Rangers' Next Permanent Manager Thread - 2022/2023 Edition

[PauloPerth]

13 hours ago, Henrik's tongue said:

 I’d complain tbh.

Well you are a Celtic fan after all, it’s what you do best!

[ahemps]

10 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

Mad to think they reportedly spend more on wages than us too by up to something around 17% - 20% depending on the source

 

Can you tell me the source???? Almost every source I have ever seen has Celtics wages as higher.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/547202/average-annual-first-team-player-salaray-football-clubs-scottish-premiership/

https://www.footballinsider247.com/rangers-have-closed-the-gap-on-celtic-amid-51-7m-reveal-maguire/

 

[Ludo*1]

13 hours ago, bennett said:

Has one of these threads been started and the manager hasn't left. 

Standard procedure.

[AJF]

52 minutes ago, ahemps said:

Can you tell me the source???? Almost every source I have ever seen has Celtics wages as higher.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/547202/average-annual-first-team-player-salaray-football-clubs-scottish-premiership/

https://www.footballinsider247.com/rangers-have-closed-the-gap-on-celtic-amid-51-7m-reveal-maguire/

 

I did wonder this myself. The source is probably a Celtic blog account he is using.

[gannonball]

the Swiss ramble guy is quite renowned so imagine the accounts he is using would be quite accurate. I think the higher quoted ones would be non-footballing staff included as well when you had wanks like Lawwell coining 60 grand a week at times.

Edited November 7, 2022 by gannonball

[ahemps]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

I did wonder this myself. The source is probably a Celtic blog account he is using.

Wages are thee biggest factor on success these days. While Celtic remain £5-10m in front of Rangers they will inevitably win the vast majority of leagues. That is not an insurmountable amount to overcome but it is enough to keep them with a big advantage and either a Lennon implosion or Gerrard unbeaten season will be needed (you got both in the 1 season which might have been better for Rangers if they were separate). 

1 season in the CL groups for Rangers and not Celtic could swing that around. The likelihood is that Celtic will have that advantage next year and that should give them another 2-3yr cushion of the current advantage they have.

[gannonball]

7 minutes ago, ahemps said:

Wages are thee biggest factor on success these days. While Celtic remain £5-10m in front of Rangers they will inevitably win the vast majority of leagues. That is not an insurmountable amount to overcome but it is enough to keep them with a big advantage and either a Lennon implosion or Gerrard unbeaten season will be needed (you got both in the 1 season which might have been better for Rangers if they were separate). 

1 season in the CL groups for Rangers and not Celtic could swing that around. The likelihood is that Celtic will have that advantage next year and that should give them another 2-3yr cushion of the current advantage they have.

I think if you look include Rangers* transfer deficit to ours over the past few years then you can’t really say that there’s really a financial gulf between resources (albeit Rangers shareholders have been funding losses to keep up).

Edited November 7, 2022 by gannonball

[ahemps]

2 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I think if you look include Rangers* transfer deficit to ours over the past few years then you can’t really say that there’s really a financial gulf between resources (albeit Rangers shareholders have been funding losses to keep up).

I don't believe there is a gulf anymore but I believe Celtic still have a slight financial advantage. I think Rangers EL run, CL qualification and transfer fees received in the last year would/should have almost wiped that out though.

 

[AJF]

16 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I think if you look include Rangers* transfer deficit to ours over the past few years then you can’t really say that there’s really a financial gulf between resources (albeit Rangers shareholders have been funding losses to keep up).

Transfer deficit doesn't really determine anything though. Your transfer spend determines the quality of player you bring in. Celtic have heavily outspent Rangers over the years.

That's why net spend doesn't account for much. Even if Celtic's net transfer spend is lower than ours, they are still spending more than us when purchasing players which means they are (theoretically) bringing in higher quality players.

[gannonball]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

Transfer deficit doesn't really determine anything though. Your transfer spend determines the quality of player you bring in. Celtic have heavily outspent Rangers over the years.

That's why net spend doesn't account for much. Even if Celtic's net transfer spend is lower than ours, they are still spending more than us when purchasing players which means they are (theoretically) bringing in higher quality players.

Well you can claim that but that’s not really how finances are calculated (simplistically ins versus outs), and we wouldn’t be spending near as much if weren’t losing 10s of millions of talent every year either. It would be ludicrous to look at a clubs financial health purely on  outlay only which is why nobody does.

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Well you can claim that but that’s not really how finances are calculated (simplistically ins versus outs), and we wouldn’t be spending near as much if weren’t losing 10s of millions of talent every year either. It would be ludicrous to look at a clubs financial health purely on  outlay only which is why nobody does.

But we're not looking at a club's financial health here. We are looking at the quality of player at their disposal and it is simple to conclude that the more you spend on a player then the better they are likely to be.

[LiviLion]

Allan McGregor IMO.

[gannonball]

Just now, AJF said:

But we're not looking at a club's financial health here. We are looking at the quality of player at their disposal and it is simple to conclude that the more you spend on a player then the better they are likely to be.

We are talking about a clubs financial health as someone posted various clubs accounting figures? If you’re casually ignoring player sales then sorry it doesn’t tell the full picture which is why they are always included in club accounts, why would you ignore it other than to skew your point.

[Henrik's tongue]

1 hour ago, PauloPerth said:

Well you are a Celtic fan after all, it’s what you do best!

^^^ never had a hair in his soup.

[Leith Green]

Has he actually gone yet?

[Richey Edwards]

Paul Lambert has been approached. 

[AJF]

27 minutes ago, gannonball said:

We are talking about a clubs financial health as someone posted various clubs accounting figures? If you’re casually ignoring player sales then sorry it doesn’t tell the full picture which is why they are always included in club accounts, why would you ignore it other than to skew your point.

No, we were discussing player wages and then transfer outlay. How much you bring in for player sales does not negate the amount spent on players coming in.

The more you spend on a player (wages and transfer fee), the better they are likely to be. I don’t think that can be debated at all?

And the basic fact is Celtic spend more on their players than Rangers do.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Would love if PC World Salesman Dyche came up north.

Love it. 

[gannonball]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

How much you bring in for player sales does not negate the amount spent on players coming in.

 

What?  Of course it does if you are given a budget but sell some of your assets then of course that is factored Both logically and financially ffs. I’m out 

[VictorOnopko]

I mean, he's recently been sacked and knows the Scottish league inside out.   All Rangers would need to do would be to redesign their badge to include a shamrock.  It would also be a gesture of peace and bring an end to sectarianism IMO.