I am in no camp TET and only want the best for our team/club. I totally understand and agree with your financial projections but I could add a caveat. It is not a financial mistake to invest in order to accumulate. There could be a position taken that running at an affordable loss for a few seasons could make sense in terms of long term gains. We put a club operating out of ipox in their coffin a number of years back and there may well be a school of thought that says we could do the same again with the newco By forcing them into a position of reckless overspending with little to no success would be a possible means of achieving CL every year for enough time to ensure the initial deficits occurred are repaid in spades. I am not a financial wizard but I suspect this could be the game plan of some Celtic supporters. You may well be able to shatter this simplistic idea but I think we all have to remember that most of those that comment on our club wish only the best for the club. HH my friend and keep up the good work.
I agree that that would be an interesting discussion
But its the hate and contempt without any alternative explanation that baffles me.
And the completely skewed income figures that are projected without corresponding cost figures that makes their contempt and hatred even more alarming.
I hear what your saying.
And I will back club on whatever they decide is best for club, rather than castles in the sky project.
We have a good team running things.
For me Rodgers was the experiment.
Does the high grade manager spot higher grade players in lower markets.
The experiment failed. Rodgers may have been a good coach with other peoples players. But with his choices he has squandered massive wealth. Massive wealth! And the added value he added to other guys signings was good for invincible 69 but when it was his signings to add value turn, they either didn't get game or sat in reserves or where loaned out. And all the while wages crept higher and higher. His ability in Europe was much worse than lennon despite having monster resources in comparison.
But still we hear about Rodgers superior skills and lawell not funding him.
tosh he was funded in reality by over 100 million over his 2 and half seasons between 30 million year op increases plus the spending on capital on players.
he was not a good manager considering the wealth he burned and the unbalanced squad he abandoned.
The big stumbling block to risking capital beyond ordinary income is it adds no more value to the team than running within ordinary income before bonuses.
no real value
But I thank you kindly for the input.
Im really looking for the sums that back up the better ambition
but I realise that's not easy
its easy to imagine better players if you look only at the capital outlay. but its the operating recurring wage that is the problem.
20 million risk on player may be great addition but if he also has 10m per year wage then that's the hidden cost that sinks the ship.
And while West Ham and above can offer 100k per week wages
the players of that range of ability which used to be within celtic ambition is sadly a bridge too far. unless he hasn't been discovered yet, but that takes an eye for player, which the big money managers don't have, well rodgers didn't anyway.
and I suspect these managers cant take risks on hidden gems because they are playing teams with 200m per wage bills regularly and at those wages you need guaranteed professional
which sadly is where celtic have been slotted by sky tv
we must take risky players but once they get pedigree
West Ham can take him off you because you no longer can afford the wage his pedigree deserves
the sky system and the Eufa prize money and regulations have hijacked the value from the best clubs to the leagues they want to fund,
that's not lawell fault
