04 Aug 2026 16:00:06
Just put a screenshot up in sightings from a Spurs page on X. Apparently we tried to get Moore permanently for £26M.
04 Aug 2026 16:13:34
There's no way that's true. Not even slightly. 100% false information.
04 Aug 2026 16:24:43
🤣 I'm sure we've looked into getting him back on loan. Maybe even a loan to buy or some kind of option for Spurs to buy him back out something. But just no way we'd pay that for anyone. Would be totally irresponsible for the club. Good laugh though.
04 Aug 2026 16:26:20
Nobody really knows, though, do they?
Fee would have been paid for over in installments. Who's to say that we didn't test the water.
04 Aug 2026 16:27:55
Fake bot account based in Africa.
04 Aug 2026 16:28:49
0% chance am putting that figure down to. 👍
04 Aug 2026 16:38:38
Not just that account reporting it. 🤦♂️
04 Aug 2026 16:42:28
"Nobody really knows". 🤣🤣
Eh?! Yes they do!
04 Aug 2026 16:48:45
You employed at Rangers Sunshine? 🤔
Naw.
It's a rumours site, it's a rumour.
04 Aug 2026 16:56:35
I do appreciate the rumours though Jasper, cheers man.
04 Aug 2026 17:02:54
There is no way on God's earth we have offered £26m for Moore. That's just crazy talk.
04 Aug 2026 17:04:22
I don't even think Jasper was saying it's true, just posting a rumour he heard. God forbid!
04 Aug 2026 17:05:03
I don't believe there would have been a chance of us buying Moore for any price remotely close to this. Half that I would maybe find believable, but he's destined for bigger things than the SPL.
04 Aug 2026 16:46:51
How do they?
04 Aug 2026 17:08:19
It's just a nice wee story. It shouldn't drum up so much negativity. Do I think it's true? Not really, but sometimes we just don't know what our club is up to. It was mentioned by others that a signing would rock Scottish Football and we were going to have a marquee signing this window. 😁
04 Aug 2026 17:09:50
That's £23m than we will pay for a player.
04 Aug 2026 17:12:25
Would be very impressed if the club did in fact do this, it would show they mean businesses.
04 Aug 2026 17:14:25
The transfer fees are divided by the number of years the player signed, for example, sign a player for 100M and give him a 5-year deal. With amortization, you divide it by 5 years, meaning each year you pay 20M. This reduces the financial burden on the club.
5yr contract for Moore, £5.2M/season. Easily affordable and within FFP.
04 Aug 2026 17:18:18
What business would that be, Alex? The 'business' of putting out of business? 🤷
04 Aug 2026 17:19:44
I think that's why Chelsea do those ridiculously long contracts. 🤔
Jim McLean used to tie folks to crazy long contracts too, but for different reasons back in those days.
04 Aug 2026 17:27:04
Gers78, need to stop having fans look at things. Rangers are a financial business.
"Amortization in football is an accounting method that spreads the cost of a transfer across the length of the player contract. It is not a jargon for casual fans, but it is one of the most important financial tools clubs use to stay within spending rules and maintain healthy books."
04 Aug 2026 17:37:11
Not a chance in hell, let's keep it real or at least plausible.
04 Aug 2026 17:47:18
Yes, amortisation spreads a transfer fee over the length of a contract, but it does not make the cost disappear.
Spending £26M on a player on a 4-year contract commits the club to a £6.5M annual amortisation charge. This structural expense directly reduces our spending power by that amount for the next 3 to 4 years.
When you add the player's annual salary and upfront agent fees (calculated as a percentage of the total deal), the immediate and long-term financial burden grows even heavier.
If the club repeats this business every year, signing £26M of players annually on similar terms, then the financial pressure compounds rapidly.
By year 4, the club faces a cumulative £26M annual amortisation charge on the books. This massive increase in operational overheads would swallow over 25% of our total turnover.
Given that our actual available cash budget has previously been reported at just around £8M, the club's finances simply cannot cover a £26M annual overhead without heavily falling foul of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
So, while this transfer rumor is circulating and may have a chance of being true, just a cursory look at the actual financial logic suggests the math does not add up.
04 Aug 2026 18:14:13
That's why we wouldn't normally couldn't do it every year. That's why your club trading model would be looking to sell said player(s) for hopefully a profit midway through their contract. Thus, allowing you to pay off the fee still remaining. This way of purchase really only works with young players about to reach the pinnacle of their careers, and are still very much sought after in 1, 2 or 3 seasons' time.
The point is that, as a stand alone transfer, it's not as unbelievable as smashing out £26M in one hit. That's why your club needs to be run financially very well.
04 Aug 2026 18:32:25
Jasper, I fully understand how transfers work and how spreading the cost over a number of seasons works. What I am saying is that a club in Scotland, especially one such as ourselves, who very recently know the risks of overspending, are not going to be spending £23m on any one player. Full stop.
No matter how many seasons we spread it over. If we were literally only going to sign 1 player a season, then maybe, potentially, could manage it. But when we seem to have to bring in 9/10 each summer continually, and spread the cost of those over numbers of seasons, we certainly never will do.
04 Aug 2026 18:35:11
But the point is we do it every year. It doesn't matter if we spend £26M on one player or £26M on 5 players, the amortisation costs over each of the 4 years are added onto our operation costs before we even start. This form of accrual accounting is how most clubs work their transfer funding.
So, for the next 2 years, we would not be able to buy any players as that rope would already be around our neck financially. It also only works if Moore continues to develop, and sells for a substantial amount over the now Scottish record fee. Otherwise we are risking everything for a small profit.
So, however you try to sell it to yourself, it is not a clever accounting move for the club. Try thinking about your monthly salary and buying a new car every year on a 4 year finance deal, as the principles are the same.
At some point in that 4 year period, your expenses would outstrip your income, and you would either go bust or need to find someway of adding to revenue; or cutting your day to day living costs.
btw, there is a difference between how we pay for the player and how they are amortised on the books. They may insist we pay 50% first year and then 50% second year. So the club still has to physically have that cash to give them; or borrow it which adds to the overhead burden.
However, keep believing if it makes you feel better, but doing what you suggest isn't running a club or any business well.
04 Aug 2026 18:40:46
Was going to ask what I have missed today, but won't bother lol. Every day someone ranting about something. 23 million bid knocked back so instead of buying someone around same price and ability we pay 2.5 million for a Japanese boy from the German second division. 😆 🤣
04 Aug 2026 19:05:34
Angus, at what point did I say we should do it? All I said is it could be done. I certainly don't need to sell it to myself. It's neither here nor there with me who we buy. I, like most fans, have very little influence over our Club interests. It's a random post shared in a rumours page that gets a conversation going.
However, as I have mentioned to another poster on here, there's no need to be condescending in your replies. If we were all experts in our Club transfers and finances, then we would be working at Rangers, not shooting down every wee story that finds its way on here.
04 Aug 2026 19:08:27
If you don't mind me asking The 12th, what do you know about our about to be new right winger Daisuke Yokota? 🤔
04 Aug 2026 19:54:28
Well, ano he's Japanese ano he's costing 2.5 million and ano he plays in the second division. I also know he puts butter as well as jam on his toast. What do you about him, mate. 🤔
04 Aug 2026 20:05:16
Jasper, it's a bit contradictory to spend three posts debating how the logistics of this transfer could work, and then claim it's just a random rumour that shouldn't be taken seriously the moment the FFP numbers disprove it.
And, my checking the club's public finances before replying to disprove it isn't being condescending; it's just keeping the discussion grounded in reality.
Disagreeing with your argument using facts isn't a personal insult, imo, but calling me condescending is. Funny how some can give it out but can't take any rumour they put up being held to scrutiny. Anyway, think I have said all that can be said on the matter.
04 Aug 2026 20:36:20
I think your responses have been very clear, concise, and they come across as if you have put some thought, and research into them, Angus. They also do not come across as dismissive or condescending.