Interim financial results announced

BenLynch29

Well-known member
#1
Profit for the 6 month period without champions league revenue and also excluding profit on player sales (Dembele). Still over £40M in the bank. And we paid the tax man more in the last 6 months than we paid in transfer fees in Jan. :mad:

http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SE_notifications/Interim_Results_2018.pdf

In other news, other than the drop in Champions League income, all other sources of income appear to be stagnant vs last year. Matchday income per match is flat (total matchday down due to fewer matches); merchandise sales virtually identical to last year’s period.
 

jinxy67

Well-known member
#3
How did we play less games??
Thought we played 1more qualifying round and also played the same amount of group games and reached the league Cup final ????
 
#4
No doubt the troops will want the £39m in the bank spent in the summer.
Can we remember that we have a wage bill of in excess of £50m pa and the executive has to look forward three to five years. As ever continuation of a sensible business model in a very small market works. Let's not sack Peter just yet!!!!
HH
 

Ray

Well-known member
#5
Latest from celts are hear forum,Clyde one,of the superscoreboard phone- in,have pulled a statement from their social media,’Dembele sale eases Financial Burden on Celtic,fans were quick to ask exactly what financial burdens they were on about? with the club sittin pretty,the term was wildly misleading,and does not paint a picture of a club with cash in the bank,headline seemingly deleted off social media ,hh
 

BenLynch29

Well-known member
#6
How did we play less games??
Thought we played 1more qualifying round and also played the same amount of group games and reached the league Cup final ????
We played 2 fewer matches at Celtic Park due to timing differences in the league schedule. The club recognizes matchday income (ticket sales primarily) on a prorated basis over the 19 home league matches throughout the season plus whatever cup and European matches happen to be played at Celtic Park.
 

BenLynch29

Well-known member
#7
No doubt the troops will want the £39m in the bank spent in the summer.
Can we remember that we have a wage bill of in excess of £50m pa and the executive has to look forward three to five years. As ever continuation of a sensible business model in a very small market works. Let's not sack Peter just yet!!!!
HH
I don’t think Peter ought to be sacked necessarily. What he’s done, he’s done very well. He is a good steward for the club and represents us very well on the European Club Association as well as on the SFA/SPFL boards/committees.

The board on the other hand, particularly our chairman, need to grow a set and be a lot more ambitious. Celtic is a global brand, yet they run the club like there’s minimal commercial opportunities outside of Scotland and the rest of the U.K./Ireland. Supposedly we have a global fan base in excess of 9m people, with over 1m of that in America. Yet the club has attracted zero sponsors who generate any meaningful revenue from America, the club hardly ever travels there anymore, and their matches are never shown on TV - even in Irish Pubs! - outside of the ocassional Champions League match. These 1m fans in America are willing to spend some money supporting the club, and the board is making zero effort to sell them anything. All of our peers in Europe (Benfica, Ajax, RB Salzburg, etc) as well as even middling clubs in England (West Ham, Everton, Southampton, Newcastle, etc) have global sponsors that sell across North America & Asia. Or they have regional sponsors for parts of the world that their global sponsors don’t cover.

The American sports fan is used to paying $100+ just to walk into a stadium and pay $20+ for a burger and a beer. Season tickets regularly run $2,000+ per seat (no concessions either), and the American fans pay that without a second thought. There’s money to be made from the American fan base, and I suspect the same is true in Canada, Australia, South America, Korea, Japan, and elsewhere. But the club isn’t even trying. That’s why it’s infuriating to me when people at the club moan about not being in the same position financially as other clubs in Europe and how difficult it is financially for us to compete. And it likewise very frustrating when fellow fans accept this without question.

And to your point, yes, the club does have a wage bill of £59m and growing. But they also just recorded income, not including transfer profit, of over £50M for a 6 month period which also does not include Champions League money. The club turned a profit for the last 6 months, again excluding transfer activity, and had to pay the tax man several million pounds because the club is bringing in way more money - even without Champions League - than it spends. The board has zero excuses IMO for this situation, and there ought to be hell to pay if we don’t win the Treble this year.

It takes a lot of Chutzpah to claim poverty in transfer dealings with the amount of money we have in the bank and with the amount of money we’re paying the tax man on account of record profits.
 
#8
I don’t think Peter ought to be sacked necessarily. What he’s done, he’s done very well. He is a good steward for the club and represents us very well on the European Club Association as well as on the SFA/SPFL boards/committees.

The board on the other hand, particularly our chairman, need to grow a set and be a lot more ambitious. Celtic is a global brand, yet they run the club like there’s minimal commercial opportunities outside of Scotland and the rest of the U.K./Ireland. Supposedly we have a global fan base in excess of 9m people, with over 1m of that in America. Yet the club has attracted zero sponsors who generate any meaningful revenue from America, the club hardly ever travels there anymore, and their matches are never shown on TV - even in Irish Pubs! - outside of the ocassional Champions League match. These 1m fans in America are willing to spend some money supporting the club, and the board is making zero effort to sell them anything. All of our peers in Europe (Benfica, Ajax, RB Salzburg, etc) as well as even middling clubs in England (West Ham, Everton, Southampton, Newcastle, etc) have global sponsors that sell across North America & Asia. Or they have regional sponsors for parts of the world that their global sponsors don’t cover.

The American sports fan is used to paying $100+ just to walk into a stadium and pay $20+ for a burger and a beer. Season tickets regularly run $2,000+ per seat (no concessions either), and the American fans pay that without a second thought. There’s money to be made from the American fan base, and I suspect the same is true in Canada, Australia, South America, Korea, Japan, and elsewhere. But the club isn’t even trying. That’s why it’s infuriating to me when people at the club moan about not being in the same position financially as other clubs in Europe and how difficult it is financially for us to compete. And it likewise very frustrating when fellow fans accept this without question.

And to your point, yes, the club does have a wage bill of £59m and growing. But they also just recorded income, not including transfer profit, of over £50M for a 6 month period which also does not include Champions League money. The club turned a profit for the last 6 months, again excluding transfer activity, and had to pay the tax man several million pounds because the club is bringing in way more money - even without Champions League - than it spends. The board has zero excuses IMO for this situation, and there ought to be hell to pay if we don’t win the Treble this year.

It takes a lot of Chutzpah to claim poverty in transfer dealings with the amount of money we have in the bank and with the amount of money we’re paying the tax man on account of record profits.

Ben
You make a good point about international development and on the face of it you may be right.
My main point was the Scottish market is very limited and involvement in Europe is vital for our clubs business.
We have given new contracts to players covering up to 6 years (KT) out, that is investment as much as transfer spend. At 59m wage cost the accepted norm is that the number is no more than 50% of turnover. That is a big ask over the next 4 years. It implies Champions league or a major transfer out every year. Miss one year and we will need reserves, miss two consecutively and we need to think about cutting back.
Another point I think about is what happens if Dermot's shares go on the market what is the club plan for that I wonder.
Anyway it's all about opinions let's get this season done and put away another treble.
HH
 

BenLynch29

Well-known member
#9
Ben
You make a good point about international development and on the face of it you may be right.
My main point was the Scottish market is very limited and involvement in Europe is vital for our clubs business.
We have given new contracts to players covering up to 6 years (KT) out, that is investment as much as transfer spend. At 59m wage cost the accepted norm is that the number is no more than 50% of turnover. That is a big ask over the next 4 years. It implies Champions league or a major transfer out every year. Miss one year and we will need reserves, miss two consecutively and we need to think about cutting back.
Another point I think about is what happens if Dermot's shares go on the market what is the club plan for that I wonder.
Anyway it's all about opinions let's get this season done and put away another treble.
HH
I’m not at all worried about the £59m wage bill or the overall level of spending at the club. The reality is that we just reported 6 month results that showed a profit with no Champions League revenue and also excluding player trading (Dembele profits). With the spending level we’re on, we don’t need Champions League or to sell players to break even; we’re already there! The 50% wage to turnover ratio is just a rule of thumb rather than a hard limit. The club has effectively managed to get that higher by limiting net transfer spending and presumably by not having a marketing department. I strongly suspect that if the club invested £1m in international marketing, it would yield £3-5m in annual revenue from merchandise, CelticTV subscriptions, and crucially additional sponsorship money. There’s a lot of low hanging fruit there to be picked that could be immediately be reinvested back into the club.
 
#17
We seem to be tunnelling the project punts more at youth level. Don't have a problem with that. Bayo might be a punt but it's the upper limits and age of our punt demographic. The ex arsenal boy seems to be knocking at the door. The young Aussie not so much. My only concern is the cb hunt. As it always is. My enthusiasm was cut a bit short when I was informed that the two Americans LB and RB weren't first team by a long shot. It's going to take a few small miracles and twists of fate for the youth to do some damage for the first 11. The direction however is completely correct and I applaud it.
The bit part battering that I've read about 38m in the bank. To an extent I'm in agreement with it being spent accordingly.
The other more sensible side, passion aside is looking at exactly what we would have to facilitate to do a next round jump. Be it Europa or last 16 CL.
We don't have the clout. We never will in the structure we are in with our income. We simply don't have the financial muscle to chuck 7m a piece on 3 players. Risk of one getting gubbed by a injury and one not performing and we are fucked.
I hate that part of my thinking. Arguing over a few 100k I have no time for. Few M then ok I get it.
I'm forcing myself into a place where I'm being humble, not giving up but a place where I accept what's going on. It isn't easy.
We have power and lads on the books that will deliver everything we could want domestically.
I look back starry eyed at some of the great players in my conscious existence as a fan. I can't remember doing any better in Europe then apart from a few really special runs.

For all that would happily smudge transfer fees and augment facts.
We don't spend 6m now on players. It's getting on 20yrs ago we were doing that.
20years!
6m player then. Solid players that took us to finals. What are they worth in today's market?
Lenny ...?
Sutton...?
For a laugh, wet the bed or have a cry. All three. Price up comparative players now and what they go for.
Ffs guppy would be about 15m with the home grown pish.
To avoid looking more of a tit after this rant.
Share the burden. Price our good players from the last 20yrs today. It starts to get scary
 
#18
9m on French eddy? Get where your coming from but we have to be clever on both fronts domestically and Europe. The later for me is sadly a non starter. Sign devolpe sell that's where we are and will continue to be if that's what it takes to sell 60,000 out at Celtic park don't have a problem with that. Fuck the Huns all day long or be great in Europe...to what Extent? Know what ma head says.
 
#19
I'm greedy. Can't help it. It's a passion v rage battle.
Europe is dough. CL is the life blood it seems. The minimum requirements for that are a push for us. Players having off days or contract disputes or want aways. It's fucking brutal. It is exactly that though.
Measured against teams that pipped us to do groups. The only ones that have done ok have had thier teams raided in later windows
The merry go round keeps spinning
 
Last edited:
#20
I'm greedy. Can't help it. It's a passion v rage battle.
Europe is dough. CL is the life blood it seems. The minimum requirements for that are a push for us. Players having off days or contract disputes or want aways. It's fucking brutal. It is exactly that though.
Measured against teams that piped us to do groups. The only ones that have done ok have had thier teams raided in later windows
The merry go round keeps spining
cerebral Bobo,or i might just be pished, Hail Hail!
 
Top