05 Apr 2017 11:35:16
This wage comparison slabber with Aberdeen is annoying me. Surely folk aren't that dumb. This is coming from guys that are supposed to be educated. Surely they're at it. They can't have such a poor understanding of economics. Rangers are a bigger club so have to pay more wages to players of the same quality. Simple
If a guy works in his local corner shop and then moves to Asda, he'll get a significant pay rise. If a guy plays for st Johnstone and moves to Rangers, he'll get a significant pay rise. But he's still the same player and has same quality.
If we were to sign the entire Aberdeen team then our wage bill would still be double or more. Economics 101. Surely folk aren't that dumb to buy into that crap.
05 Apr 2017 12:38:41
But surely you'd agree you wouldn't get paid double? yes a wage increase, but not double your salary. Club size does come into it, however it won't impact things as much as you are saying. Reality of it all is we have signed some very poor players and paid them high amounts.
05 Apr 2017 12:44:20
Never thought of it that way before. Kind of makes sense, but surely the trick is to get the same quality of player before they goto a team like Aberbeen and cut out the middle man.
05 Apr 2017 12:56:39
It's not my post but I don't think you have grasped it yourself Pedro. Yes Rangers pay better than Aberdeen but our quality should be better, that's why we pay more because we acknowledge the guys skills, not just because he is now playing for us, there should be no pay correlation between we are Rangers and you are Aberdeen other than we pay for the skill when they come to us and Aberdeen do t pay as much thus why they loose them.
It therefore should be that our squad is a better squad than Aberdeens providing of coarse we have bought wisely - the problem is we have not always done than so!
05 Apr 2017 16:52:08
It's basic economics and I grasp it just fine. It appears you are struggling with the principles. I should've said approximately double or more. If a guy is playing for Aberdeen on say £1000 a week and he comes to Rangers, it's not far fetched to think he'll be on about £3000 a week. Roughly speaking. He hasn't got any better overnight, he's the same quality and yet he's worth more than double. Now apply that to the entire squad.
The differential is that because we are a bigger club then would should be able to attract a high calibre player that is outside of Aberdeens reach. Niko, Barton etc. Any other season, these type of players do a job but this season we've been unlucky. These players are a minority though and are only a small percentage of overall budget.
I can't remember exact figure but let's say Rangers £3,000,000 pa for players and sheep £1,500,000. Let's say both have 25 man squads. So Rangers average salary is £120,000 pa and sheep is £60,000 pa. Therefore each player is on approximately £2300 per week and £1154 per week respectively. So like I said it wouldn't be unreasonable for an Aberdeen player on £1154 per week coming to Rangers to ask for £2300 or more per week. Because we are bigger club we pay more for players of the same quality. Simple
And the way Rangers do business in the past only fluctuates it. For example Kevin Kyle, John Daly's chat.
05 apr 2017 16:34:53
i get your point but don't agree
listen maybe the old rangers had to do that but this rangers doesn't every other club and player knows we are skint so to try demand more from us would just put an end to buisness with said clubs or players and surely those clubs that need the money are not so stupid not to know the economic state that we are in at the moment.
just my opinion
05 Apr 2017 16:36:31
put it this way if i played for aberdeen and rangers or celtic came in for me but said they don't have the money to pay what i'm asking for i'd still be going as i know i'd have a better chance of winning trophies and maybe even get a better move down to the money pit that is english football
05 Apr 2017 17:04:05
Onlyshow, you wouldn't get paid double from going from the cornershop to asda. Sure. But from Aberdeen to Rangers then it's definitely not out of the question. It's easy to understand. Remember John Daly's chat about his salary? Would've taken £1000 a week but got offered £6000 or something? It's an agents job to get the best deal for their player and unfortunately in today's game, they are exceptional at it. Remember clubs headhunted players which puts the ball in the agents court and fluctuates the players wage. It all depends what the club will pay.
The reality is that our wage bill should be 5+ times the aize of Aberdeen's to reflect the size difference of our revenue. Double is nothing.
05 Apr 2017 17:13:40
James, working for Rangers or Celtic is a high pressure environment with a higher workload than other SPFL clubs. Media work, invasion into private life's etc etc etc. Wages often reflect that increased pressure and workload. Why would a player with a cushty job at a club that has no pressure to always win, doesn't have journos going through their bins etc, then come to a club which does have these extra pressures but do it for the exact same money? A comparison for us woul be like going from 25 hour week job to 50 hour week job for same money. Not going to happen. You could argue, they do it for the chance to win trophies and raise their game. We would all do it for free but it's these guys only job and their income is finite.
05 Apr 2017 17:27:54
Your missing the point as reward for paying more rangers should be able to cherry pick the best players from the likes of Aberdeen and as such should have better quality players than Aberdeen because they pay twice as much, that's basic economics.
Take your example of Asda because they pay more they set up an interview process to make sure they get the best workers and the corner shop has to pick from what is left, they can do this because every one wants to work for them because they pay more . It's your recruitment policy that has let you down .
05 Apr 2017 18:38:08
Your missing the point. My initial argument is that double is nothing and has no correlation to quality as the size difference of the clubs accounts for that percentage increase. If they're saying 4 or 5 times as much then we should worry.
You contradict yourself and cement my argument with the following: 'cherry pick the best players from the likes of Aberdeen. And have better quality'.
Said players had that quality while playing for Aberdeen and there is no increase in their quality just because they sign for Rangers.
The argument that Rangers have a higher payroll over Aberdeen so should have better quality, doesn't stand. Not when we are talking double overall payroll. That's my argument and the sensationalism from certain outlets in the media must be aimed at folk like you. No disrespect intended.
05 Apr 2017 19:06:22
To be clear, I'm not disputing Rangers transfer policy or defending our signings this season. I'm merely making a mockery of the news paper article that suggests because we have double Aberdeen's payroll that we should have double the quality or at least better quality. It's not black and white. And I've gave my reasons above. Arguments that say we should acquire all the best talent at other clubs because we offer more wages is nonsense. Assumes that the 'best players' at these clubs are free. Doesn't account for transfer fee or I they are willing sell etc etc If only it was that simple.
You could argue that Aberdeen have a better quality squad than us due to league position. Well if that the case, how much would Rabgers payroll be if we signed their entire squad tomorrow? The same? Or double or more?
Exactly. The newspapers talk some amount of guff.
THE END
06 Apr 2017 16:14:54
Pedro it is an interesting point but doesn't bear any scrutiny at all, if Rangers are seven times bigger than a club and pay a player seven times what the other club do, does that in essence mean the players are more or less the same but one just happens to be better paid by being at Ibrox?
If this 3:1 ratio permeates everything to do with Rangers/ Aberdeen how come one has won 54 titles and the other has 4? It doesn't add up. I dare say Sauzee, Best, Cannigia, Victor were all on better wages than some Rangers starters, explain that away.
At the end of the day every club should be aspiring to get value for money from their signings, if you choose to throw money about based on nothing more than WHO they are signing for then it may end badly, oh wait, been there done that.
06 Apr 2017 16:26:52
Surely if your cherry picking the best players from the other Scottish teams because you pay more, then your team should be better than the teams they have left behind. Your also ignoring the fact that most players coming from other clubs should improve beyond recognition, with better facilities, better coaching , better medical care, better fitness training and also playing for teams like Celtic and rangers in front of huge crowds should inspire them . So yes if your paying double the wages of Aberdeen, , coupled with all the other advantages you have over them, then you should definitely be better than them over the course of a season , if your not it's down to bad recruitment , bad coaching and bad management .
Its the reason that for the most part and the majority of the time ( with the vert rare exception Leicester ect ) the highest paying clubs all over Europe are top of there leagues and the lowest paying are bottom.