Dave King the return?

comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Celtic Double Winners 23/24 (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
Questions for the Bears;

1. Realistically, who could Rangers have sold at their peak, and how much in total would it have netted the club?

2. Why didn't the club do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldson, Kent, Morelos, Aribo, Tav, Kamra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

in part 2 of that, because you thought you could get more money than was being offered.

i felt like rangers had this "celtic got that so we should get that" way of dealing with things.

kent was never going to net massive money, and the money you got offered for morelos now looks like terrific deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we would have gotten considerably more for Kent than we eventually did. Maybe at his peak say 10-11m still a decent profit.

All those players could have been sold for much more than we got for them thats for sure.

comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Celtic Double Winners 23/24 (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
Questions for the Bears;

1. Realistically, who could Rangers have sold at their peak, and how much in total would it have netted the club?

2. Why didn't the club do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldson, Kent, Morelos, Aribo, Tav, Kamra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

in part 2 of that, because you thought you could get more money than was being offered.

i felt like rangers had this "celtic got that so we should get that" way of dealing with things.

kent was never going to net massive money, and the money you got offered for morelos now looks like terrific deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares? Massive investment incoming from Arabia and America. Gotta wonder how that will pass the FFP rules UEFA has brought in or does that even matter?

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Celtic Double Winners 23/24 (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
Questions for the Bears;

1. Realistically, who could Rangers have sold at their peak, and how much in total would it have netted the club?

2. Why didn't the club do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldson, Kent, Morelos, Aribo, Tav, Kamra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

in part 2 of that, because you thought you could get more money than was being offered.

i felt like rangers had this "celtic got that so we should get that" way of dealing with things.

kent was never going to net massive money, and the money you got offered for morelos now looks like terrific deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares? Massive investment incoming from Arabia and America. Gotta wonder how that will pass the FFP rules UEFA has brought in or does that even matter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you still allowed to invest money into the club under FFP rules, its just capped

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Celtic Double Winners 23/24 (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
Questions for the Bears;

1. Realistically, who could Rangers have sold at their peak, and how much in total would it have netted the club?

2. Why didn't the club do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldson, Kent, Morelos, Aribo, Tav, Kamra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

in part 2 of that, because you thought you could get more money than was being offered.

i felt like rangers had this "celtic got that so we should get that" way of dealing with things.

kent was never going to net massive money, and the money you got offered for morelos now looks like terrific deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we would have gotten considerably more for Kent than we eventually did. Maybe at his peak say 10-11m still a decent profit.

All those players could have been sold for much more than we got for them thats for sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

the peak time to sell was after that uefa cup run.

see in saying that though, i think for us if we had that run i'd want to add to what we have and have another crack at it rather than sell.

nature of the beast though.

comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 51 minutes ago
Now you've got the easiest champions league game in history against some mug team with 1/20th of your budget.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find the easiest game in champions league history was any against 2022 rangers.

Official.

comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Celtic Double Winners 23/24 (U21900)
posted 1 minute ago
Questions for the Bears;

1. Realistically, who could Rangers have sold at their peak, and how much in total would it have netted the club?

2. Why didn't the club do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldson, Kent, Morelos, Aribo, Tav, Kamra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

in part 2 of that, because you thought you could get more money than was being offered.

i felt like rangers had this "celtic got that so we should get that" way of dealing with things.

kent was never going to net massive money, and the money you got offered for morelos now looks like terrific deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we would have gotten considerably more for Kent than we eventually did. Maybe at his peak say 10-11m still a decent profit.

All those players could have been sold for much more than we got for them thats for sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

the peak time to sell was after that uefa cup run.

see in saying that though, i think for us if we had that run i'd want to add to what we have and have another crack at it rather than sell.

nature of the beast though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
anytime between winning the league and just after the europa run

See I expect engels will be gone in the summer hes too good for scottish football and exactly the player the premiership are after.

The difference between our 2 clubs, as I see it, is we accept that is the model and move on but I suspect rangers would rather hold onto him and chase a title than sell and rebuild.

comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 5 minutes ago
See I expect engels will be gone in the summer hes too good for scottish football and exactly the player the premiership are after.

The difference between our 2 clubs, as I see it, is we accept that is the model and move on but I suspect rangers would rather hold onto him and chase a title than sell and rebuild.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree about Engels, think (hope) he'll be here 2 years, but if that first appearance is just the start, you could be right.

Don't necessarily disagree with your second point, but there are a few other things to consider.

A lot was made about how much Celtic spent, but that came from selling a player we got for 1.5. That's the difference, scouting. We made a big net profit. A lot was discussed before about spent/nett spend. Nett spend is a significant point and shows the difference between the clubs.

comment by Call Sign: I'm loving Engels instead (U3627)
posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 6 minutes ago
How's the wife?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She's settling in nicely mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

FFS I told her not to message you
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Why the pallaver (apathe....ah what's the... (U10168)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 5 minutes ago
See I expect engels will be gone in the summer hes too good for scottish football and exactly the player the premiership are after.

The difference between our 2 clubs, as I see it, is we accept that is the model and move on but I suspect rangers would rather hold onto him and chase a title than sell and rebuild.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree about Engels, think (hope) he'll be here 2 years, but if that first appearance is just the start, you could be right.

Don't necessarily disagree with your second point, but there are a few other things to consider.

A lot was made about how much Celtic spent, but that came from selling a player we got for 1.5. That's the difference, scouting. We made a big net profit. A lot was discussed before about spent/nett spend. Nett spend is a significant point and shows the difference between the clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah usually we get 2 years out of them but he ticks too many boxes that I suspect a premiership club will offer 30m+ next summer.

Hes tall, athletic and good with the ball at his feet. Exactly the kind of player the premiership likes.