Not exactly true as it turns out, who'd a thunk it eh? please log in to view this image If there is amazing thing about Scottish Football it is the way in which myths are created out of braggadocio and this particular myth is a fine example of how unchecked boasting (repeated often enough) becomes actual fact. I can see Gers fans arguing that Rangers also received a lot of money in from transfer fees which would offset the money spent, that is indeed true but it does not change the fact that a lot of money "was" spent, money which we are always told they did not have. They spent it, ergo they had it would be the logical counter argument. Besides, the worrying implication is that Rangers no longer have players who will bring in the amounts of money gained in the last 5 seasons, that is another important revenue stream which Rangers have relied on, all but closed. On another look the figures also show that Neil Lennon has spent more money than the Rangers manager in the last 2 seasons, not by much though, £2.7m roughly which is probably what we played for Hooper, and it's not as if Hooper is the big difference in the two squads is it? The other thing to remember is that Lennon was rebuilding a whole team, that was always going require heavier spending than simply adding to a team as Rangers have done, what chance does Ally McCoist have if this situation continues for another few seasons? Anyway, "nae dough but 3 in a row" is but a hollow boast as can be seen from the figures, Rangers have spent just as much in the last 5 seasons as Celtic and have won 3 in a row, kudos to them for that because they earned it as the Champions nearly always do, but they did not do so on a restricted budget. If Rangers do go pear shaped and have to make draconian cuts to the wage structure, quality of players, and team quality akin to clubs like Dunfermline (who actually do have "nae dough") and manage to win the league then that would be cause to crow like a dunghill rooster, but I suspect that Rangers with nae dough would be about as likely to win the SPL as Dunfermline, and I think we all know how likely an event that is.
What that table doesn't show is that during that period Celtic took in approx. £35m in player sales so our net spending has been almost zero. Rangers, on the other hand, brought in just £21m in players sales meaning they had a net spend of £12m.
Sorry, I was wrong. It was £13m net spend. I'm sure this will continue to be overlooked by the Scottish media who keep banging on about what an amazing job poor Walter did with no money.
You've got too much time on yer hands Russ ya old ****. Get a life mate please log in to view this image
It's amazing Celtic figures released this morning We break even despite losing the league Rangers win the league yet their figures there is a 10/15 shortfall , what is going on ????
