Mediawatch analyse Murray's comments

[n8kko 0]

I never thought id see the day when id say this but we are fast becoming a joke!!!!

Panicking..me...no

Starting to question whats been going on at our club.....yes?????

Why does selling the top goalscorer for only £3mil (once Killie settled) make good business sense???

Dont be fooled by Mr Murray and the 'credit crunch'

The credit crunch is being used by many businesses to cut costs....however we are all still paying our same bills and all still going to the games etc (you cant get a parking space at the shops these days so still spending...dont be fooled.

Only businesses with serios debt and high lending practices are in trouble...........?

Why do we desperately need to raise£3million.

What is happening to our club?

Ok trim the squad and wage bill but whos fault is it that our squad is full of overpaid mediocrity?

I think this is a serious situation which we have all had to accept for couple of seasons now well i dont buy into it any longer.

Mr Murray will sell any of our team if a bid comes in that HE thinks brings in profit...You can build a successful team like that.

Successsful teams need stability of team selection and ours is all over the place.

Think we need serious overhaul of the management of our club.

Sorry for ranting guys but this is not the way Glasgow Rangers should be operating...lets be honest.

Carry on like this and we wont win anything.

What do we want successful team or balanced business books...you can never have both in football.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

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.

Weren't they signed before the injury?

Basically, we're left saying that we possible would be better off had we not signed Edu and maybe Lafferty too. Granted that's £6m or so, but they're very good young talents and if Boyd money pays for Lafferty, then I'd be rather content swapping a few more goals against the relegation candidates for a faster, more skilful striker, whose more mobile and with an extra 4 inches in height.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

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.

Jiminez beat me to this point.

Murray was always quick to say that Europe was a financial bonus, that RFC never figured the European money into the annual accounts.

The thing is, liars always get caught out......eh David?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

[Thermopylae 15,288]

What is this rubbish ?

I think he's been on the London Gin

[Briton 394]

Weren't they signed before the injury?

Basically, we're left saying that we possible would be better off had we not signed Edu and maybe Lafferty too. Granted that's £6m or so, but they're very good young talents and if Boyd money pays for Lafferty, then I'd be rather content swapping a few more goals against the relegation candidates for a faster, more skilful striker, whose more mobile and with an extra 4 inches in height.

Well actually it wasn't an injury as such, it was a planned operation, and therefore no surprise. Lafferty, Velika and Edu should not have been signed after the kaunus disater, regardless of potential. Spending £3.5 million on a youngster is the action of a club with money to risk...we are not in that position. Particularly after Smith failed to get us past the Lithuanian champions. If we were to splash out that kind of money, it should have been on a more experienced, left sided player.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Well actually it wasn't an injury as such, it was a planned operation, and therefore no surprise.

Wrong again. The operation was deemed necessary after breaking down in training.

Lafferty, Velika and Edu should not have been signed after the kaunus disater, regardless of potential.

Wrong again.

2 out of your quoted 3 were signed before it.

Spending £3.5 million on a youngster is the action of a club with money to risk...we are not in that position.

That's the total figure, should he play a set number of games and fulfil other criteria.

Particularly after Smith failed to get us past the Lithuanian champions. If we were to splash out that kind of money, it should have been on a more experienced, left sided player.

Wahey! You got one right.

I'm off to mark my calendar, noting this auspicious event.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Jiminez beat me to this point.

Murray was always quick to say that Europe was a financial bonus, that RFC never figured the European money into the annual accounts.

The thing is, liars always get caught out......eh David?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

If only your point was true in the way you meant it.

[Briton 394]

Wrong again. The operation was deemed necessary after breaking down in training.

Wrong again.

2 out of your quoted 3 were signed before it.

! Hands up, I fucked that up. Should have realised, particularly with Velika as he was one of the main culprits in our defeat with his bad miss at 1-1. Fact is though that Smith should never have been trusted with the money and the sanctioning of £3.5 million on a Burnley youngster was madness for a club in our position. Smith is at fault but Murray ultimately takes the blame as the buck stops at the top.

[Frankie 505]

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.

1. Yep what appears to be a £4-12million gamble on our European income is well worth taking for the sake of a few hundred grand! We had several months to pep up our midfield before the Kaunas tie - arguably since January. Not doing so is unacceptable - especially when you see how we panicked after the game.

2. So again we take a £2.7million gamble on a raw player when we are aware of financial problems? I can't remember other teams being linked with the player at the time anyway. If we were that eager to sign him, you'd think he'd have played a more important part by now. We did not need to sign this player.

3. Of course there is an 'ad campaign'. Both Murray and Smith are quoted about having to sell players because we need at least £3million to 'balance the books' half way through a season. Murray also mentions how every player has their price. That's not small whispers - that's full page ads in the sports sections. Not to mention the strong rumours I'm sure we've both heard in the background about agent instructions.

4. So we've to compromise the financial future of the club because of big complaints? There are big complaints about other issues but I don't see the club panicking? Two of the signings were understandable - if at least a month late. One wasn't and was unnecessary. We're now paying for it.

I'm going to repost this part because it's important and you seem to have missed it in your attempt to make some misguided defence for an unacceptable financial strategy.

5. 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 mistakes made in the first part of this century are uncanny yet we still have people making excuses for the person responsible.

Ergo, let's just accept that the club is being run poorly. If losing 3 (going on 4) league titles on the trot and selling key players to prop up continual financial gambles doesn't show that, then I don't know what would for some fans.

Again, highlighting this isn't because I'm being negative, don't think we can win the title this year, don't appreciate the past good times or because I'm disloyal to the club; but because I'm worried about the future, worried about the same mistakes being made and think the club can do more to fulfil it's potential.

It surprises me that some people don't acknowledge what is happening right in front of their eyes.