Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

No.

You sure about that Kincy?

1960-1986 League Titles:

Celtic - 14

Rangers - 6

Aberdeen - 3

Dundee Utd -1

Dundee - 1

Hearts - 1

Kilmarnock - 1

Let's not forget they won the European Cup and made a 2nd Final a few years later as well as numerous semi finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sjc said:

Go to bed Kincy, you're drunk.

Don't be even cheaper than you usually are, buddy.  Come back to me when you learn to use the apostrophe.  However, if you've anything sensible to say I am willing to listen.

Edited by The_Kincardine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

So much for diddy discourse.  

In fairness, even the Diddy teams won more league titles than Rangers during the pre Minty decades that you aspire to return to.

Diddy discourse indeed.

Edited by sjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sjc said:

In fairness, even the Diddy teams won more league titles than Rangers during the pre Minty decades that you aspire to return to.

I don't 'aspire' to return anywhere but your comment is risible.  Are you pretending to be stupid or is this your natural disposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I think the plan is to have a self-subsisting model.  This seems sensible..

If the plan has been implemented already then it's not being used is it?

The step up to the Premiership came with a shit load of extra income that should have been the business model shouldn't it? The board mouther should have informed Ra Peepol that he was implementing a living within it's means financial model and that the clubs debts would be serviced so as not to hamper the clubs spending at a later date and that the extra cash would then be invested into the club.

But no, King had to peddle the "Going for 55" pish and from the interim accounts and that more soft loans were issued recently he has spent all and more or the extra revenue pursuing the dream and receiving the glory if he somehow managed to stop Celtic getting ten in a row.

It appears from first glance and a bit of guess work that if The Rangers had increased the players wage budget by £2 million last season they could have easily made a profit of a few million if they just ignored chasing the dream.

Catch 22 time, your club is in one hell of a sticky situation. If the club doesn't spend on players by a healthy amount compared to Celtic and secondly everyone else in the league the glory hunters will not buy ST's or attend and the club doesn't make as much. If the club spends and spends then they will buy ST's. There is no middle ground with your mob which is why it is most likely to down the shitter like the last one because The Rangers fans expect more than the club can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Don't be even cheaper than you usually are, buddy.  Come back to me when you learn to use the apostrophe.  However, if you've anything sensible to say I am willing to listen.

Ah, the old miss-used apostrophe comfort zone for when you have made a rip roaring c**t of yourself. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

I don't 'aspire' to return anywhere but your comment is risible.  Are you pretending to be stupid or is this your natural disposition?

No, you said you want to see your Club return to an era where they were self sustainable. I merely pointed out that this coincided with you rivals most successful period and even the Diddy teams collectively won more league titles than Rangers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sjc said:

No, you said you want to see your Club return to an era where they were self sustainable. I merely pointed out that this coincided with you rivals most successful period and even the Diddy teams collectively won more league titles than Rangers.

 

I can only conclude that you can't read and are confusing "decades before" with "the decade before".  In ether case you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I can only conclude that you can't read and are confusing "decades before" with "the decade before".  In ether case you're wrong.

You want to refer to a time (pre 60's) where players salaries were limited by the maximum wage? No wonder your Club was self sustainable back then.

Edited by sjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sjc said:

You want refer to a time (pre 60's) where players salaries were limited by the maximum wage? No wonder your Club was self sustainable back then.

OK now I know it's just because you can't read.  Forgive me for taking you seriously for a while. Go back to having your Sevco wankfest with your pals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

OK now I know it's just because you can't read.  Forgive me for taking you seriously for a while. Go back to having your Sevco wankfest with your pals.

Aye, whatever you say Kincy. Good luck with that self sustainability :shutup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...