In the Jungle of Wall Street.

Bridie Bhoy

Well-known member
I understand that we can't compete against those "big league" team whose revenue streams are disproportionately bloated by these ridiculous tv deals but with careful early investment and a proper long-term strategy rather than last minute panic loan/transfer business then surely we can compete at the same level or better than the likes of Ferencvaros, Midtylland, Copenhagen, Cluj, etc.
 

TET

Well-known member
I understand that we can't compete against those "big league" team whose revenue streams are disproportionately bloated by these ridiculous tv deals but with careful early investment and a proper long-term strategy rather than last minute panic loan/transfer business then surely we can compete at the same level or better than the likes of Ferencvaros, Midtylland, Copenhagen, Cluj, etc.
yes for certain but we need bit of luck plus better tactics imo

we could beat Barcelona in ko one of games and fenercvaros could and did beat us in one off game

but even when Barcelona lose to us they dont get much of a blip in overall revenue because the biggest chunk already installed through league performance and tv deals and commercial deals for big name players

the volatility for Barcelona on losing 1 season CL is very low but their risks are much lower too since they dont need to qualify twice once in league then ko versus hard cl potential champions of other nations

which stabilises their income much more than in our case

win league scotland and get through ko stages you can earn 100 million total

Barcelona get 250 million from tv even if we beat them

ferncvaros v celtic are fighting each other the get 20 million more than europa league qualifiers

the same argument goes for every national champion in that ko pre group cl


they are all champions and believe with good early buys and sound strategy they should be able to beat any other ko team


they all are champions

but they must fight for scraps against the tv bumper deal clubs

we think 40/60 million is magic

to Ferencvaros its even bigger windfall

But in champions league world its buttons

some of their players earn that over 3 years each
 

Bridie Bhoy

Well-known member
yes for certain but we need bit of luck plus better tactics imo

we could beat Barcelona in ko one of games and fenercvaros could and did beat us in one off game

but even when Barcelona lose to us they dont get much of a blip in overall revenue because the biggest chunk already installed through league performance and tv deals and commercial deals for big name players

the volatility for Barcelona on losing 1 season CL is very low but if their risks are much lower too since they dont need to qualify twice once in league then ko versus hard cl potential champions of other nations

which stabilises their income much more than in our case

win league scotland and get through ko stages you can earn 100 million total

Barcelona get 250 million from tv even if we beat them

ferncvaros v celtic are fighting each other the get 20 million more than europa league qualifiers

the same argument goes for every national champion in that ko pre group cl


they are all champions and believe with good early buys and sound strategy they should be able to beat any other ko team


they all are champions

but they must fight for scraps against the tv bumper deal clubs

we think 40/60 million is magic

to Ferencvaros its even bigger windfall

But in champions league world its buttons

some of their players earn that over 3 years each
Yes but you keep emphasising how we can't compete with the English teams or the likes of Barcelona. But we all know that and understand that and I don'tthink anyone is reasonably expecting us to over an extended period of time (though of course we can in knock out rounds, not that we get there often these days).

But we can and should be achieving similar to or often sometimes better than clubs with around the same or even lower outgoings than us. Of course tactics form a part, but a our transfer strategy is a bigger contributor to our CL failures.

And no-one is suggesting folllowing the suicidal spending strategy employed by deidco (or their tribute act) - there is a middle ground of sensible investment and selling. And the point of this thread is only to reward our already very highly recompensed employees with bonuses based around achievements on the pitch achieved using a financiallly-responsible transfer strategy rather P&L performance as is usual in other businesses.
 

TET

Well-known member
Yes but you keep emphasising how we can't compete with the English teams or the likes of Barcelona. But we all know that and understand that and I don'tthink anyone is reasonably expecting us to over an extended period of time (though of course we can in knock out rounds, not that we get there often these days).

But we can and should be achieving similar to or often sometimes better than clubs with around the same or even lower outgoings than us. Of course tactics form a part, but a our transfer strategy is a bigger contributor to our CL failures.

And no-one is suggesting folllowing the suicidal spending strategy employed by deidco (or their tribute act) - there is a middle ground of sensible investment and selling. And the point of this thread is only to reward our already very highly recompensed employees with bonuses based around achievements on the pitch achieved using a financiallly-responsible transfer strategy rather P&L performance as is usual in other businesses.
ok succinctly

the reason we cant buy early is availability and cost involved in early buys

teams, our included, will hold off as long as possible unless you offer much more on the spot.

every other team has same objectives that are in same boat as us.

im not saying we cant achieve it.

im saying its much harder and more costly with all other factors

The risks are higher for clubs in our boat

since if we risk higher wages and flop which can still happen the financial cost is more destructive.
 

Bridie Bhoy

Well-known member
ok succinctly

the reason we cant buy early is availability and cost involved in early buys

teams, our included, will hold off as long as possible unless you offer much more on the spot.

every other team has same objectives that are in same boat as us.

im not saying we cant achieve it.

im saying its much harder and more costly with all other factors

The risks are higher for clubs in our boat

since if we risk higher wages and flop which can still happen the financial cost is more destructive.
You argue about the higher costs during every transfer window - this is an opinion and not a verifiable fact. We have tried the overly cautious approach and we have failed miserably to qualify for the additional rewards from the Champions League for the last 3 seasons.

Indeed, on several occasions we have been well down the road in transfer negotiations for players in positions that we desperately need cover - delayed trying to get a cheaper deal (I agree with good negotiating obviously) - failed in the qualifiers then still bought that same player a couple of weeks later for the same amount as was originally reported. That to me is a false economy and does NOT deserve to be rewarded by the payment of obscene bonuses to someone who is already one of the highest paid CEOs in British football (yes eveb higher than many of those same teams you have mentioned earlier who have vastly highet revenue streams).
 

TET

Well-known member
we should have been copenhagen

and ferenvaros but it was always a tough match like any final would be will an Aberdeen hearts Hibs or sevco.

maybe harder coz they are champions and have that good mindset under stress games

Ability of players is not always the size of their wage

And in one off games is usually not relevent

but they are an indicator of their ability but some players dont get the wage they really deserve in big picture.

on any given day these lower paid players can and often do excel their expected ability.

having players in early might be good for team but in one of game they are not always the deciding factor.

luck plays big part if two teams are evenly matched and tactics are employed to get best out of players under that match conditions

but you still need luck and determination

but champions bring that with them

fenencvaros are Hungarian champions

I dare say they probably have many teas at least as good as hearts Hibs and Aberdeen, if not better, so they have strong competition, so to be Hungarian champions you need to be good team.

in past Scottish football was much stronger, so Scottish champions were often more capable than now and our huge fan base and its commercial power gave extra advantage but its gone under the NWO of football

the point of this thread I assume was to get more revenue for team performance but im arguing the best policy in a world were prices of players is over inflated is to buy cheap underrated players then sell them when big league wants him

cause we cant match their new wage offer

and hence under constraints of our income must sell if they go beyond our wage levels


its not about selling our best assets its about market forces being a larger fish in the minnow pond

we either get access to the same revenue streams or we buy cheap sell high when it presents itself and must stick to the budgets or risk serious meltdown in catastrophic season

Which sadly means you cannot have perpetual edge unless your manger spots undervalued players and more importantly can Gell them into a unit that is as strong as the one with the dudes you no longer can afford wages.
 

TET

Well-known member
You argue about the higher costs during every transfer window - this is an opinion and not a verifiable fact. We have tried the overly cautious approach and we have failed miserably to qualify for the additional rewards from the Champions League for the last 3 seasons.

Indeed, on several occasions we have been well down the road in transfer negotiations for players in positions that we desperately need cover - delayed trying to get a cheaper deal (I agree with good negotiating obviously) - failed in the qualifiers then still bought that same player a couple of weeks later for the same amount as was originally reported. That to me is a false economy and does NOT deserve to be rewarded by the payment of obscene bonuses to someone who is already one of the highest paid CEOs in British football (yes eveb higher than many of those same teams you have mentioned earlier who have vastly highet revenue streams).
we have never tried the overly cautious approach

our current set up is excessive risk

But the msm, same one who funds the bg leagues talks it down.

Ive tried showing you the current figures

we are not risk averse

we are excessively risk seeking under our current wages

But you want it to increase and im asking how you see that working out and how exactly do we get players in early cheaper and also within wage budgets yet still beat other teams in similar conditions?

im all for your idea if it works but im asking how it works

just saying should be doing better isn't really solving the issue.

Which players should we not have bought?

whose wages are expendable?

Every player bought who is potentially undervalued is also potentially over valued but having good run of form.

or opposite like Sinclair at us very good on long run of underperforming in lat season.

you cant be certain that even big name player will cut it

but if you buy the low cost unheard of dude and he turns out not up to par then the risk didn't work out.

if current wages are approx 50M per year

how much can we increase that?

does it destabilise the underpaid players we currently have?

do we give our current players more to keep them only to find they still didn't reach cl group

do you sell them and ratchet up wages?

if so what wage budget do you think is good risk?

and does it significantly improve our base?
 
Last edited:

TET

Well-known member
Assuming these wages are accurate and dont include bonuses

is elyounousi wage viable?
or fraser Forster?

is it good practise to have christie and Ajer on their on show wage if these other players are getting many multiples more and aren't even owned by club?

is this risk seeking or risk averse?

 

Smelltheglove

Well-known member
i think we've all seen over time the answer staring us straight in the face
if the manager is a proper manager and gets best out of assets, buys shrewdly, sells shrewdly, we qualify for CL everyone is happy
if the manager aint up to scratch, no amount of investment is going to massively improve team
the manager is most important person at club, trickle down and trickle up effect
 

TET

Well-known member
i think we've all seen over time the answer staring us straight in the face
if the manager is a proper manager and gets best out of assets, buys shrewdly, sells shrewdly, we qualify for CL everyone is happy
if the manager aint up to scratch, no amount of investment is going to massively improve team
the manager is most important person at club, trickle down and trickle up effect
but even best manager would struggle to find adequate replacements of CL quality players without the 100 million + safety net of extra tv funding

And if he that good one of the teams with those funds will buy him off you by offering bigger wages than you can afford with better budget
 

Smelltheglove

Well-known member
but even best manager would struggle to find adequate replacements of CL quality players without the 100 million + safety net of extra tv funding

And if he that good one of the teams with those funds will buy him off you by offering bigger wages than you can afford with better budget
I agree there is a limit to how far we can go but that's here to stay
What we want whether shareholders or supporters is the best we can get
 

Bridie Bhoy

Well-known member
we have never tried the overly cautious approach

our current set up is excessive risk

But the msm, same one who funds the bg leagues talks it down.

Ive tried showing you the current figures

we are not risk averse

we are excessively risk seeking under our current wages

But you want it to increase and im asking how you see that working out and how exactly do we get players in early cheaper and also within wage budgets yet still beat other teams in similar conditions?

im all for your idea if it works but im asking how it works

just saying should be doing better isn't really solving the issue.

Which players should we not have bought?

whose wages are expendable?

Every player bought who is potentially undervalued is also potentially over valued but having good run of form.

or opposite like Sinclair at us very good on long run of underperforming in lat season.

you cant be certain that even big name player will cut it

but if you buy the low cost unheard of dude and he turns out not up to par then the risk didn't work out.

if current wages are approx 50M per year

how much can we increase that?

does it destabilise the underpaid players we currently have?

do we give our current players more to keep them only to find they still didn't reach cl group

do you sell them and ratchet up wages?

if so what wage budget do you think is good risk?

and does it significantly improve our base?
But TET - every single time you get into these discussions you always say the person wants to increase our costs by paying players more. At no point have I suggested this. I want us to spend our money much more wisely. IMO we should stop wasting £millions on buying multiple foreign young projects that we often refuse to give a chance to and then offload for a huge loss but instead consolidate these on spending slightly more experienced players who are more likely to settle here.

You keep saying that we would need to spend more to get players in early in the summer but have never offered any proof. There hsve been a number of players in recent years where we could have got players in early, fannied about, missed qualification and still paid the same price we were asked to pay at the start of the negotiations.

I guess you are coming at this from an accountants perspective whereas I am coming at it from running a successful business viewpoint where I see the value in sensibly investing to improve operations. Sadly I know too that the accountants always win the argument!
 

Smelltheglove

Well-known member
But TET - every single time you get into these discussions you always say the person wants to increase our costs by paying players more. At no point have I suggested this. I want us to spend our money much more wisely. IMO we should stop wasting £millions on buying multiple foreign young projects that we often refuse to give a chance to and then offload for a huge loss but instead consolidate these on spending slightly more experienced players who are more likely to settle here.

You keep saying that we would need to spend more to get players in early in the summer but have never offered any proof. There hsve been a number of players in recent years where we could have got players in early, fannied about, missed qualification and still paid the same price we were asked to pay at the start of the negotiations.

I guess you are coming at this from an accountants perspective whereas I am coming at it from running a successful business viewpoint where I see the value in sensibly investing to improve operations. Sadly I know too that the accountants always win the argument!
Not in my house they don't
 

TET

Well-known member
But TET - every single time you get into these discussions you always say the person wants to increase our costs by paying players more. At no point have I suggested this. I want us to spend our money much more wisely. IMO we should stop wasting £millions on buying multiple foreign young projects that we often refuse to give a chance to and then offload for a huge loss but instead consolidate these on spending slightly more experienced players who are more likely to settle here.

You keep saying that we would need to spend more to get players in early in the summer but have never offered any proof. There hsve been a number of players in recent years where we could have got players in early, fannied about, missed qualification and still paid the same price we were asked to pay at the start of the negotiations.

I guess you are coming at this from an accountants perspective whereas I am coming at it from running a successful business viewpoint where I see the value in sensibly investing to improve operations. Sadly I know too that the accountants always win the argument!
But where are you spotting poor value before or after we buy them?

And thats the catch

how can you be sure better purchases are possible if they never played our system in our country

Im not saying im right

im trying to put forward a reasonable account of past current and future.

Im trying to show why past worked, current is ok and future is very uncertain under current and past conditions


You have mentioned buy early better players but im trying to show you why that might not be so easy

you have mentioned projects which implies buying more adequate players but who are they if they are good enough and we can offer them better wages and would they really be better than projects?

if they are established players then im pretty certain they have many suitors in big wage leagues so again you have the wage problem.


Im not against your idea?

Im asking you to expand on it if you think I misunderstand it.

But I cant see how we can buy better first team players without entering the market we needed to sell into cause we cant afford the wages.

And if its possible im asking you to elaborate to help me see what I dont understand?´
 

TET

Well-known member
But where are you spotting poor value before or after we buy them?

And thats the catch

how can you be sure better purchases are possible if they never played our system in our country

Im not saying im right

im trying to put forward a reasonable account of past current and future.

Im trying to show why past worked, current is ok and future is very uncertain under current and past conditions


You have mentioned buy early better players but im trying to show you why that might not be so easy

you have mentioned projects which implies buying more adequate players but who are they if they are good enough and we can offer them better wages and would they really be better than projects?

if they are established players then im pretty certain they have many suitors in big wage leagues so again you have the wage problem.


Im not against your idea?

Im asking you to expand on it if you think I misunderstand it.

But I cant see how we can buy better first team players without entering the market we needed to sell into cause we cant afford the wages.

And if its possible im asking you to elaborate to help me see what I dont understand?´
get soro signed was the cry

I haven't really seen him

I suspect same would have happened if we bought mcginn

just not good enough to displace our best mids at time, maybe now with year in England at higher level he better?

but at time he was a project imo
 

Spherical Planet

Well-known member
There is the ideal model currently operating who have drawn the blueprint for clubs at Celtic's current level.

Ajax have understood the principle of sound management and buying assets at a reasonable cost. They've also understood the importance of creating and coaching their own talent - developing them into genuine stars that have a significant value attached to them.

The fundamental difference is that the Ajax fans will accept a couple of fallow seasons in transition, whereas Celtic don't have that luxury.

Ajax do spend a fair chunk of change, but they know that that investment reaps long-term and high value dividends.
 

TET

Well-known member
There is the ideal model currently operating who have drawn the blueprint for clubs at Celtic's current level.

Ajax have understood the principle of sound management and buying assets at a reasonable cost. They've also understood the importance of creating and coaching their own talent - developing them into genuine stars that have a significant value attached to them.

The fundamental difference is that the Ajax fans will accept a couple of fallow seasons in transition, whereas Celtic don't have that luxury.

Ajax do spend a fair chunk of change, but they know that that investment reaps long-term and high value dividends.
they also come from Amsterdam the city of black markets

Are run by bankers and possibly have trust funding in place to finance their model

a bit like goram on 500 quid per week on his wage slip in case he gets an sfa fine :p
 

Bridie Bhoy

Well-known member
But where are you spotting poor value before or after we buy them?

And thats the catch

how can you be sure better purchases are possible if they never played our system in our country

Im not saying im right

im trying to put forward a reasonable account of past current and future.

Im trying to show why past worked, current is ok and future is very uncertain under current and past conditions


You have mentioned buy early better players but im trying to show you why that might not be so easy

you have mentioned projects which implies buying more adequate players but who are they if they are good enough and we can offer them better wages and would they really be better than projects?

if they are established players then im pretty certain they have many suitors in big wage leagues so again you have the wage problem.


Im not against your idea?

Im asking you to expand on it if you think I misunderstand it.

But I cant see how we can buy better first team players without entering the market we needed to sell into cause we cant afford the wages.

And if its possible im asking you to elaborate to help me see what I dont understand?´
Sorry TET - I know you can go on for hours but I'm calling it a day here. Just to say we pay some people huge amounts of money to make these decisions instead of it being the responsibility of some know-it-all punter like me who posts on a fans forum.
 
Top