Shankland

SuperGers07 said:
Hearts don’t seem to have rested anyone, so beach mode not yet activated.

They need a point to secure third.
Fucking grim we are having to rely on other teams now after the position we were in.
Click to expand...

Hope they can get that point today.

Can’t see it, Celtic will either score inside 15 minutes and find a second or if it’s 0-0 at half time, they’ll score their early 2nd half goal.
 
HandsomeHead said:
So your plan was to forget the other areas of the team it was felt we needed to bolster and use the combined wages of the three loan players extrapolated to the end of the season to cobble together a fee to stick in front of Hearts that they wouldn’t have been able to refuse in making Shankland our one solitary addition of the window?

Forget that this still doesn’t add up financially or that the manager himself more or less rubbished any possibility of it - or while we’re at it that there’s a distinct possibility Shankland doesn’t fit the profile of the type of player the manager wants, or indeed the wider transfer strategy the club are operating - what you and all the others of a similar mindset are effectively saying then is that 1) the manager is lying, and 2) he’s a mug for not being able to see that Shankland absolutely 100% was the key to us winning the title.
Click to expand...
For me January wasn't the window for long term planning, it should have been about 1 or 2 signings to get us over the line and secure the champions league money. Shankland signed on his own would have made us more likely to beat Motherwell, Ross County and Dundee than the other guys we went for instead.

Those are the results which have cost us even accounting for failing to win the old firm. 270 mins against 3 of the weakest teams in the league and we only managed 1 goal from open play which was an own goal from a corner.
 
wd1872 said:
He improves them but unless he's that good that he can affect Rangers form then he's not the reason for it

VSxm5J7.png


Think this is your reason they are back into it and sit top and saying anything else is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Your right is dropping points is the reason, but vickers has improved them again, And I felt the reason we drop points is the pressure of the title race unfortunately
 
A1bertz said:
?
If we signed him in January...what length of contract would he have been given? 3 1/2 years?
Sign him now and it would be 3 years you imagine.

He can't have been young enough for a contract in January and too old just 6 months later!
Click to expand...
I think the difference was to buy him jan, you have a huge chance if winning the league, so you could accept a longer contract

Much less so now with no auto champions League after next season and low chance of winning the league now, so we need to be thinking about player trading model
 
HandsomeHead said:
It’s been said repeatedly throughout this tedious Shankland saga, but to sign him in January was going to require a big fee, money we just did not have.

People were tying themselves in knots convinced of nebulous deals that could have been done with Hearts to stagger or defer payment, but it was complete fantasy - we simply could not afford to buy him, or for that matter anyone.

If we fail to win the title there’s going to be a deluge of posts repeating this same mindless mantra and it’ll continue right through until August.

Oh joy!
Click to expand...
All that and you forgot to answer my question!
We could afford to pay loan fees for up to three players.
Could that money have been invested better?
Whether in Shankland or somebody better?
That is where my question is aimed.
I have not read a single official account about how much we could spend, how much Hearts wanted or if Clement wanted Shankland.
 
Given Celtic seem weak from a cross to the back post, this should be made for Shankland, but it feels unlikely for Hearts to do them over 3 times in a season.
 
IbroxMainStand said:
For me January wasn't the window for long term planning, it should have been about 1 or 2 signings to get us over the line and secure the champions league money. Shankland signed on his own would have made us more likely to beat Motherwell, Ross County and Dundee than the other guys we went for instead.

Those are the results which have cost us even accounting for failing to win the old firm. 270 mins against 3 of the weakest teams in the league and we only managed 1 goal from open play which was an own goal from a corner.
Click to expand...
I’ve said all along that I think Shankland would get us goals, but the way many go on about him you’d think he’s the greatest striker Scotland has produced since Ally McCoist.

Personally I’m not sure he’d have bagged much more than Dessers has at present, but it is possible that even three or four more could have made the difference in some of those games we’ve dropped points in, we just don’t know.

Again though, there was no scope for signing him in January no matter how many times you want to convince yourself otherwise. The manager has said it, Bisgrove has said it so to wilfully ignore those words and insist otherwise is just ridiculous to be perfectly honest.
 
tazzabear said:
All that and you forgot to answer my question!
We could afford to pay loan fees for up to three players.
Could that money have been invested better?
Whether in Shankland or somebody better?
That is where my question is aimed.
I have not read a single official account about how much we could spend, how much Hearts wanted or if Clement wanted Shankland.
Click to expand...
The fag packet arithmetic going on in your post in order to make up the bucks to sign Shankland is typical of the cloud-dwelling obsession some on here have about the player and our failure to buy him.

But let’s put it to the test.

So for the sake of argument let’s say Silva, Diomande and Cortes were on a combined salary of £60k a week, over six months that comes to a grand total of £1.5m. I have no idea what if any fees were paid in addition to that, but I’d be extremely surprised if they amounted to anything close to the £2m+ that would have been needed to stand any chance at all of signing Shankland, and that’s before you add in the player’s own wage demands which would quite probably have been around half a million more.

The manager confirmed he had no budget to buy players in January. To dismiss that is to call him a liar.
 
HandsomeHead said:
I’ve said all along that I think Shankland would get us goals, but the way many go on about him you’d think he’s the greatest striker Scotland has produced since Ally McCoist.

Personally I’m not sure he’d have bagged much more than Dessers has at present, but it is possible that even three or four more could have made the difference in some of those games we’ve dropped points in, we just don’t know.

Again though, there was no scope for signing him in January no matter how many times you want to convince yourself otherwise. The manager has said it, Bisgrove has said it so to wilfully ignore those words and insist otherwise is just ridiculous to be perfectly honest.
Click to expand...
In terms of the finances I don't think anyone can say for certain if it was possible or not. What we know for sure is Rangers never approached Hearts and tried to get a move off the line as it would have leaked out.
 
We should be pushing for Miovski. He will cost more but I think he's the better player and will have sell on value. Also I believe both the Rangers and Aberdeen board have a fairly amicable relationship these days. It will still cost us more but dont think we'll be met with the same bitterness of the past.
 
Provided we beat them at them at the piggery we are now dependant on them dropping points against Kilmarnock and St. Boo , alomg with the match officials of course . Our performances against Ross county and Dundee imo have probably handed them the league . and the the team should be reminded of that.and totally ashamed of letting us down big time.Both these teams have been beaten convincingly (and not to forget Motherwell ), since we played them which tells you where we are.
 
Last edited:
Timardim said:
Provided we beat them at them at the piggery we are now dependant on them dropping points against Kilmarnock and St. Boo , alomg with the match officials of course . Our performances against Ross county and Dundee imo have probably handed them the league . and the the team should be reminded of that.and totally ashamed of letting us down big time.Both these teams have been beaten convincingly not to forget Motherwell , since we played them which tells you where we are.
Click to expand...

A draw at Dens can happen over the course of the season. But to come after a loss in Dingwall really was a disgrace.

Forget about getting back into the title race, the squad should their true colors in those games.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
A draw at Dens can happen over the course of the season. But to come after a loss in Dingwall really was a disgrace.

Forget about getting back into the title race, the squad should their true colors in those games.
Click to expand...
This. Bottled is big time, that old firm game was a colossal opportunity to really lay down a marker too and look at the state of that in the end. Yeah we got a draw but some of the old guard seemed to do their best to ensure a win was never coming.
 
Timardim said:
Provided we beat them at them at the piggery we are now dependant on them dropping points against Kilmarnock and St. Boo , alomg with the match officials of course . Our performances against Ross county and Dundee imo have probably handed them the league . and the the team should be reminded of that.and totally ashamed of letting us down big time.Both these teams have been beaten convincingly not to forget Motherwell , since we played them which tells you where we are.
Click to expand...
Even to have beat Dundee then we would still be in the mix, 3 points now is a step too far.
 
RutherglenLoyal said:
We should be pushing for Miovski. He will cost more but I think he's the better player and will have sell on value. Also I believe both the Rangers and Aberdeen board have a fairly amicable relationship these days. It will still cost us more but dont think we'll be met with the same bitterness of the past.
Click to expand...
We should be finding players like Miovski before they move to clubs like Aberdeen etc.

I don't think he'll be staying in Scotland. A move down south or abroad for him in the summer.
 
cooprfc said:
Not really mate. Why don't we stick John Greig at the back?

Age counts for a footballer.

I kmow this is an extreme example but, when a club spends money on a player, they have to take into his age.
Click to expand...
We spent significant money on Dessers who is older than Shankland.
 
HandsomeHead said:
The fag packet arithmetic going on in your post in order to make up the bucks to sign Shankland is typical of the cloud-dwelling obsession some on here have about the player and our failure to buy him.

But let’s put it to the test.

So for the sake of argument let’s say Silva, Diomande and Cortes were on a combined salary of £60k a week, over six months that comes to a grand total of £1.5m. I have no idea what if any fees were paid in addition to that, but I’d be extremely surprised if they amounted to anything close to the £2m+ that would have been needed to stand any chance at all of signing Shankland, and that’s before you add in the player’s own wage demands which would quite probably have been around half a million more.

The manager confirmed he had no budget to buy players in January. To dismiss that is to call him a liar.
Click to expand...
Stop there, bud.
It’s all just is guesswork.
No need to kid on you know any more than I.
If you’d simply posted that you doubted my arithmetic would work, that’d have been good.
I’d probably even agreed!
But, no.
You have to continue on with some kind of superiority rabble when, at the end of it, you don’t really know!
So, leave it at that, eh?
 
WLF said:
This. Bottled is big time, that old firm game was a colossal opportunity to really lay down a marker too and look at the state of that in the end. Yeah we got a draw but some of the old guard seemed to do their best to ensure a win was never coming.
Click to expand...
Correct. If we had blown those scum bastards away at Ibrox, different story imo. But we put in one of the worst halves in living memory. Says it all. When it's all on, we crumbled. And that was that.
 
IbroxMainStand said:
The UEFA rules for financial fair play for this season are 90% of turnover on player costs. We are nowhere near that limit. People are looking for excuses for why we never went for Shankland and assuming its all down to money.

Its exactly what we have done for about 5 years now, we spend loads on players from abroad or England looking for guys that we think we can turn a profit from while ignoring every stand out player in our own league.
Click to expand...
£4-5 million on a Scottish player, with no sell on value, who's had a couple of decent seasons and can't get in the Scotland team before Lyndon Dykes or Che Adams doesn't seem good business. If that's the reason we haven't signed him then I applaud the board for having the balls not to give in. I very much doubt Clement has looked at him either. And I also believe there is a very good reason we haven't bought anyone in Jan. We need to live within a budget. You heard of David Murray?

Also, and not saying he's the answer but Dessers has a better goals per minute ratio and goals per shot than Shankland while playing against teams who sit with 11 men behind ball.
 
Unicorn said:
We spent significant money on Dessers who is older than Shankland.
Click to expand...

I didn't day there's a cut off age that we shouldn't sign players over mate. Just that age comes into it and is not "just a number."

Leo Messi become available, we don't care that he's 36 because his other attributes outstrip that.

For any realistic signing though we have to weight up what we feel he can bring against the cost, his age etc.
 
IbroxMainStand said:
The UEFA rules for financial fair play for this season are 90% of turnover on player costs. We are nowhere near that limit. People are looking for excuses for why we never went for Shankland and assuming its all down to money.

Its exactly what we have done for about 5 years now, we spend loads on players from abroad or England looking for guys that we think we can turn a profit from while ignoring every stand out player in our own league.
Click to expand...

There was no budget for anyone in January mate. Hardly any clubs spent anything. FFP is tricky to manage because of accounting periods.

Why do you think we did the obligation to buy with Diomande instead of just signing him then?

There was zero money to do a permanent deal within the FFP period.
 
cooprfc said:
There was no budget for anyone in January mate. Hardly any clubs spent anything. FFP is tricky to manage because of accounting periods.

Why do you think we did the obligation to buy with Diomande instead of just signing him then?

There was zero money to do a permanent deal within the FFP period.
Click to expand...
So do we now have this money that we couldn't spend due to FFP to add to the money for this season that we do have to spend within FFP window?
 
Bundy Bear said:
£4-5 million on a Scottish player, with no sell on value, who's had a couple of decent seasons and can't get in the Scotland team before Lyndon Dykes or Che Adams doesn't seem good business. If that's the reason we haven't signed him then I applaud the board for having the balls not to give in. I very much doubt Clement has looked at him either. And I also believe there is a very good reason we haven't bought anyone in Jan. We need to live within a budget. You heard of David Murray?

Also, and not saying he's the answer but Dessers has a better goals per minute ratio and goals per shot than Shankland while playing against teams who sit with 11 men behind ball.
Click to expand...
Not every player needs to have a sell on value and outside of a few sales we rarely ever profit on transfers and certainly not anyone recently we have signed for a fee.
 
cooprfc said:
There was no budget for anyone in January mate. Hardly any clubs spent anything. FFP is tricky to manage because of accounting periods.

Why do you think we did the obligation to buy with Diomande instead of just signing him then?

There was zero money to do a permanent deal within the FFP period.
Click to expand...
UEFA rules are 90% of turnover for this year so for us £75m on player salaries and transfer fees this year, we had a net spend of zero the last window so there was plenty of room within the rules to do business.

The money argument for me is just not credible, we are turning over £80-£100m these days depending on European results so a transfer in the region of £4-£5m should be possible unless we are being completely miss-managed.

I don't think that is the case though as we did spend money, Silva and Cortes loan fees and wages will be at least £2m plus agreeing to spend £4.5m on Diomande. In terms of a January window its been one of our most expensive but its not had the impact we would have wanted.
 
IbroxMainStand said:
UEFA rules are 90% of turnover for this year so for us £75m on player salaries and transfer fees this year, we had a net spend of zero the last window so there was plenty of room within the rules to do business.

The money argument for me is just not credible, we are turning over £80-£100m these days depending on European results so a transfer in the region of £4-£5m should be possible unless we are being completely miss-managed.

I don't think that is the case though as we did spend money, Silva and Cortes loan fees and wages will be at least £2m plus agreeing to spend £4.5m on Diomande. In terms of a January window its been one of our most expensive but its not had the impact we would have wanted.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if it's credible or not for you mate. It's a fact that we had no wiggle room as confirmed by Clement himself.

Almost zero deals were done in January by any club.

The FFP is a wee bit more complicated than just a percentage of turnover. It's spread over a period as well.

We did the obligation to buy for Diomande because we weren't able to spend that fee in January but are in the summer. There's obligations to buys getting done all over the continent.
 
IbroxMainStand said:
Not every player needs to have a sell on value and outside of a few sales we rarely ever profit on transfers and certainly not anyone recently we have signed for a fee.
Click to expand...

Every single player we sign from now on needs to be signed with a view to selling for a hefty profit that can be reinvested after being successful for 18 months / 2 years.

No more past their best punts who ‘can do a job’.

That strategy hasn’t worked and needs binned.

We need our player trading model to work as effectively as possible or we’re never going anywhere.
 
The only reason he did not get sent off today was because we have still got to play Hearts, and the officials clearly want to give him the chance to score against Rangers.
 
When was the last time he scored a goal from open play (i.e. not a penalty)?
 
A1bertz said:
Did we have money in January and FFP stopped us spending it?
If so, is that additional money that can then be added to our transfer kitty this window ?
Click to expand...

No idea if we had money there to spend but certainly FFP made spending anything difficult. And that loosens up a bit in the summer which is why we will pay for Diomande then. It's not as simple as a percentage of turnover in any given year. There's lots of things to it. Look around Europe and you will see almost no permanent deals being done in January while you get clubs handing out 8 year deals to lessen the impact of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top