Not Sure What To Make Of This..

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
Aye. Fair play to these guys for stumping up that level of cash.

I thought at some point their generosity had to come to an end but this year the club has been backed to the hilt yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Made the same point but hearing that we’ve been backed to the hilt is a bit much.

Celtic have spent more on transfers every year for the last 3 years, never mind Celtic spending way more on wages. We’ve been losing about 5m a year, and had great backing but we’re not far from turning the losses around.

Granted this season no ones how we’ll do, but we’ve had the ticket sales, extra cash from fans for tv, hopefully more shirt sales, Europe and also be saving a lot on match day costs, so no idea if it’ll be as bad for us as some clubs will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what Rangers being backed to the hilt (which they undoubtedly have) has anything to do with what Celtic spent?

And revenue for every club has decreased substantially for this season consider to last. Shirt sales or whatever won’t even begin to cover that gap and this in a year where all the season books were still bought with the ever increasing likelihood that fans won’t see a single game. With even more uncertainty on next season I doubt very much if the OF will garner the same level of fan commitment which again creates a market value drop but emphasises equally how important a fan committing these sums of money is.

It’s not a competition for goodness sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whole point of our spending is to beat Celtic, so to say he’s been backed to the hilt when that’s our goal then it’s natural to compare spending.

So seems reasonable to say that he’s not been backed to the hilt when Celtic have continued to outspend us.

For some reason you see folk saying Gerrard has been backed to the hilt as if he’s had crazy amounts of money to turnover a poor squad, but I don’t see the same said for Lennon.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
Aye. Fair play to these guys for stumping up that level of cash.

I thought at some point their generosity had to come to an end but this year the club has been backed to the hilt yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Made the same point but hearing that we’ve been backed to the hilt is a bit much.

Celtic have spent more on transfers every year for the last 3 years, never mind Celtic spending way more on wages. We’ve been losing about 5m a year, and had great backing but we’re not far from turning the losses around.

Granted this season no ones how we’ll do, but we’ve had the ticket sales, extra cash from fans for tv, hopefully more shirt sales, Europe and also be saving a lot on match day costs, so no idea if it’ll be as bad for us as some clubs will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what Rangers being backed to the hilt (which they undoubtedly have) has anything to do with what Celtic spent?

And revenue for every club has decreased substantially for this season consider to last. Shirt sales or whatever won’t even begin to cover that gap and this in a year where all the season books were still bought with the ever increasing likelihood that fans won’t see a single game. With even more uncertainty on next season I doubt very much if the OF will garner the same level of fan commitment which again creates a market value drop but emphasises equally how important a fan committing these sums of money is.

It’s not a competition for goodness sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whole point of our spending is to beat Celtic, so to say he’s been backed to the hilt when that’s our goal then it’s natural to compare spending.

So seems reasonable to say that he’s not been backed to the hilt when Celtic have continued to outspend us.

For some reason you see folk saying Gerrard has been backed to the hilt as if he’s had crazy amounts of money to turnover a poor squad, but I don’t see the same said for Lennon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

Again, what on earth has Rangers spending got to do with Celtic’s level of spending?

Rangers lose money as a business and have done so consistently for a number of years in varying degrees. That’s not a dig. It’s a fact.

Despite that, the various managers have been given funds in the many millions to improve their squad. This season by far has seen the largest investment. That in anyone’s terms is being backed to the hilt. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with what Celtic spend. Nothing at all.

Where on earth do you think this money comes from?

Celtic and Lennon have nothing to do with it.

If you can’t see that then I give up.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
Aye. Fair play to these guys for stumping up that level of cash.

I thought at some point their generosity had to come to an end but this year the club has been backed to the hilt yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Made the same point but hearing that we’ve been backed to the hilt is a bit much.

Celtic have spent more on transfers every year for the last 3 years, never mind Celtic spending way more on wages. We’ve been losing about 5m a year, and had great backing but we’re not far from turning the losses around.

Granted this season no ones how we’ll do, but we’ve had the ticket sales, extra cash from fans for tv, hopefully more shirt sales, Europe and also be saving a lot on match day costs, so no idea if it’ll be as bad for us as some clubs will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what Rangers being backed to the hilt (which they undoubtedly have) has anything to do with what Celtic spent?

And revenue for every club has decreased substantially for this season consider to last. Shirt sales or whatever won’t even begin to cover that gap and this in a year where all the season books were still bought with the ever increasing likelihood that fans won’t see a single game. With even more uncertainty on next season I doubt very much if the OF will garner the same level of fan commitment which again creates a market value drop but emphasises equally how important a fan committing these sums of money is.

It’s not a competition for goodness sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whole point of our spending is to beat Celtic, so to say he’s been backed to the hilt when that’s our goal then it’s natural to compare spending.

So seems reasonable to say that he’s not been backed to the hilt when Celtic have continued to outspend us.

For some reason you see folk saying Gerrard has been backed to the hilt as if he’s had crazy amounts of money to turnover a poor squad, but I don’t see the same said for Lennon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

Again, what on earth has Rangers spending got to do with Celtic’s level of spending?

Rangers lose money as a business and have done so consistently for a number of years in varying degrees. That’s not a dig. It’s a fact.

Despite that, the various managers have been given funds in the many millions to improve their squad. This season by far has seen the largest investment. That in anyone’s terms is being backed to the hilt. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with what Celtic spend. Nothing at all.

Where on earth do you think this money comes from?

Celtic and Lennon have nothing to do with it.

If you can’t see that then I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s a ridiculous question. Quite obvious why the level of spending of your competition matters.

It’s very simple why Celtic matter, as it’s the entire reason and need for our spending Shouldn’t be a difficult concept and comparison of title rivals transfers is common place in most countries.

Not sure what point your making on where the money is coming from, I recognised our losses and investors early in this thread.

But where on earth do you think the money for the majority of football clubs comes from? Do you seriously think invest

Fair play. Guy loves his club and puts the money in.

If I had millions in my back pocket I'd do the same tbh.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 8 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
Aye. Fair play to these guys for stumping up that level of cash.

I thought at some point their generosity had to come to an end but this year the club has been backed to the hilt yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Made the same point but hearing that we’ve been backed to the hilt is a bit much.

Celtic have spent more on transfers every year for the last 3 years, never mind Celtic spending way more on wages. We’ve been losing about 5m a year, and had great backing but we’re not far from turning the losses around.

Granted this season no ones how we’ll do, but we’ve had the ticket sales, extra cash from fans for tv, hopefully more shirt sales, Europe and also be saving a lot on match day costs, so no idea if it’ll be as bad for us as some clubs will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what Rangers being backed to the hilt (which they undoubtedly have) has anything to do with what Celtic spent?

And revenue for every club has decreased substantially for this season consider to last. Shirt sales or whatever won’t even begin to cover that gap and this in a year where all the season books were still bought with the ever increasing likelihood that fans won’t see a single game. With even more uncertainty on next season I doubt very much if the OF will garner the same level of fan commitment which again creates a market value drop but emphasises equally how important a fan committing these sums of money is.

It’s not a competition for goodness sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whole point of our spending is to beat Celtic, so to say he’s been backed to the hilt when that’s our goal then it’s natural to compare spending.

So seems reasonable to say that he’s not been backed to the hilt when Celtic have continued to outspend us.

For some reason you see folk saying Gerrard has been backed to the hilt as if he’s had crazy amounts of money to turnover a poor squad, but I don’t see the same said for Lennon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

Again, what on earth has Rangers spending got to do with Celtic’s level of spending?

Rangers lose money as a business and have done so consistently for a number of years in varying degrees. That’s not a dig. It’s a fact.

Despite that, the various managers have been given funds in the many millions to improve their squad. This season by far has seen the largest investment. That in anyone’s terms is being backed to the hilt. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with what Celtic spend. Nothing at all.

Where on earth do you think this money comes from?

Celtic and Lennon have nothing to do with it.

If you can’t see that then I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s a ridiculous question. Quite obvious why the level of spending of your competition matters.

It’s very simple why Celtic matter, as it’s the entire reason and need for our spendingShouldn’t be a difficult concept and comparison of title rivals transfers is common place in most countries.

Not sure what point your making on where the money is coming from, I recognised our losses and investors early in this thread.

But where on earth do you think the money for the majority of football clubs comes from? Do you seriously think invest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fwxakes you. Behave

The comment was simply about Rangers being backed to the hilt. Again. That was all.

You’ve somehow managed to think and believe it’s because Celtic spend as well. It’s not. It’s all about Rangers spending so much money when they need supporters to wedge in millions. That’s it.

Surely you get that?

Gerrard has been backed way beyond the hilt.

He has been backed to spend millions of pounds to acquire more than 30 players without a sniff at winning a trophy.

Its not just transfers in though, the club has backed hom massively by turning down more than £30m for Morelos.

The Celtic board hung Lennon out to dry by accepting £27m for Tierney and not funding an adequate replacement.

In fact the Rangers board coukd have easily picked up around £100m for Morelos, Keny, Tav, Barisic and Kamara.

Celtic would have said yes to all off those enquirues.

So, in fact, Gerrard has been backed way beyond the level that Lennon has been backed at.

Rangers retain their top talent whereas Celtic are a selling club.

Still won fack aw mind.

comment by Magnum. (U22391)
posted 6 minutes ago
Gerrard has been backed way beyond the hilt.

He has been backed to spend millions of pounds to acquire more than 30 players without a sniff at winning a trophy.

Its not just transfers in though, the club has backed hom massively by turning down more than £30m for Morelos.

The Celtic board hung Lennon out to dry by accepting £27m for Tierney and not funding an adequate replacement.

In fact the Rangers board coukd have easily picked up around £100m for Morelos, Keny, Tav, Barisic and Kamara.

Celtic would have said yes to all off those enquirues.

So, in fact, Gerrard has been backed way beyond the level that Lennon has been backed at.

Rangers retain their top talent whereas Celtic are a selling club.

Still won fack aw mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but what Celtic did clearly translates into Rangers not being backed to the hilt.

I mean it’s obvious isn’t it?

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 8 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 13 minutes ago
Aye. Fair play to these guys for stumping up that level of cash.

I thought at some point their generosity had to come to an end but this year the club has been backed to the hilt yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Made the same point but hearing that we’ve been backed to the hilt is a bit much.

Celtic have spent more on transfers every year for the last 3 years, never mind Celtic spending way more on wages. We’ve been losing about 5m a year, and had great backing but we’re not far from turning the losses around.

Granted this season no ones how we’ll do, but we’ve had the ticket sales, extra cash from fans for tv, hopefully more shirt sales, Europe and also be saving a lot on match day costs, so no idea if it’ll be as bad for us as some clubs will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what Rangers being backed to the hilt (which they undoubtedly have) has anything to do with what Celtic spent?

And revenue for every club has decreased substantially for this season consider to last. Shirt sales or whatever won’t even begin to cover that gap and this in a year where all the season books were still bought with the ever increasing likelihood that fans won’t see a single game. With even more uncertainty on next season I doubt very much if the OF will garner the same level of fan commitment which again creates a market value drop but emphasises equally how important a fan committing these sums of money is.

It’s not a competition for goodness sake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whole point of our spending is to beat Celtic, so to say he’s been backed to the hilt when that’s our goal then it’s natural to compare spending.

So seems reasonable to say that he’s not been backed to the hilt when Celtic have continued to outspend us.

For some reason you see folk saying Gerrard has been backed to the hilt as if he’s had crazy amounts of money to turnover a poor squad, but I don’t see the same said for Lennon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eh?

Again, what on earth has Rangers spending got to do with Celtic’s level of spending?

Rangers lose money as a business and have done so consistently for a number of years in varying degrees. That’s not a dig. It’s a fact.

Despite that, the various managers have been given funds in the many millions to improve their squad. This season by far has seen the largest investment. That in anyone’s terms is being backed to the hilt. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with what Celtic spend. Nothing at all.

Where on earth do you think this money comes from?

Celtic and Lennon have nothing to do with it.

If you can’t see that then I give up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s a ridiculous question. Quite obvious why the level of spending of your competition matters.

It’s very simple why Celtic matter, as it’s the entire reason and need for our spendingShouldn’t be a difficult concept and comparison of title rivals transfers is common place in most countries.

Not sure what point your making on where the money is coming from, I recognised our losses and investors early in this thread.

But where on earth do you think the money for the majority of football clubs comes from? Do you seriously think invest
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fwxakes you. Behave

The comment was simply about Rangers being backed to the hilt. Again. That was all.

You’ve somehow managed to think and believe it’s because Celtic spend as well. It’s not. It’s all about Rangers spending so much money when they need supporters to wedge in millions. That’s it.

Surely you get that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know exactly what you’re trying to say And like I’ve said I’ve recognised the investors throwing their money away.

But it’s also a ridiculously narrow minded slanted view that ignores a lot of facts.

Just forgetting that the reason our income was so low was because we had to start again from the third division with appalling decisions having been made in those first few years. Just forgetting that the team were third in the league and with no hopes of even getting into Europe. The whole reason we’ve spent is to raise the level of our team so we can compete, so to ignore the competition we’re spending to compete with makes no sense.

So aye you can make it out we’ve spent so much money we need supporters to wedge in, but if you can’t comprehend that investment was needed to get us back where we were before liquidation then you clearly don’t get it.

What?

All I’ve said is that Rangers have been backed to the hilt. That’s it. Nothing else.

The rest is just noise.