[bennett]

Jinky67, on 05 February 2012 - 19:35, said:

Walter wouldn't touch this car crash with a barge pole.

The last time he came in to stabilise Rangers it cost David Murray £20 million and went towards putting you in the position you are in now

Actually Walter made more than £20m from selling players.

This post has been edited by bennett: 05 February 2012 - 19:55

[Rock Legend SMFC]

sweenzo, on 05 February 2012 - 15:23, said:

Walter needs money. He spent an absolute fortune in his 2 spells at Rangers, it's not going to happen Coco. The market your once proud club opertate in now is cementing there place in the top six for seasons to come.

Jinky67, on 05 February 2012 - 19:35, said:

Walter wouldn't touch this car crash with a barge pole.

The last time he came in to stabilise Rangers it cost David Murray £20 million and went towards putting you in the position you are in now

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 05 February 2012 - 19:54, said:

Actually Walter made more than £20m from selling players.

Doesn't change the original point.

He still had to spend 20 million that summer to improve the squad. Money Rangers don't have and money you can't raise this time through big transfers like Cuellar and Hutton.

This post has been edited by Jinky67: 05 February 2012 - 20:05

[Henrik's tongue]

Kenny Shiels?

[The OP]

This guy?

[Henrik's tongue]

Nel Lennon. He has previous experience of turning round a shambles

[Henrik's tongue]

The fella Sergio?

[bennett]

Jinky67, on 05 February 2012 - 20:03, said:

Doesn't change the original point.

He still had to spend 20 million that summer to improve the squad. Money Rangers don't have and money you can't raise this time through big transfers like Cuellar and Hutton.

Jesus H christ



Ye sell players for a profit then ye use said profit to bring in new players .............................

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 03 March 2012 - 23:04, said:

Jesus H christ



Ye sell players for a profit then ye use said profit to bring in new players .............................

Well done Captain Obvious, figure that out on your own?

Fact is Rangers still spent £30 million on players whereas if not spending 4 million on the likes of Edu and 3.5 million of Lafferty those monies may have been used elsewhere like paying the debt and paving the way for you not be a failing business who continue to spend way over their means.

Your club deserves to be where they are

[bennett]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 09:39, said:

Well done Captain Obvious, figure that out on your own?

Fact is Rangers still spent £30 million on players whereas if not spending 4 million on the likes of Edu and 3.5 million of Lafferty those monies may have been used elsewhere like paying the debt and paving the way for you not be a failing business who continue to spend way over their means.

Your club deserves to be where they are

Edu cost £4m, aye you just make it up as you go along It's about as factual as the rest of your guff



Clown.

[youngsy]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 09:39, said:

Well done Captain Obvious, figure that out on your own?

Fact is Rangers still spent £30 million on players whereas if not spending 4 million on the likes of Edu and 3.5 million of Lafferty those monies may have been used elsewhere like paying the debt and paving the way for you not be a failing business who continue to spend way over their means.

Your club deserves to be where they are

Rangers are in administration because of Whyte,nothing else. Before he came in the club had the debt down to £18 million,which was manageable,albeit the bank was having a big influence in the financial running of the club. Since his takeover he's added to the debt through Ticketus and the PAYE debt. That's the facts of the clubs debt,nothing to do with the players fees mentioned,Edu incidentally cost £2 million. If Whyte was running the club along similar lines,by reducing the operating costs,then there is no reason for the club to be in administration.

[sweenzo]

I've a feeling AVB will be available soon if the new Rangerswatp need a manager to negotiate ther way out of division 3.



For every tenner Rangers pay a player in wages, we'll pay our player 5 grand. Oh how times have changed for this once proud club.

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 04 March 2012 - 11:42, said:

Edu cost £4m, aye you just make it up as you go along It's about as factual as the rest of your guff



Clown.

Actually meant to write 3 million but don't let a small typo detract from the point.

And you telling anyone they write guff redefines fucking irony.

I mean I'm still waiting for you to produce the facts behind the Celtic rangers ticket agreement we apparently reneged on.

This post has been edited by Jinky67: 04 March 2012 - 14:23

[Jinky67]

youngsy, on 04 March 2012 - 11:51, said:

Rangers are in administration because of Whyte,nothing else. Before he came in the club had the debt down to £18 million,which was manageable,albeit the bank was having a big influence in the financial running of the club. Since his takeover he's added to the debt through Ticketus and the PAYE debt. That's the facts of the clubs debt,nothing to do with the players fees mentioned,Edu incidentally cost £2 million. If Whyte was running the club along similar lines,by reducing the operating costs,then there is no reason for the club to be in administration.

Pish and you know it.

The only reason Whyte is in charge is because Murray was forced to sell because of years of overspending.

If the club wasn't overspending and out more money towards clearing the debt the pressure wouldn't have been on Murray to sell to the first available chancer that came along.

For every fiver Celtic spend we will spend ten. Epic quote and a mantra that has caused a chain of effect which brought Whyte to Rangers

[bennett]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 14:18, said:

Actually meant to write 3 million but don't let a small typo detract from the point.

And you telling anyone they write guff redefines fucking irony.

I mean I'm still waiting for you to produce the facts behind the Celtic rangers ticket agreement we apparently reneged on.

£3m is also wrong, you just can't get anything right

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 04 March 2012 - 14:40, said:

£3m is also wrong, you just can't get anything right

2.6 million exactly which is closer to 3 than 2

Pedantry seems to be all you have on this forum.

Got that link for me yet?

[youngsy]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 14:22, said:

Pish and you know it.

The only reason Whyte is in charge is because Murray was forced to sell because of years of overspending.

If the club wasn't overspending and out more money towards clearing the debt the pressure wouldn't have been on Murray to sell to the first available chancer that came along.

For every fiver Celtic spend we will spend ten. Epic quote and a mantra that has caused a chain of effect which brought Whyte to Rangers

Before Whyte came in what was the debt of the club? Not the operating costs yearly,the debt. It was £18 million. Murray was looking to offload,very true but the fact is the debt had been reduced to the figure quoted. If the club had been ran with fiscal prudence by Whyte instead of playing his money games than the club would not have had to go into administration as of now. If the tax case goes against the club then in all probability it would.

You keep going on about this £5,£10 quote,a nonsense quote from Murray without a doubt at a time when the club had to start reducing cost,no argument there but the fact is that the club shouldn't be in administration at this moment with what was an £18 million starting point. That debt was sustainable,Whyte made it unsustainable and Murrays negligence in not carrying out a proper due diligence on Whyte is a major fault in the club being where it is at the moment. Whytes a crook,no doubt in my mind but Murray should have ensured 100% that he had his own independent funds to takeover the club,Murray failed to do this and his negligence in doing so is costing the club dear.

This post has been edited by youngsy: 04 March 2012 - 15:03

[bennett]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 14:54, said:

2.6 million exactly which is closer to 3 than 2

Pedantry seems to be all you have on this forum.

Got that link for me yet?

From £4m to £3 to £2.6m


I knew we'd get there in the end, you just needed a wee prod in the right direction son.

[sweenzo]

bennett, on 04 March 2012 - 15:40, said:

From £4m to £3 to £2.6m


I knew we'd get there in the end, you just needed a wee prod in the right direction son.

"Son"

You conveniently forgot about a typo and the you said he was £2m Coco.

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 04 March 2012 - 15:40, said:

From £4m to £3 to £2.6m


I knew we'd get there in the end, you just needed a wee prod in the right direction son.

Son?

Desperate attempt to assert his authority

Fud

[bennett]

sweenzo, on 04 March 2012 - 15:47, said:

"Son"

You conveniently forgot about a typo and the you said he was £2m Coco.

I assume you can provide proof of this?


Hurry up now.

[Monkey]

sweenzo, on 22 May 2011 - 11:07, said:

It's only a matter of time before McCoist is found out. His cheaky grin and one liners will only buy him so much time from the laptop loyal and he will not enjoy the same favours as Smith got from them. My money is on Billy Davies.

For f**k sake , could you please close this thread ASAP. As I've already stated, when Ibrox juniors finally emerge from the mess they're in at the moment, I hope that sneaky ally is the manager for the next 30 years as he has not got a fuckin clue , but all the muppets actually fell for the we don't walk away pish , and I'm sure will be happy to follow follow the tosser for years to come if we just keep quiet and let him get on with it.

[Jinky67]

bennett, on 04 March 2012 - 19:58, said:

I assume you can provide proof of this?


Hurry up now.

The irony

[Ayrforce1]

Here is a manager.

[Bluenose12]

Jinky67, on 04 March 2012 - 21:25, said:

The irony

Deflection.