Danny 9 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You really have to wonder what is going on at Ibrox when you focus on a significant number of major signings we've made in the last year and a half or so. We've spent a lot of money on Lafferty, Whittaker, Velicka and Edu yet none of these guys come close to paying back their transfer fee. Simply because the management have either ignored the player entirely, played them out of position, or used them sparingly and not in a settled manner. I cannot understand what can justify a 9 or so million outlay only for the investments to be this disregarded. We complain about Man City potentially 'wasting' 100M and 500K a week on Kaka - how is this any different? It's around 10M and probably 40 or 50k a week total wages completely frittered away. And it's sickening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I agree completely. I'd love to hear Smith justify his signings and subsequent treatment of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootSpeedKillLight 0 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 His treatment of Edu would probably be justified with something along the lines of 'Barry wanted his place in the team back'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Agreed. Players should not be signed if they're not going to be used properly or not used at all, especially for the transfer fees we've paid for some of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaD CoW 3 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Agreed completely and also did Smith or anyone actually go check out these player before singing them? And what's with the rubbish that they are for the future, it the current team that needs inproving Smith! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper 0 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Regardless of whether they were bought for the future or not, they should be featuring much more regularly, in their natural positions now. We have the likes of Barry who has been playing off his reputation for far too long. Putting in **decent** performances now and again but on the whole, is a passenger in games. Miller who, I was unhappy at with the singing but acknowledge that he has played well for us in the first half of the season, but is now not getting involved as much in games and all his running about is of no use what so ever. So far nobody this season has made LM their own, except a couple of good performances, one from Fleck and one from Naismith. These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. The management just aren't giving the youngsters a chance...Whether that's because their trying to ensure players keep their feet on the ground, or any other crazy reason...It doesn't matter, the youngsters still aren't getting a chance to show us what they have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 His treatment of Edu would probably be justified with something along the lines of 'Barry wanted his place in the team back'. Or edu has been injured the majority of time Ferguson has been fit.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. sorry mate but that is bollocks....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I agree with D a nny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. sorry mate but that is bollocks....... Seems like it to me. I'll be completely encouraged and retract that statement if Fleck starts on Saturday, but there's been far too many times I've seen players put in performances yet find themselves dropped the next week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. sorry mate but that is bollocks....... Seems like it to me. I'll be completely encouraged and retract that statement if Fleck starts on Saturday, but there's been far too many times I've seen players put in performances yet find themselves dropped the next week. Me and you both want Fleck playing on Saturday, will give Aberdeen a new problem they haven’t dealt with before. Most of aberdeens attack last week came down what will be our right with Cuthbert having a good game and looking dangerous for him so with davis and broadfoot out there I don’t think we need a more defensive minded player (adam or mculloch) on the left. Walter said he saw no reason for dropping him when discussing it during the week but that may have been a bluff for Calderwood, who knows. Most important for me is we get the three points and if we win with an Adam or Mculloch in the side then walter will have got it right and I will be as happy as I would have been with Fleck starting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Players that shouldn't have been bought in the 1st place! Money wasted on mediocricy, players who were never going to make Rangers any better, infact, some of them make us worse! £11.45m+ along with £55k a week rotting either on the bench, in the reserves or out of position along with the players that were offered new contracts. It's an absolute disgrace. That's what happens when you have a dinosaur incharge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper 0 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. What worries me about Walter is that there has recently been talk that he doesn't need Adam anymore and is prepared to let him leave (Not sure if it was just hearsay, never heard much of it). This is the same player that he offered a five year contract just under 2 years ago? What does that tell you about his judgement, if of course what I have heard is true. Adam did have a bigger impact compared to others in the squad the season Walter came back...But it was and still is clear to see how poor a footballer he is. He seems content taking chances with experienced crap, rather than taking a chance with highly rated youngsters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. What worries me about Walter is that there has recently been talk that he doesn't need Adam anymore and is prepared to let him leave (Not sure if it was just hearsay, never heard much of it). This is the same player that he offered a five year contract just under 2 years ago? What does that tell you about his judgement, if of course what I have heard is true. Adam did have a bigger impact compared to others in the squad the season Walter came back...But it was and still is clear to see how poor a footballer he is. He seems content taking chances with experienced crap, rather than taking a chance with highly rated youngsters. IIRC charlie adam was playing pretty damn well when he got his contract extension. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 These youngsters should be getting a run of games, maybe 3-4 games then the first team players can hopefully come back in and find their form. Or even LM, why, when Naismith had a good game there, did Walter then change who played there next game. Why, when Fleck had a good game in that position, is Ally now suggesting he may be dropped because of his age etc. One of the things I'll never understand Leiper. Only at Rangers are you awarded with new contracts for mediocrity (Dailly, Adam) while you're punished with being left out of the team for good performances (Naismith, Fleck and we've not seen Beasley since his good performance v Hamilton). Completely baffling. What worries me about Walter is that there has recently been talk that he doesn't need Adam anymore and is prepared to let him leave (Not sure if it was just hearsay, never heard much of it). This is the same player that he offered a five year contract just under 2 years ago? What does that tell you about his judgement, if of course what I have heard is true. Adam did have a bigger impact compared to others in the squad the season Walter came back...But it was and still is clear to see how poor a footballer he is. He seems content taking chances with experienced crap, rather than taking a chance with highly rated youngsters. IIRC charlie adam was playing pretty damn well when he got his contract extension. He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! If he kept improving then we would have bene slammed for not having our younger players on long term deals......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman 1,229 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You really have to wonder what is going on at Ibrox when you focus on a significant number of major signings we've made in the last year and a half or so. We've spent a lot of money on Lafferty, Whittaker, Velicka and Edu yet none of these guys come close to paying back their transfer fee. Simply because the management have either ignored the player entirely, played them out of position, or used them sparingly and not in a settled manner. I cannot understand what can justify a 9 or so million outlay only for the investments to be this disregarded. We complain about Man City potentially 'wasting' 100M and 500K a week on Kaka - how is this any different? It's around 10M and probably 40 or 50k a week total wages completely frittered away. And it's sickening. Three out the four are crap and Edu has been bought for a fortune to play in a league which is several leaps above the standard he has been playing in for all of one year. Four expensive wastes of money and there can be no excuse for the signings of Whittaker and Velicka because Walter must heve seen them play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! If he kept improving then we would have bene slammed for not having our younger players on long term deals......... True, but was he ever going to become the player we wanted? Even at the time of the contract, we were all saying that he's never a left winger and there's no chance of him getting anywhere near the central midfield positions, so why five years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Charlie Adam was playing decent, certainly did not warrant a new 5 year deal. The worst thing that happened to Adam, was Le Guen going. I don't think anyone would have minded if he'd been sold. As soon as Wally, McCoist and McDowall came in, you knew he was going to be back to his first division level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! If he kept improving then we would have bene slammed for not having our younger players on long term deals......... True, but was he ever going to become the player we wanted? Even at the time of the contract, we were all saying that he's never a left winger and there's no chance of him getting anywhere near the central midfield positions, so why five years? Three with an option for the club to pick up another two would probably have been a better idea, no way Adam would have turned that down..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! If he kept improving then we would have bene slammed for not having our younger players on long term deals......... True, but was he ever going to become the player we wanted? Even at the time of the contract, we were all saying that he's never a left winger and there's no chance of him getting anywhere near the central midfield positions, so why five years? Three with an option for the club to pick up another two would probably have been a better idea, no way Adam would have turned that down..... Yep, I agree. You give five year deals to Messi, Rooney, Vela, Ramsey or Pato, not to players like Charlie Adam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 As soon as Wally, McCoist and McDowall came in, you knew he was going to be back to his first division level. You don't blame the player ? Others improved under the current coaching regime, the fact Adam couldn't and doesn't look fit is more his fault than anyone elses...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper 0 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 He was playing some decent football, nowhere near decent enough to merit a 5 year contract though! If he kept improving then we would have bene slammed for not having our younger players on long term deals......... He scored a good fair amount of goals. But looking past that, it's clear to see he is way too unfit for a midfielder, no pace, pretty clumsy and too hot & cold. I always wanted Adam to succeed but deep down it was clear that he wasn't going to and only excelled in a poor Rangers team. I did enjoy Adam starting in that particular team, because at the didn't he could do something out of nothing with his shots etc. but that's about it. When he has a poor game, it's really fucking poor. Everyone, or the majority on here, even at the time when he was scoring, seen this as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Charlie Adam was playing decent, certainly did not warrant a new 5 year deal. The worst thing that happened to Adam, was Le Guen going. I don't think anyone would have minded if he'd been sold. As soon as Wally, McCoist and McDowall came in, you knew he was going to be back to his first division level. fair point, he has not improved at all since he got his new contract and shows no signs of doing so, its a bit of a shame really because he looked like a good prospect a while back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts