Rangers players earn on average less than half of their Celtic counterparts

[MasterD 2,063]

We already know we spend a lot less than them but more than the rest.

They figure are most likely shite though.

[pollok-bear 354]

Our players earn half what they fuckers do and we ae playing half as good as them and they are nothing special.

[Courtyard Bear 6,923]

Sad fact in that is that players on considerably less than our squad show them up week after week.

[Courtyard Bear 6,923]

Would also love to know where the OP gets the idea where we will just bring in 3.5/4 mill a season on merch if we ever get rid of the SD deal.

[cushynumber 5,750]

Its a strange slant on things - player income - rather than club wages. So it looks like we "lag behind". This could be easily written the other way round - that celtic have DOUBLE our wage bill - and that appears to be just the players (leaving out the manager).

I find it strange that in the recent past we have been pilloried for our spending by the media - yet when we dont go mad we are seen as "lagging behind" or not doing enough - despite the fact the club is still losing £3million a year.

I also dont buy into this "we have the 2nd highest wages in the league" argument because what is the benchmark for 3rd - Aberdeen? Hearts? dont make me laugh.

And what if we DIDN'T have the 2nd highest wage bill? it would be nonoseconds before every Rangers fan was chapping DK's door and saying "why are we not spending as much as the sheep or hearts?

Imagine we had the HIGHEST wage bill. The media would simply say we had not learned our lessons from the past.

There is simply no winning this argument

[Prso's headband 2,776]

There was me thinking Barton, Krancjar, Hill, Wallace were all touching nearly 20k a week each

[Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek 288]

29 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Would also love to know where the OP gets the idea where we will just bring in 3.5/4 mill a season on merch if we ever get rid of the SD deal.

The JJB deal, with the initial payment averaged out across the ten year deal, was returning to us just shy of £5 million a year. This actually surprised me when I double checked there as it shows the shortfall is only about £3.5 million a year, which one would have to assume would be covered by a Europa League campaign. The figures certainly hammer home how handicapped we are with the Sports Direct deal.

[Leeds_Bear 532]

22 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

Its a strange slant on things - player income - rather than club wages. So it looks like we "lag behind". This could be easily written the other way round - that celtic have DOUBLE our wage bill - and that appears to be just the players (leaving out the manager).

I find it strange that in the recent past we have been pilloried for our spending by the media - yet when we dont go mad we are seen as "lagging behind" or not doing enough - despite the fact the club is still losing £3million a year.

I also dont buy into this "we have the 2nd highest wages in the league" argument because what is the benchmark for 3rd - Aberdeen? Hearts? dont make me laugh.

And what if we DIDN'T have the 2nd highest wage bill? it would be nonoseconds before every Rangers fan was chapping DK's door and saying "why are we not spending as much as the sheep or hearts?

Imagine we had the HIGHEST wage bill. The media would simply say we had not learned our lessons from the past.

There is simply no winning this argument

Bang on.

[thehost 5,372]

11 minutes ago, Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek said:

The JJB deal, with the initial payment averaged out across the ten year deal, was returning to us just shy of £5 million a year. This actually surprised me when I double checked there as it shows the shortfall is only about £3.5 million a year, which one would have to assume would be covered by a Europa League campaign. The figures certainly hammer home how handicapped we are with the Sports Direct deal.

They do no such thing. They hammer home how entirely underfunded we are as a company, with a board who show now discernable signs of changing that.

[Getstiffed 3,864]

And I'll bet their carbon foot print is bigger than ours as well

[sassaaaa 1,338]

Who honestly gives a fuck ?

We are just up they should be on more than us. This squad of donkeys are probably being paid to much at this time.

[Dazzler 480]

8 minutes ago, Getstiffed said:

And I'll bet their carbon foot print is bigger than ours as well

Not from using the shower though.

[Dazzler 480]

57 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

Its a strange slant on things - player income - rather than club wages. So it looks like we "lag behind". This could be easily written the other way round - that celtic have DOUBLE our wage bill - and that appears to be just the players (leaving out the manager).

I find it strange that in the recent past we have been pilloried for our spending by the media - yet when we dont go mad we are seen as "lagging behind" or not doing enough - despite the fact the club is still losing £3million a year.

I also dont buy into this "we have the 2nd highest wages in the league" argument because what is the benchmark for 3rd - Aberdeen? Hearts? dont make me laugh.

And what if we DIDN'T have the 2nd highest wage bill? it would be nonoseconds before every Rangers fan was chapping DK's door and saying "why are we not spending as much as the sheep or hearts?

Imagine we had the HIGHEST wage bill. The media would simply say we had not learned our lessons from the past.

There is simply no winning this argument

You would start to think that the media like to stir it up to increase revenue and income

[Smile 6,762]

It's obvious that would be the case they have had a free ride to champs league money every year.

[plumbGER 1,663]

Yet still they can't pay their core staff the living wage.

[Courtyard Bear 6,923]

1 hour ago, Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek said:

The JJB deal, with the initial payment averaged out across the ten year deal, was returning to us just shy of £5 million a year. This actually surprised me when I double checked there as it shows the shortfall is only about £3.5 million a year, which one would have to assume would be covered by a Europa League campaign. The figures certainly hammer home how handicapped we are with the Sports Direct deal.

So the whole basis for your view is a looney deal we got more than a decades ago, you then fall into the same mistake our board do again and again by using maybe money (European football) as a given income.

When you can put a genuine merch number backed by figures and leave out the maybe maybe money, then we can talk about what we can spend.

[sammy cox 565]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

So the whole basis for your view is a looney deal we got more than a decades ago, you then fall into the same mistake our board do again and again by using maybe money (European football) as a given income.

When you can put a genuine merch number backed by figures and leave out the maybe maybe money, then we can talk about what we can spend.

This is exactly where previous boards have fucked it.Spending money they did not have or could ill afford to spend on the gamble that MAYBE we will get it back IF we do well in Europe. Fucked out of Europe and all of a sudden you have players like Flo for example costing 12 million and on fuck knows how much on wages playing the might of St Mirren,Kilmarnock,ICT etc. There are no multi national companies standing outside Ibrox with blank cheques just tripping over themselves to pour money into Rangers and the back water that is Scottish football.The sooner some get this into their heads and accept it like a lot of supporters have the better.If not you are going to be on here like some going over and over the same old pish.

[Orange Persson 100]

This thing about expecting 2nd place because we have a higher wage bill than Aberdeen. Agents negotiate higher everything when doing a deal for a player involving Rangers. We are bigger we pay bigger. If you buy a new Audi,you pay out, but it may not go any faster than my old tuned Subaru. The money differences and expectation only come into it when you start spending the 3 and 4 times as much......constantly.

Clubs operate on different expenses, margins, debt, and experience in a league. There is also the fact of having having a certain crop of players at a certain time. They are simply not always there and it goes in phases. Sheep will never have another Miller, McLeish and when do we get another Cooper , Russel or Durrant, Mcoist?. There is also the fact that players we may like to buy, IF we had the money, just may not want to come here ATM. I believe it is one of the most difficult situations for Club, Manager, and Board. The fans have been fantastic, so although difficult for us....we come out with flying colours in all this!

[Brian Fantana 4,105]

10 hours ago, Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek said:

I did a fag packet calculation to find that on a squad of 24 players, there's a shortfall between the two squads of £8.5 million. I guess £3.5 million in merchandising and advertising lost through Sports Direct makes up a significant component of the difference. Would a return to European football makeup the other £5 million? Certainly seems to fit with King's assessment that we need European football to challenge again.

We won't get European Football unless he puts up some money so the balls still in his court.

[blueretro 368]

10 hours ago, Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek said:

So at least we're both agreed upon the fact that Warburton must go. For what it's worth, I think the current squad could do a lot better if they were managed by someone with a modicum of managerial acumen.

So who would be your choice for manager?

[bluewhitevanman 703]

50 minutes ago, blueretro said:

So who would be your choice for manager?

This still not been answered? It will be the usual mcinnes mcleish Walter or maybe Russel slade he's just lost his job at charlton. It's a joke.

[He's blue he's white 455]

And whit

[Jimbeamjunior 6,540]

3 hours ago, Gary Wilmot's Wedding Brek said:

The JJB deal, with the initial payment averaged out across the ten year deal, was returning to us just shy of £5 million a year. This actually surprised me when I double checked there as it shows the shortfall is only about £3.5 million a year, which one would have to assume would be covered by a Europa League campaign. The figures certainly hammer home how handicapped we are with the Sports Direct deal.

Do you honestly think any company out there is going to give us 18mill up front with another 20 over ten years in this current market, nevermind all the shenanigans by the protesters last 4 years

Jjb pumped that into a big spending champions league outfit with household names, all of which we are not and don't look ever likely to be under this lot

[Jimbeamjunior 6,540]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

We won't get European Football unless he puts up some money so the balls still in his court.

Aye but its our only ball cause we're skint so make sure he gives it back to us

[Falcoholic 356]

4 hours ago, cushynumber said:

Its a strange slant on things - player income - rather than club wages. So it looks like we "lag behind". This could be easily written the other way round - that celtic have DOUBLE our wage bill - and that appears to be just the players (leaving out the manager).

If we had double our (current) wage bill I would at least expect to win at least one game in the CL qualifying group.