surely?

That's the second time you've used that when quoting me. At least try and be original FFS.

[Jimenez 1]

Jiminez believes the chairman said he would not sell Cuellar, i have told him he is mistaken but he doesn't beleive me......

That's exactly what he said. Forget about that for the moment..

Is it not clear now that that's exactly what Cuellar's sale would have done ?

Instead we spent that money and then some and are now in a position where we have to off load players mid season and still find a way to claw back a 5 point defecit. It's bad management any way you look at it.

We invested a lot of money on strikers we didn't need, then when we failed to qualify for the CL we invested heavily in midfielders. £2.5million of which seems to be a big big waste of money.

We seem to be doing everything back to front. It doesn't make sense to me. Now we have the chairman saying sorry that Boyd has to be sold to win games. If you believe Rangers have went about their buisness properly then I'm lost for words.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

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.

Gotta disagree with that, Jim.

It goes for obvious possible contradictions, by taking the words out of context and throws in some poor humour.

SCOTCH league , that comes in a bottle scotch does , bunch of feckin clowns

It's probably intentionally part of the wind up.

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

What if Rangers fans started singing it?

So why was Smith allowed to spend so much after the kaunus debacle?

Because we needed to build a midfield after Ferguson's injury?

It's an awful article written by someone who thinks they are funny.... :unionflag:

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?

1. There were problems in the decisions around then, but our hand was forced by the injury to Ferguson.

2. I'd agree that two would have been sufficient, but Edu was perhaps considered a useful one for the future with a high resale value.

3. He has been selective with words and there is a possible contradiction there, but he's responding to the allegations that we're in deep doo-doo and need to sell tons of people, whilst pointing out that our squad is too big and therefore expensive.

Overall, I think it's wise to cut costs as money becomes tight for fans and therefore the clubs. If we manage that right, win the league, which I'm still confident and get CL money, then we could be well placed to take advantage of mid to lower Premiership fire-sales.

[Jimenez 1]

Gotta disagree with that, Jim.

It goes for obvious possible contradictions, by taking the words out of context and throws in some poor humour.

Oleg mate.

They are contradictions though, if they are being taking out of context that's due to Murray's wording.

Murray has been contradicting himself for years now. The more pressure that is being directed upon him the more regularly he seems to be doing it.

[Frankie 505]

1. There were problems in the decisions around then, but our hand was forced by the injury to Ferguson.

2. I'd agree that two would have been sufficient, but Edu was perhaps considered a useful one for the future with a high resale value.

3. He has been selective with words and there is a possible contradiction there, but he's responding to the allegations that we're in deep doo-doo and need to sell tons of people, whilst pointing out that our squad is too big and therefore expensive.

Overall, I think it's wise to cut costs as money becomes tight for fans and therefore the clubs. If we manage that right, win the league, which I'm still confident and get CL money, then we could be well placed to take advantage of mid to lower Premiership fire-sales.

1. The injury to Ferguson was known about well before the Kaunas game as was our dearth of midfielders generally. A new midfielder should have been in place before then.

2. When struggling financially and out of Europe, one must be certain when one signs a new young(ish) and very raw player for almost £3million. I'm sure we could have waited another 6 months to allow an even better look and minimise our risk.

3. There is a contradiction. We need to sell - he admits so himself. Thus we are promoting selling our players.

4. Of course it is wise to cut costs - no-one is denying that. However, we're only having to do so (again) because of their mismanagement detailed above. And we're arguably selling the wrong player as a result.

Mistakes were made - not new mistakes but the same mistakes as before; basically spending money we did not have and were unlikely to recoup given external problems in the world financial markets. The echoes of the mistales made in the first part of this century are uncanny yet we still have people making excuses for the person responsible.

[Frankie 505]

Murray has been contradicting himself for years now. The more pressure that is being directed upon him the more regularly he seems to be doing it.

An excellent point.

Despite my own growing concerns about Murray's stewardship I was always pretty confident he'd continue to handle pressure well and look good in the media.

He even seems to have lost that coolness in the last year or so.

[Briton 394]

Oleg.

The fact that we needed a replacement for Ferguson (and not just because of his injury IMO) does not justify the extravagance of the Lafferty purchase, or those of Velika and Edu. Murray should have reined in Smith's spending after the Kaunas disaster.

[Frankie 505]

Oleg.

The fact that we needed a replacement for Ferguson (and not just because of his injury IMO) does not justify the extravagance of the Lafferty purchase, or those of Velika and Edu. Murray should have reined in Smith's spending after the Kaunas disaster.

After Ferguson was injured we pursued Davis for around 3 weeks before the Kaunas games. The deal failed at that time because of around £200-500K apparently. Now we did save that money when we bought him in August but inexpicably spent millions more on at least one more player we didn't need.

Strategically all over the place.

No-one knows if a new midfielder (Davis or whoever) would have won us the Kaunas tie but it certainly would have been better than Lee McCulloch and Christian Dailly in midfield with only one striker.

[Briton 394]

After Ferguson was injured we pursued Davis for around 3 weeks before the Kaunas games. The deal failed at that time because of around £200-500K apparently. Now we did save that money when we bought him in August but inexpicably spent millions more on at least one more player we didn't need.

Strategically all over the place.

No-one knows if a new midfielder (Davis or whoever) would have won us the Kaunas tie but it certainly would have been better than Lee McCulloch and Christian Dailly in midfield with only one striker.

I think I am the only Bear who thinks we payed too much for Davis, so I can hardly criticise Smith/Murray for not just giving Fulham what they were asking, but with hindsight, you are probably right.

(Is it payed or paid? I'm never sure of that )

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

1. The injury to Ferguson was known about well before the Kaunas game as was our dearth of midfielders generally. A new midfielder should have been in place before then.

2. When struggling financially and out of Europe, one must be certain when one signs a new young(ish) and very raw player for almost £3million. I'm sure we could have waited another 6 months to allow an even better look and minimise our risk.

3. There is a contradiction. We need to sell - he admits so himself. Thus we are promoting selling our players.

4. Of course it is wise to cut costs - no-one is denying that. However, we're only having to do so (again) because of their mismanagement detailed above. And we're arguably selling the wrong player as a result.

Mistakes were made - not new mistakes but the same mistakes as before; basically spending money we did not have and were unlikely to recoup given external problems in the world financial markets. The echoes of the mistales made in the first part of this century are uncanny yet we still have people making excuses for the person responsible.

1. We were trying to get them before hand and saved some money on Davis by waiting. We took a gamble that didn't turn out as expected.

2. Perhaps other clubs were in the frame or monitoring his progress.

3. Unless he's actively going rounds clubs telling them who's for sale and at what price, that's not "promoting" selling our players. There's no ad campaign. There may be whispers about how much we'd accept for who, when enquiries are made, but that's just smart business sense, like Cousin and Cuellar, whom people forgot quickly about. Say what you like, Walter can pick a centre back.

4. If we hadn't signed two of those midfielders, then there would be big complaints. Add in we didn't know how long Barry was out, then perhaps they wanted to invest in a title effort.

You see, we really needed to pep up midfield and Cousin, our best striker when here, was for the off too. If we didn't invest then, everyone would have criticised you. Personally, I'd accept that we had signed perhaps one midfielder and one attacker too many, but Darcheville and possibly Boyd are off and maybe Fergie too. Perhaps we expected more to go in the summer.

So if you had players you'd decided had no long term future at the club, but couldn't get rid of them, would you stick with just those players or get the ones you wanted? It maybe gave us a 4 or 5 month overspend on wages, but we'll be better placed to judge matters at the end of the month.

Ultimately, I think it was right to invest in players like Mendes, Bougherra, Davis and Miller. Aaron was a good value, if under used. I still feel that Velicka and Lafferty, along with Aaron, still have something to offer.