reddrock 107 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 No matter what SDM says the equation is money given and spent by walter was wasted , this was sanctioned by murray and his board which equals our current postion. Can someone explain how (as murray is trying to say ) he is operating prudently or do i just not understand the current postion help guys ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper1989 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Murray may have sanctioned it.. but who spent it? AND.. was it spent wisely? Walter..... You have a lot to answser for. You are tarnishing your legacy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 572 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 so for ignoring the points in your post but can you answer me this... If walter was given no money and we ended up say 10-14 points behind the leaders of the spl what would you be saying to that? again why complain if you have no solution to the problem. you want murray to say hey walt your getting nothing were skint but i want you to win the title or the fans will be on our back again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddrock 107 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 Murray may have sanctioned it.. but who spent it? AND.. was it spent wisely? Walter..... You have a lot to answser for. You are tarnishing your legacy. I agree coops but Murray says he now runs rangers prudently , by not budgeting for failing in the championship and allowing duds to be bought how can he say this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddrock 107 Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 so for ignoring the points in your post but can you answer me this... If walter was given no money and we ended up say 10-14 points behind the leaders of the spl what would you be saying to that? again why complain if you have no solution to the problem. you want murray to say hey walt your getting nothing were skint but i want you to win the title or the fans will be on our back again No am asking how murray can claim the club is being run prudently , sorry if thats not clear in the words Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman 1,235 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Murray may have sanctioned it.. but who spent it? AND.. was it spent wisely? Walter..... You have a lot to answser for. You are tarnishing your legacy. He tarnished his legacy for me the last time when he left the club in a very poor state regarding personnel; a skeleton squad, no young players nurtured for first team opportunity and no youth policy; a manager who had no vision of the big picture in terms of club management. The state he left the club meant almost a new team had to be bought over a couple of months and resulted in a large amount of money being spent. This time we do not have the money available and the squad he will leave will be made up of dross who could not be moved on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 It's a hard one. For me, Walter has to take the lion's share of the blame in this case. The amount of brass he's spent on dirge is ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeney 241 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I dont think its fair the amount of stick murray is getting. Walter by far and away is the real villain here. He spent alot of money on shite players,yes murray allowed it but what would have been our reaction if murray hadnt gave walter any money? Murray didnt choose the players to buy. We would NOT be in this position had we not lost to kaunas. Lets be honest,who expected us to lose to kaunas? even a uefa cup run would have spared us this position. We cant not spend money at the start of a season in fear of not beating a shitty lithuanian team. Murray does have alot to answer for,but i think the amount of stick he is getting is unfair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 It's a hard one. For me, Walter has to take the lion's share of the blame in this case. The amount of brass he's spent on dirge is ridiculous. Agreed, but its EASY to see this. SDM was too trusting of WS just like DA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameronian 0 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I dont think its fair the amount of stick murray is getting. Walter by far and away is the real villain here. He spent alot of money on shite players,yes murray allowed it but what would have been our reaction if murray hadnt gave walter any money? Murray didnt choose the players to buy. We would NOT be in this position had we not lost to kaunas. Lets be honest,who expected us to lose to kaunas? even a uefa cup run would have spared us this position. We cant not spend money at the start of a season in fear of not beating a shitty lithuanian team. Murray does have alot to answer for,but i think the amount of stick he is getting is unfair. I agree, generally, but surely Murray, having seen Smith squander all that money, must ask himself if it's worth allowing Smith to spend anything else, unless closely supervised. After all, does anyone think that any of the money Smith spent can be recouped by selling those same players? I think not. Apropos another matter not entirely unrelated, I note that Murray's supporters tend to accuse other of not offering solutions to perceived problems. But then, whilst pointing this out to others, they fail to offer any themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 572 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 It's a hard one. For me, Walter has to take the lion's share of the blame in this case. The amount of brass he's spent on dirge is ridiculous. Agreed, but its EASY to see this. SDM was too trusting of WS just like DA. and the masses reponse to SDM telling Smith he has hee-haw money to invest in the squad? hmmm let me guess GET MURRAY OUT NO AMBITION ETC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,654 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Murray may have sanctioned it.. but who spent it? AND.. was it spent wisely? Walter..... You have a lot to answser for. You are tarnishing your legacy. He tarnished his legacy for me the last time when he left the club in a very poor state regarding personnel; a skeleton squad, no young players nurtured for first team opportunity and no youth policy; a manager who had no vision of the big picture in terms of club management. The state he left the club meant almost a new team had to be bought over a couple of months and resulted in a large amount of money being spent. This time we do not have the money available and the squad he will leave will be made up of dross who could not be moved on. bang on the button when walter chucked it half way through 10 IAR (yes i know he stayed till the end but was his mind really on it after telling us in jan he was packing it in?) our youth development was probably THE worst in scottish football, we had no young PROFFESIONAL talent coming through except fergie, mind how fat charlie miller was, reminds me of adam no under smith we had nothing in place below reserve football and had no future with the current squad, hell we would never of had moore back if palace werent so skint, and smith let him go remember, AFTER playing him out of position (where do i see that now) wee dick was under a lot of pressure to deliver a brand new team, euro success and win back the title so money had to be spent, and too be honest numan was good value, vanbronkhurst we made a profit seeling on, and the rest of wee dicks signings played their part in some way, the only thing wee dick will get slated for was big bertie bombscare and flo, even de boer turned out a success eventually for mcleish, the position were in the now goes all the way back to smiths first reign at he helm, if he needed a player he spent money, and never once used any youth players to great effect. we had nowt to fall back on, imagine if we had a few more players like fergie who were ready to come through when wee dick took over they 16-18 year olds maybe would have made us a profit over the 12 years or would have been good enough to stay in the team Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 572 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I dont think its fair the amount of stick murray is getting. Walter by far and away is the real villain here. He spent alot of money on shite players,yes murray allowed it but what would have been our reaction if murray hadnt gave walter any money? Murray didnt choose the players to buy. We would NOT be in this position had we not lost to kaunas. Lets be honest,who expected us to lose to kaunas? even a uefa cup run would have spared us this position. We cant not spend money at the start of a season in fear of not beating a shitty lithuanian team. Murray does have alot to answer for,but i think the amount of stick he is getting is unfair. I agree, generally, but surely Murray, having seen Smith squander all that money, must ask himself if it's worth allowing Smith to spend anything else, unless closely supervised. After all, does anyone think that any of the money Smith spent can be recouped by selling those same players? I think not. Apropos another matter not entirely unrelated, I note that Murray's supporters tend to accuse other of not offering solutions to perceived problems. But then, whilst pointing this out to others, they fail to offer any themselves. eh he isnt giving him anymore money so rather a mute point no??? i dont believe i have raised any issues with the board or the manager therefore why do i need to provide solutions?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRICKY1872 118 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 No matter what SDM says the equation is money given and spent by walter was wasted , this was sanctioned by murray and his board which equals our current postion. Can someone explain how (as murray is trying to say ) he is operating prudently or do i just not understand the current postion help guys ? I was talking about this today. Murray is currently bleating about how the likes of Hemdami are on 17k and bleeding the club dry. It was Murray and his pet monkey Bain who oversaw these contract negotiations, bit late to be pointing fingers elsewhere now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_ni 12 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 No matter what SDM says the equation is money given and spent by walter was wasted , this was sanctioned by murray and his board which equals our current postion. Can someone explain how (as murray is trying to say ) he is operating prudently or do i just not understand the current postion help guys ? I was talking about this today. Murray is currently bleating about how the likes of Hemdami are on 17k and bleeding the club dry. It was Murray and his pet monkey Bain who oversaw these contract negotiations, bit late to be pointing fingers elsewhere now. Hemdani was our player of the year a couple of season ago. Walter smith is to blame for pissing about last year and only playing him in europe. Why the hell did murray sanction us spending £2.7m on a defensive midfielder when we had hemdani still on the books? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts