Signings - Strachan and O'Neill

You can spin it like this, or go directly to where the money was spent.
£12million on Flo, £4million on Ricksen etc.? That's big spending, but not what you would call difficult to face on the field.

3 months or so into Martin O'Neill's reign they signed Flo and not long after that realised that the big spending was over. Therefore you can't say that Martin O'Neill faced the financial might of Moonbeams for even nearly the majority of his tenure.
He won the league against poor Huns teams twice then lost it to a decent Huns side the season we got to Seville, then once that side was disappearing we won it in Larsson's last season and lost it on the last day to again very poor Huns teams.

Exactly. The main reason we lost the league in 04/05 was because Martin O'Neill owed too much of a debt to his stalwarts and didn't replace them when they were past it. He played with Hartson and Sutton up front which never worked, as an example. Thompson was especially poor that season but it took Strachan to move past the sentimental factor and let him go, likewise with Agathe, Varga etc.

 

David Fernandez?

 

Or you could spin it like this, he inherited a far less expensive team than the rangers team he faced, without outspending them he took us from being the 2n'd team in scotland (for about 10 years or so.) to being the dominant team.

 

Nor am i rgards sentiment with players. My point is that quality costs - relative to the market of the day. The PLC told us shortly after that the debt was at a comfortable, manageable level - circa 30million. Strachan wheeled and deeled in the comfort zone against the backdrop of a financially capitulating Ibrox regime on their knees. Fast-forward. We approach 2009. 3 million debt, Average side. Gers average side. Crippled with debt. We made 2 signings today- 200k total, Lucky to see either 2009- we bought potential. If 30 million is manageable, what is 3? If i accept that Strachan is agenius for delivering in hostile financial climate, why not now trust him with funds that are clearly available?

 

Yes but when you say "without outspending" thats like saying Liverpool are top of the English league this year "without outspending Man City" which is hardly a significant achievement. They still can spend millions on players without much problems.

Martin O'Neills first season was a complete rejuvenation. He inherited previously ordinary players and made them amazing, for example Petrov and Mjallby. He also spent £20million on a backbone for the team in defence, midfield and up front.
The crucial factor though was the return of Henrik Larsson. All these ingredients coupled with a very poor performance from Rangers that season won us the Treble.

Gordon Strachan didn't have that. He had to, over a lengthy period of time, adapt a side on its last legs into something more affordable. That he has done this, given the club a solid platform to grow when the English league implodes on itself, and still won every single title, as well as made far more progress in Europe, is actually a remarkable achievement.
With the exception of a bargain signing like the Holy Goalie, who is a complete one-off, you're not going to get world class players like Martin O'Neill already had like Larsson and Moravcik.

 

What year are we talking about here with that level of debt?

 

When Strachn took over.....2005........ although i get the feeling youre sitting with a set of club accounts and about to coorect me.

 

:icon_mrgreen:

Annual Report 2005: Net Debt was £19.5M

This report reflects MON's last season. Our debt was rising and rising under MON, we were going to hit rocks regardless of success on the field.

After Strachan's 1st season, the debt was down to £9.09M - This is when Desmond declared the debt "manageable"

2nd season £4.99M - The first season in a long long time we actually returned a profit after taxation

3rd season £3.5M

etc etc

These statements can be looked up by anyone at anytime. People should be trying to get the full picture rather than guessing at stuff.

 

Fair comment. I consider myself chastised on the finer financial details. You obviouslly know your figures. But the question remains. What do we spend? Speculate to accumulate? Grip the biscuit tin tighter? Somewhere in the middle? PLC appear to view staying 1 step ahead of Gers as business plan. Alarmingly, most fans appear to agree in principle. I now almost accept this as a given and dont think im unrealistic in wnting to impact on Europe rather than domestic scene. Much too frugle IMO.

 

Maybe you should look at their books first, we are miles ahead of them in terms of running a business.

They have to sell 10 players in January, we'll be looking to bring in players. Huge difference there

 

They have over 50 million quid worth of debt spread out over Murray's companys, that Murray insists whoever buys Rangers next will have to cover for. Hence no buyers.

We're just over 3 million in debt, and are likely to reduce that completely next year.

 

Great thread & lots of talking points, but on the first charts both Sno & Killen were rated as a 3 ( even ), not too sure about that

 

This is a great thread, but it is also important to look at how each manger used to transfer to make the team better, I think MON was much better at buying players that would have an immediate impact on the team while GS likes to buy players and put them in the reserves for 6-8 months

 

You've missed the points completely. GS is under severe financial contraint to the point that he cant buy the finished article and when he does all he gets is Donati's, Gravesen, Nakamura & Jarosiks. Very hit and miss.

He buys potential because thats the club policy as they wont find quality finished articles in their price range, so he has to identify potential first team players on the cheap, buy them and develop them in the hope that they'll turn into top class player. To think of that like a preference for him is completely wrong

 

Some good research done here, but the bare figures don't tell the full story.

The 2 managers have had to adopt hugely differing transfer policies.

MO'N inherited some fantastic players (Stubbs, Mjallby, Lambert, Petrov, Lubo) and one world class player (Henke) This can't be overlooked. When you add these players to the big money signings, he had a team which more or less sustained us for his 5 years.

WGS started from almost scratch, and has had to dabble in smaller transfer fees which is always riskier. So his teams have evolved over time.

 

The board decides the transfer policy as they will be deciding the budgets. The manager can only accept the hand he is deal or leave the club a la Jansen

 

Indeed. In fact looking at the figures, you could argue that after that initial spending spree, MO'N had to adopt a similar transfer strategy in his last 3 years to Strachan's and the impact of his signings was patchy in that time as well.

 

I knew I'd get called up on the scores at some point . In fact I changed Pearson to a 2 (poor) as 1 was a bit harsh - it didn't affect the average though so just left it.

The reason Sno is a 3 is we actually made a profit, and he didn't do badly as cover so 3 - evens is fair. You have a point about Killen though I believe he was a free transfer. Performance wise 1 or 2 but all in all for Celtic 2 or 3...

 

Btw you're missing Juninho, Camara and Bellamy. I don't think we paid a fee for Juninho but I'm sure I read we paid fees for Camara and Bellamy even though they were loans.

 

Count his compensation package as a fee