Gerrard and the players he didn’t want to sell

Blu_ultra said:
Seriously, you think the difference between winning and losing is the manager treating Celtic with contempt? It’s really not that simple. If only. They are very well run with finances that dwarf ours based on an excellent recruitment strategy. They buy better players and sell for much more than us. Even after the debacle of their 10 in a row attempt, they sold players that summer to the value 37.6 million euros.
Click to expand...
No I think it's about backing a manager that has the ability to beat them. Gerrard had the ability to beat them and since we refused to back him our record against them is atrocious.
 
EIAFF said:
I reckon the board were "scared" that if they pressured him to selling players, he'd walk.

The issue was he went and did it anyway even after getting to keep them all.

I get their thinking and it's really only with hindsight, knowing he left anyway, we can say they should have called his bluff.

Very close to being "no man bigger than the club" territory but undestandable given how much he'd done for them and us.
Click to expand...

I think there's probably an element of truth with this. They should have called his bluff that summer. I think he had his eyes elsewhere that summer anyway, the Gerrard in that video, wasn't the Gerrard we saw in the dugout during our pre-season.

In a lot of ways, Gio picked up the slack left by Gerrard on the player trading front. Wilson had made too many compounding errors by that point, and we found ourselves in a mess of situation when it came to expiring contracts too.
 
W_72 said:
I don't really blame him for leaving. The board never matched his ambitions after 55. Nobody knows who made the decision not to sell our assets.
Click to expand...
If whoever it was is still in the building we deserve all we get. Short sighted desicion
 
Trafalgar said:
you think Gerrard had no say in these?
Lets remember of the ones leaving he signed the majority
Click to expand...
Bomb proof Stevie G for some. He dragged us back to credibility but he was given time to do it.
He couldn’t wait to get back to England, eff all to do with players staying or leaving
 
Trafalgar said:
Unfortunately he never stayed to cement his legacy and chased cash instead of staying at the biggest managerial job he will ever have.
Click to expand...
Most of us here will think that but the reality is our game means nothing to folk outside our backwater. He went to a big team in england and ultimately failed but he would have had ambitions to take them to them to another level like emery has done and the reality is the villa job is more prestigious than ours is nowadays.
 
GBY74 said:
No I think it's about backing a manager that has the ability to beat them. Gerrard had the ability to beat them and since we refused to back him our record against them is atrocious.
Click to expand...

A total fucking nonsense. Gerrard didn't leave solely because we didn't give him yet another summer of unanswered losses on the transfer front.

He left because Aston Villa wanted him and offered him a project, we simply couldn't. If he was that pissed off about our summer dealings post 55, he would have walked away from the job then and there. He didn't, he stayed, messed up CL qualification, looked disinterested domestically and then eventually went to Villa.

The amount of mythologising about Gerrard's tenure has got way out of hand recently. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. We plucked him from the Liverpool academy, gave him time, patience and investment to catch them. He did all that, but he wasn't perfect.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
A total fucking nonsense. Gerrard didn't leave solely because we didn't give him yet another summer of unanswered losses on the transfer front.

He left because Aston Villa wanted him and offered him a project, we simply couldn't. If he was that pissed off about our summer dealings post 55, he would have walked away from the job then and there. He didn't, he stayed, messed up CL qualification, looked disinterested domestically and then eventually went to Villa.

The amount of mythologising about Gerrard's tenure has got way out of hand recently. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. We plucked him from the Liverpool academy, gave him time, patience and investment to catch them. He did all that, but he wasn't perfect.
Click to expand...
OK what was Gerrard's record against them and what's our record been since?
 
GBY74 said:
OK what was Gerrard's record against them and what's our record been since?
Click to expand...

OK. Is that all we're to look at? How many trebles did they win under Gerrard? It was 2, wasn't it? How many trophies did we win with Gerrard, it was just the 1 in 3 seasons. Wasn't it?

He probably has a better head-to-head win percentage against them than Walter did overall, but it didn't lead to more trophies. So your point is utterly fucking meaningless.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
OK. Is that all we're to look at? How many trebles did they win under Gerrard? It was 2, wasn't it? How many trophies did we win with Gerrard, it was just the 1 in 3 seasons. Wasn't it?

He probably has a better head-to-head win percentage against them than Walter did overall, but it didn't lead to more trophies. So your point is utterly fucking meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yes it was as we appointed Gerrard as we were an absolute shambles where Celtic wanted record scorelines. Any real Rangers fan will tell you he brought the standards back and made us champions. The facts are there we've won 2 out of 15 since he left, where is our standards now is really to reward mediocrity.
 
MartinS93 said:
Are folk just deliberately selective when it comes to Gerrard and that summer post-55?

There was no money to give him. We'd exhausted the bank balance and we had to sell to refresh, he didn't want to and f**ked it against 10 man Malmo.

It is genuinely as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Are posters really going to ignore our record against Celtic since he left?
 
Trafalgar said:
Unfortunately he never stayed to cement his legacy and chased cash instead of staying at the biggest managerial job he will ever have.
Click to expand...
He left to test himself in the best league in the world, a step closer to the club he's supported all his life. Absolutely sod all to do with money.
 
GBY74 said:
Yes it was as we appointed Gerrard as we were an absolute shambles where Celtic wanted record scorelines. Any real Rangers fan will tell you he brought the standards back and made us champions. The facts are there we've won 2 out of 15 since he left, where is our standards now is really to reward mediocrity.
Click to expand...

I would never deny he brought standards back up. But he wasn't a mythical figure deserving of only praise. He messed up by not selling any players after 55, messed up a piss easy CL qualification route, spat the dummy out and ran away to Villa before a Cup semi-final.

You're the one making stupid, ill-conceived and reductive arguments that undermine your own thought process. I can do that too, as demonstrated in my last post, but it doesn't change the facts, and it doesn't fix our current problems.
 
GBY74 said:
Are posters really going to ignore our record against Celtic since he left?
Click to expand...

Nobody is ignoring his record against Celtic. You're ignoring the fact, that he fucked things up for himself by refusing to refresh his squad after 55, and you're failing to grasp it wasn't as simplistic as the board didn't back him that summer. We needed to sell to buy more players. We didn't sell any players, ergo we didn't make any major purchases. It's pretty simple when you look at the facts.
 
MartinS93 said:
What relevance is his record against celtic in the summer post-55?

Genuine question.
Click to expand...
The relevance is he's the only manager that could beat Celtic regularly in many a year. If we can't get a manager that can beat Celtic we'll continue to watch them dominate.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
Nobody is ignoring his record against Celtic. You're ignoring the fact, that he fucked things up for himself by refusing to refresh his squad after 55, and you're failing to grasp it wasn't as simplistic as the board didn't back him that summer. We needed to sell to buy more players. We didn't sell any players, ergo we didn't make any major purchases. It's pretty simple when you look at the facts.
Click to expand...
How successful do you think we'll be whilst we can't beat Celtic?
 
GBY74 said:
The relevance is he's the only manager that could beat Celtic regularly in many a year. If we can't get a manager that can beat Celtic we'll continue to watch them dominate.
Click to expand...
Again, what relevance is Gerrard's record in relation to him refusing to sell players?

Does he just tell the board 'a beat celtic so magic money from thin air"? Nonsense.
 
Trafalgar said:
Id say that Gerrard asked certain players to be retained. The club supported that.
The fact we lost v 10 men of Malmo is on Gerrard
Click to expand...
He had a full 5 months to prepare for those CL qualifier matches after clinching the title in the March.
Regardless of players who came or went that summer, we should have had more than enough to get past Malmo.

The moment that title was won, everything eased up - as the Scottish Cup campaign demonstrated.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
About as successful as Gerrard was.

You're hyper focused on getting the better of them on the pitch. I want us to make meaningful decisions off the pitch that will see us surpass them on the pitch when it comes to fruition.
Click to expand...
I'd rather be the first to 60 titles than 57 titles. Stopping 10 was crucial but it's the long game now and getting the old guard out this season and new leaders in will be vital.

Likes of Butland, Sterling and Souttar can be those leaders in the current squad and can find a couple from the league and a few from abroad.

Can't all be early twenties late teens signings either. Couple of experienced heads and be exciting to watch Rangers again next season.
 
The Sasa Shuffle said:
He was given more patience than any other manager in our history and delivered one trophy in three seasons. Even then it was more down to the only other horse in the race completely imploding.
Click to expand...
We improved season upon season and he was given patience because of that and where we came from.

They imploded because we performed well and ran away with it.
Let's not forget we went unbeaten in 55.

What Gerrard achieved with us in such a short time frame was a miracle.
 
GBY74 said:
No I think it's about backing a manager that has the ability to beat them. Gerrard had the ability to beat them and since we refused to back him our record against them is atrocious.
Click to expand...
The ability to beat them is different to treating them with contempt. Simply, we couldn’t spend money anyway. We would have fallen foul of FFP. We lost 23 million that year. Rules aside, who would have paid it? We have rich guys backing us, but they can’t bank roll is indefinitely. We need to self sustain.
 
Blu_ultra said:
The ability to beat them is different to treating them with contempt. Simply, we couldn’t spend money anyway. We would have fallen foul of FFP. We lost 23 million that year. Rules aside, who would have paid it? We have rich guys backing us, but they can’t bank roll is indefinitely. We need to self sustain.
Click to expand...
So due to that it's acceptable to win 2 in 15 and be prepared to accept mediocrity
 
GBY74 said:
If you believe the lack of investment was due to failing to qualify for the champions league. What's your opinion on the lack of investment Gio got as he did qualify for the champions league?
Click to expand...
What lack of investment?

Other than the summer following 55, every season since Gerrard came in, the manager has been given £12m-£15m. Europa Finals and CL groups do not change that.

By all means say GVB's summer business was poor & how Wilson had a hand in it, but why are you saying GVB had less to spend than Beale when he didn't?
 
GBY74 said:
So due to that it's acceptable to win 2 in 15 and be prepared to accept mediocrity
Click to expand...
No. I’m only asking, under the parameters that were set out: we couldn’t spend any money as a) We didn’t have any and b) under FFP we weren’t allowed to, why folk keep saying the board didn’t back Gerrard.
 
greggakd said:
The footage of his interview after the sheep game in 55 season is surfacing again. Plenty of folk saying about how he didn’t want certain players sold. How is that known, and who are the players he didn’t want to lose?

Are people just assuming cause there was no sales or is there proof he didn’t want to sell anyone, and if so who were they?

Assuming it is true, from the main players involved in getting us 55, my guess would be Kamara, Kent and probably aribo. I can’t imagine goldson or tav would have wanted to go, Davis and McGregor were too old to be sold for any kind of fee, and I don’t think he would have had an issue with selling Alfredo given the whole Colombia and overweight things from the past.
Click to expand...
Should it not be Gerrard is our only manager that could beat them since Walter, why did our board not back him?

How many in a row to Celtic need to get before we admit that we made a pigs ear of it by not backing him?
 
GBY74 said:
Where would we be if Gerrard hadn't won us a title we were a shambles prior to him arriving and haven't been much better since he left. He's a legend for the job he done and is the only manager we've had since Walter that could beat Celtic regularly.
Click to expand...
13 in a row or something ridiculous
 
GBY74 said:
Should it not be Gerrard is our only manager that could beat them since Walter, why did our board not back him?

How many in a row to Celtic need to get before we admit that we made a pigs ear of it by not backing him?
Click to expand...
If we backed him and he won 3 in a row he would be off to Liverpool now
 
In a way him not selling Morelos and Kent for probably a combined 25/30 million has probably set us back a few years. Given that previous managers were dealing with players who just weren’t as good as they once were.

Even though I’m grateful he won the league, him not selling these players cost us in the long run.
 
GBY74 said:
So we'll now watch them getting 10iar which made winning the league pointless as all we did was delay the inevitable. The happy clapping is absolutely crazy.
Click to expand...
They aren't winning the next 7.

We need to trust and Back the manager
 
audiorealis said:
Look at the transfers we made in the summer after 55 - is it any wonder Gerrard left at the first chance he got?

Ofoborh (free)
Sakala (free)
Lundstram (free)
Bacuna (2m ish)

Going the other way:
Barjonas
Greg Stewart
Bongani Zungu
Edmundson
Jordan Jones
Middleton
Hastie
Itten
Katic
Kieran Wright
Click to expand...
If I went on holiday next week and was chatting to a guy at the bar called Bacuna I wouldn’t make the link between him and Rangers.

Bizarrely yesterday I was cutting grass less than 20 yards from where Glen Middleton used to play under 15’s.
 
The Sasa Shuffle said:
He was given more patience than any other manager in our history and delivered one trophy in three seasons. Even then it was more down to the only other horse in the race completely imploding.
Click to expand...
The scum say that a lot but always forget to mention we were completely undefeated in the league.
 
Angrybluebear said:
Who cost us the Malmo game ?

Lundstram was an unused sub at Ibrox where we shat the bed v 10 men.

Tie all square after 18 minutes, they had a player sent off in first half injury time, Colak battered 2 in in 4 minutes, 10 minutes in to the second half. Just like they had battered 2 in in two minutes within 4 minutes of the restart in Malmo.
Click to expand...

Gerrard cost us it by singing a plodding dumpling who took the heart out of our title winning midfield.

Gerrard said he didn't want to sell a player. On that basis, he had to make the CL playoff at least to have any chance of funds for a player.
 
greggakd said:
The footage of his interview after the sheep game in 55 season is surfacing again. Plenty of folk saying about how he didn’t want certain players sold. How is that known, and who are the players he didn’t want to lose?

Are people just assuming cause there was no sales or is there proof he didn’t want to sell anyone, and if so who were they?

Assuming it is true, from the main players involved in getting us 55, my guess would be Kamara, Kent and probably aribo. I can’t imagine goldson or tav would have wanted to go, Davis and McGregor were too old to be sold for any kind of fee, and I don’t think he would have had an issue with selling Alfredo given the whole Colombia and overweight things from the past.
Click to expand...
How was Gerrard's record against Celtic and as fans are we finding where we are now acceptable?
 
High Society said:
Bomb proof Stevie G for some. He dragged us back to credibility but he was given time to do it.
He couldn’t wait to get back to England, eff all to do with players staying or leaving
Click to expand...
He could also beat Celtic, how many managers have we had since that could beat them? Bomb proof dear me.
 
We won the league and didn’t back him with a couple of quality signings to get us through the champion league qualifiers.
A couple of Bosmans instead.
That’s the biscuit tin mentality that the rotten mob where known for.
 
scobie1873 said:
We won the league and didn’t back him with a couple of quality signings to get us through the champion league qualifiers.
A couple of Bosmans instead.
That’s the biscuit tin mentality that the rotten mob where known for.
Click to expand...
If we backed him we'd be miles in front but the happy clappers amongst our support thought this would be much better watching Celtic dominate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top