Posted on celts are here ,by Micheal Ross,this morning PL has stepped aside from the SPFL Board,!Said he has a lot irons in the fire?with his responsibilities as C E here ,His envolvement with theECA is uppermost ,as they are currently trying to thwart plans to makeCL a closed shop, good luck with that ,gonna be hard with the money men in control,as we know Ajax are in the same corner ,I would assume others as well? You wou think football associations would gather pace and get behind this ,to benefit their clubs ,only time will tell ,but as long as we keep fighting ,well that’s all we can do ,hh
Peter Lawwell
- Thread starter Ray
- Start date
Theverdict1
Well-known member
Maybe he can get his fucking finger out and get the players we need to qualify for the CL now.
That would help T,hh
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
Agreed!
If anyone has time for a longish read on the subject, I just stuck this up on my website if you pardon the blatant self-promotion...
Complacency can’t be allowed to scupper nine-in-a-row
TET
Well-known member
liked your article,
But are you looking through green tinted specs?
two flaws for me
1 no mention of operating costs of the teams you think should have been stronger
2 no mention of the disturbing inflation of champions league quality players
these two flaws are avoided by all proponents of the missed the boat theorists
And if there is a better model than currently what exactly does it involve?
You mention good financial management should not come at cost of on field value and strength
But you don't mention how you can buy stronger players on the pitch long term sustainably by overspending
1 on operational wages
2 by paying premiums that our market will be very unlikely to maintain while competition is very low
All in all I enjoyed your thoughts but like everybody else who says the same thing, they don't actually give a hint of how it can be sustained in Scotland
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
Cheers TET.
In relation to the flaws, I think that while we have a large amount of money in the bank, we're underspending. We also have benefited from the disturbing inflation. We can of course try to sell players for £7/10/12/25million and replace them with £1-3m players, but it's going to get harder all the time.
Not sure about your point 1 on operating costs... which teams?
On your later point re overspending, we're not. We're underspending overall.
We also have lost out on £100-£120m in three failed qualifications in the last 3 years. That's money that could have been ploughed into the team and so helped sustainability.
I don't think anyone is saying Celtic should throw money around like confetti, but ultra conservatism seems an even bigger gamble than actually getting the players in for these games. We can always move players on if it goes wrong (as seen with Dembele), but it would give us the best chance to avert an early exit.
In relation to the flaws, I think that while we have a large amount of money in the bank, we're underspending. We also have benefited from the disturbing inflation. We can of course try to sell players for £7/10/12/25million and replace them with £1-3m players, but it's going to get harder all the time.
Not sure about your point 1 on operating costs... which teams?
On your later point re overspending, we're not. We're underspending overall.
We also have lost out on £100-£120m in three failed qualifications in the last 3 years. That's money that could have been ploughed into the team and so helped sustainability.
I don't think anyone is saying Celtic should throw money around like confetti, but ultra conservatism seems an even bigger gamble than actually getting the players in for these games. We can always move players on if it goes wrong (as seen with Dembele), but it would give us the best chance to avert an early exit.
TET
Well-known member
Ok from my point of view and from any business point of view the finances need to be used correctly to grow the business which in turn grows the the club if done well.
lets just look at your analysis of your thinking above.
1 you claim we lost 100 million in 3 years?
need more information as to why you think this is the case.
Veery flawed since its booking income but not taking into consideration the costs involved in that income.
2 If your business operating costs for any given season are higher than your operating income your club and business is failing. Therefore, adding new players must be within the sustainable operating figures for any given season, unless
a. you have huge cash reserves (but in using cash reserves to go above risk assessed operating income you won't have cash reserves very long and will be in position where you must sell assets to get back below the operating income for the club)
b.you have sugar daddy willing to cover losses.
c. you have new income streams to offset the higher costs
d. another system that off sets the costs of increased operating
3 You say we can always move players on, but if you bought them at premium and get yourself in a mess off field then you will likely need to sell at a discount just to re-stabilise the club.
Now historically with Celtic, it is my understanding that Celtic struggled to keep operating costs below operating Income, and didn't have (a to d) available in 2 above. Therefore they had to sell players to get back under operating income levels.
They didn't have bank of scotland willing to run up hundreds of millions of debt to keep offsetting the premium losses and operating shortfalls, which a certain other club did have.
This may have been because Celtic owners were shit at finance.
BUT Since McCann introduced proper business accountability with sustainability at CELTIC
club has went from being paupers to serial winners and savvy financiers
NB
I agree that we need better players in several positions. I agree we can afford better players. But the balance must be there both ways. the finance must be right for club and thats the hard bit.
Rodgers doesn't add long term value to Celtic, since he cant work in the markets Celtic must operate.
It is my belief that Lennon is very strong in the market we must operate
Value added is the correct word
Value on park
vAlue off park
The minute you throw money down the pan to get minimal increase on park is minute you start dying as club.
I suggest the 100million lost theory is bollocks.
1 most of that money would have been eaten up by bonuses had club got further in Europe.
2 the drop from cl to el did not in fact drop income by 100 million over period
therefore its a flawed way of self deception
if you can get 100m for champions league revenue
or 80m for EL revenue
or 50 million ko in first round of cl
or 30 million for winning jack
these are 4 income levels. rather arbitrary but sufficient I suspect for understanding better.
Now lets say your actual expected income for next season is 75 million based on the above 4 projections.
Lets say you set your ordinary level of wages before bonuses at 60m and if you reach Europa League 25 percent increase bonus and CL 50 percent increase bonus.
in scenario 1 100 million income wages jump to 90 million before you even bought any other players
with income 75 EL club breaks even at 75 million wages but what about other operating costs.
scenario 3 is minus 10 million before any additional operating expenses
And disaster scenario winning jack in the season means you loss 30 million before additional operating losses.
So the simplistic idea where you just bank potential incomes without their corresponding costs will lead to the Ibrox system of overspending based on moonbeams.
The moon beam theory is al very well if you have moonbeam finances from sheiks or sky throwing 100 million at you every season
But in Scotland minor market where Tierney at Celtic is worth 25 million But to buy hi from arsenal would probably be 50+ million at least
Then buying better players at prices club can resell is very difficult and even more difficult every season without specialist managers.
Last edited:
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
I think I'd need to do a quick youtube tutorial on elementary accountancy to get the gist of all of that.
You have mentioned quite a few hypotheticals to support your own theory, but somehow mentioning that losing out on a potential 100-120m by not qualifying for the CL in 3 of the last 5 seasons is 'bollocks'.
We seem to agree that we need and can afford better players and I agree that a balance has to be found. But as we're already steamed down the path of following the huns to their financial doom within a couple of posts, probably best to leave it at that.
You have mentioned quite a few hypotheticals to support your own theory, but somehow mentioning that losing out on a potential 100-120m by not qualifying for the CL in 3 of the last 5 seasons is 'bollocks'.
We seem to agree that we need and can afford better players and I agree that a balance has to be found. But as we're already steamed down the path of following the huns to their financial doom within a couple of posts, probably best to leave it at that.
TET
Well-known member
Hypotheticals with some figures to rumminate
The reason the figure of 100 million is bollocks is it lost revenues only
Its loaded therefore without any counter balance of actual costs that would have been incurred had those levels been attained.
which distorts the truth with green tinted specs and therefore false grounds for argument.
None of what I wrote above is missing massive material financial distortions.
The 100 million lost is a massive material distortion of the truth.
Which hypotheticals in my argument are flawed?
they may be arbitrary but at least they are qualified and open to discussion.
To turn round and say I don't understand basic finance therefore my theory is just as valid as yours seems strange.
Im asking you to put some beef on your assertions and claims that Celtic are too tight with cash.
The season we done treble and qualified for CL
we made 13 million profit
So let that sink in.
we didn't make 60 million profit by getting to champions league group.
Lets start there.
Why is that? Why did we not make 60 million profit.
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
Let's start with the fact that you said we could spend more money on better players. That's the thrust of the argument.
I understand that there are costs involved in playing in the CL and bonus payments and so on. There are costs involved in winning trophies too.
Clubs want to get into the CL because that's where there is money. If we have to pay bonuses, we have made enough money to do so. If the CL income doesn't equate to the figures quoted by UEFA and additionally gained from TV, ticket sales etc, fair enough.
Not qualifying means we don't get access to any of that. We get less income from UEFA, less TV money, smaller crowds, less merchandising, more player exits and are less attractive to potential signings.
I'm more interested in the fact that we can spend more for better players and choose not to.
I understand that there are costs involved in playing in the CL and bonus payments and so on. There are costs involved in winning trophies too.
Clubs want to get into the CL because that's where there is money. If we have to pay bonuses, we have made enough money to do so. If the CL income doesn't equate to the figures quoted by UEFA and additionally gained from TV, ticket sales etc, fair enough.
Not qualifying means we don't get access to any of that. We get less income from UEFA, less TV money, smaller crowds, less merchandising, more player exits and are less attractive to potential signings.
I'm more interested in the fact that we can spend more for better players and choose not to.
TET
Well-known member
Like whom?
And what is your gauge of value added and quality?
You mention loss of 100M
Its your claim, Im asking you to show me some calculations that come to this figure.
Also
how much of that 100 million would you class as profit lost, because at end of the day only profit is added value figure for teams performance.
And if your revenue is 1 billion and your costs greater than 1 billion you haven't made your club stronger.
Its quite a simple set of questions based on your assertions and therefore conclusions
Ill ask again for clarity in another way.
Do you think Celtics current players are getting paid too much?
TET
Well-known member
Did Motherwell miss out on 100 million income from failing to win league and reach champions league?
Surely they did, and their board have shown no ambition by borrowing 100 million to get the 100 million and then once they got the champions league money spending 100 million every season to jet set beyond all the other clubs in Scotland.
Thats why I take umbrage at the 100 million lost statement.
Its based on false foundations by taking a certain figure and promoting it in a false way.
Its also the same bollocks that King tells the horde.
When I say we can afford better players
1 they are not on trees
2 they need to accept the wage structure that fits Celtics model
3 they need to be cost effective and risk assessed for holding value in league structure that probably does automatically come with sell on premiums, so the risks are higher the bigger the outlay on players.
Now that doesn't mean it cant be done. It just means it much more difficult than it would be if we had huge windfall and selling system of the subsidised markets.
Anyway buddy
I can see your hell bent on holding your entire theory
I had hoped you might have been able to put some substance on the details of your claims, but just like Celtic getting better players, its harder to achieve in practise than in theory.
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
You've asked me about 20 questions in the above posts.
If I lose my job, say, paying £40k a year, I would go home and say, I've lost my £40k a year job.
Most people would understand that there's taxes and national insurance to come off that so my take home pay isn't £40k. Plus there's travelling expenses and I might have to forego my super deluxe coffee of a morning and now make my own. I could go one better and punt the kettle and just drink water. It's probably not that bad after all.
You ask "Like whom? And what is your gauge of value added and quality?"
Did I see you clarifying your own thoughts on this when you said "I agree that we need better players in several positions. I agree we can afford better players."?
I'm not presenting an article to the Financial Times here and my sub for contentious lines like the one that causes you to 'take umbrage' couldn't make it in today as he was washing his foot.
So, if you'd said something like, 'aye, you forgot to take into account less bonus payments and the rather miniscule TV earnings from the Europa League,' I might have said, good point there, just as well we have a rubber on the end of our pencil lolz.
However, you started off condescending and just got worse with your 'let that sink in' and 'lets start there' pish, as if I haven't anything else to do that read through Erotica for Accountants Vol 1-7 and then get back to you on every bullet point and analysis.
I'm happy to engage, but in case I gave the wrong impression, I'm one guy not a salaried employee of a publishing conglomerate here to provide an indepth, on-demand answering service to your growing list of queries.
I'm not "hell bent on holding onto my entire theory" and am happy to be corrected.
But nor am I going to try to convince you that that single line on that as the thrust of the article.
In fact, I can't even see where I mentioned £100m in this article.* Are we even talking about the same thing?
*Not to say I wouldn't have used it, but I don't see it in the article in the link I posted.
If I lose my job, say, paying £40k a year, I would go home and say, I've lost my £40k a year job.
Most people would understand that there's taxes and national insurance to come off that so my take home pay isn't £40k. Plus there's travelling expenses and I might have to forego my super deluxe coffee of a morning and now make my own. I could go one better and punt the kettle and just drink water. It's probably not that bad after all.
You ask "Like whom? And what is your gauge of value added and quality?"
Did I see you clarifying your own thoughts on this when you said "I agree that we need better players in several positions. I agree we can afford better players."?
I'm not presenting an article to the Financial Times here and my sub for contentious lines like the one that causes you to 'take umbrage' couldn't make it in today as he was washing his foot.
So, if you'd said something like, 'aye, you forgot to take into account less bonus payments and the rather miniscule TV earnings from the Europa League,' I might have said, good point there, just as well we have a rubber on the end of our pencil lolz.
However, you started off condescending and just got worse with your 'let that sink in' and 'lets start there' pish, as if I haven't anything else to do that read through Erotica for Accountants Vol 1-7 and then get back to you on every bullet point and analysis.
I'm happy to engage, but in case I gave the wrong impression, I'm one guy not a salaried employee of a publishing conglomerate here to provide an indepth, on-demand answering service to your growing list of queries.
I'm not "hell bent on holding onto my entire theory" and am happy to be corrected.
But nor am I going to try to convince you that that single line on that as the thrust of the article.
In fact, I can't even see where I mentioned £100m in this article.* Are we even talking about the same thing?
*Not to say I wouldn't have used it, but I don't see it in the article in the link I posted.
Last edited:
TET
Well-known member
Clearly not pal. I think I know who you are now.
The editor
Yes mate I imagined it all.
Weird that you would do that though.
your strange analogy of losing wages is irrelevant
its more akin to sticking money on at the bookies
you don't come home from bookies having gambled 87 million to get 65 million back then tell yourself you lost out on 100 million by not spending an extra 13 million.
But rather than debate the point
you re-edited it then call me a loony
there was a bloke on here who did that a lot- was that you?
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
Debate what 'point'? You submitted reams of stuff with a multitude of questions.
I never called you a loony. Not for the first time in this tedious thread, you've utterly imagined something, 'pal'.
Don't know who the editor is and what you're referring to there. Have never been on this forum until the other day, so wrong again. Cracking hit rate you have there.
However, I can imagine from what you're saying that I'm not the first person to get quickly tired of you.
As for the analogies, you stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.
Do you really think people go into articles and edit them to win internet pointz? I think you take this whole thing a bit too seriously, if so.
Anyway, before the rest of the forum gets bored to death with this inane drivel, I'm out.
Thanks for the input all the same. It was illuminating.
I never called you a loony. Not for the first time in this tedious thread, you've utterly imagined something, 'pal'.
Don't know who the editor is and what you're referring to there. Have never been on this forum until the other day, so wrong again. Cracking hit rate you have there.
However, I can imagine from what you're saying that I'm not the first person to get quickly tired of you.
As for the analogies, you stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.
Do you really think people go into articles and edit them to win internet pointz? I think you take this whole thing a bit too seriously, if so.
Anyway, before the rest of the forum gets bored to death with this inane drivel, I'm out.
Thanks for the input all the same. It was illuminating.
TET
Well-known member
Aye no problem mate
million questions?
really
I asked you 1
in many different ways because it totally escaped you.
I cant be arsed asking you again.
Its so simple but you cant grasp it.
You suggest Celtic are biscuit tin and should be buying better players. What is the risk level required to get the 100 million if 87 million is not enough?
TET
Well-known member
You made a blog to discuss the failings of Celtics finance over the decades but refuse to enlighten us with forecasts or actual costings involved in the better way
You talk about finance and lawels biscuit tin record
Which part of 87 million costs in the champions league group drubbings is skint flint
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
Ah, I've just noticed, the £100-£120m is in the post above, it wasn't in the website post.
So, I can assume from that, I'm no longer suspected on being some poster who used to post on here, or some person known as the Editor, or someone who was so bothered by your opinion that I'd change an article for you (seriously, you're that important) any other accusation you care to fling about such as me referring to you as a 'loony'.
The stuff about past failings in the blog I'm pretty sure happened, from not fighting to keep Dalglish, to only signing Ian Andrews, to MON's comments about the slow lane, to not signing a striker in January 2009 and the subsequent spiral. I don't believe I need to supply forward projections to comment on these things, just as I wouldn't expect you to be able to give a tactical deconstruction of a game where you criticised a poor performance. Other stuff was opinion, which is why it's in the Opinions sections.
I already engaged with you on this and gave you more time than I should given, your posts were dripping with condescending pish that got increasingly boring.
You want to know the answer to this?
"You suggest Celtic are biscuit tin and should be buying better players. What is the risk level required to get the 100 million if 87 million is not enough?"
Well, as you're the one with the big brain, could always start by asking yourself, as you said the exact same thing yourself.
When you find out the answer, spare us the bother of telling us.
So, I can assume from that, I'm no longer suspected on being some poster who used to post on here, or some person known as the Editor, or someone who was so bothered by your opinion that I'd change an article for you (seriously, you're that important) any other accusation you care to fling about such as me referring to you as a 'loony'.
The stuff about past failings in the blog I'm pretty sure happened, from not fighting to keep Dalglish, to only signing Ian Andrews, to MON's comments about the slow lane, to not signing a striker in January 2009 and the subsequent spiral. I don't believe I need to supply forward projections to comment on these things, just as I wouldn't expect you to be able to give a tactical deconstruction of a game where you criticised a poor performance. Other stuff was opinion, which is why it's in the Opinions sections.
I already engaged with you on this and gave you more time than I should given, your posts were dripping with condescending pish that got increasingly boring.
You want to know the answer to this?
"You suggest Celtic are biscuit tin and should be buying better players. What is the risk level required to get the 100 million if 87 million is not enough?"
Well, as you're the one with the big brain, could always start by asking yourself, as you said the exact same thing yourself.
When you find out the answer, spare us the bother of telling us.
TET
Well-known member
Big brain?
I asked you to explain your financial model that I felt had serious flaws.
You didn't do it instead you got condescending about needing to go to youtube and read up on accounting stuff that is so simple you must be able to understand since you claim Cltic finance teams aren't doing it for your satisfaction.
Its YOU who have went away into weird stuff. Not me.
Im asking you about YOUR theory
But you point blank refuse
Which is fine
Your theory is popular one by the way but like you none of the proponents of the theory ever explain it.
Just like you they are right but don't need to explain the flaw in the current finance set up that you say is seriously hampering Celtic.
e have many resident MSM trolls feeding unsubstantiated attacks on Lawell but never ever explain the better way.
If im condescending, its because you are evasive on a topic you asked people to read.
Its a coincidence that you have the same theory as a number of suspects
So if you are genuine new bloke then I apologise for coming across as a wank
But the fact you evaded the simplest requests on your on thesis makes you very similar to a few of our financial wizards that don't actually explain their wonderful master plan or take very well to be questioned on it.
Best of luck to you pal
Its easy to say you really haven't thought it through therefore your theory might be gash, especially since you cant understand basic accounts.
But like our other resident egos you would rather get nasty when you don't know the answer
Simple answer is pal. You are wrong in your theory.
You got it right when you said if things go wrong you can always sell the players. And historically thats exactly was club had to do.
End of stein era club wasn't affording the wages so had to sell and without stein couldn't replace the best players with equally good players.
Mon had wages way over income and couldn't replace the high earners without potentially becoming insolvent.
Thats what having wages above income does it means you need to sell.
Same reason Rodgers buggered off
The wage ar too high for income but he needs better players and bigger wage budgets which club cant afford.
Thats the answer you don't want to hear.
So skip along to youtube and get watching your basic account videos and learn what income and operation costs means
We can afford better players because we are paying too much currently for our team, but that means we need to sell underperforming overpaid players and replace them with better players on less wages.
Easy to say very hard to do.
The cash reserves buys us some time to get the wages and quality optimised but personally I like what Laell and the finance team have achieved and are still producing under very tricky market conditions.
Im no big brain pal.
But thanks for your endorsement
Most illuminating
GreenTintedSpecs
New member
In your second post on the subject, you hit me with a 750 word post, several list of bullet points, requests for more information on specifics and so on. If the comment about the youtube video was facetious, that's why.
I know it's probably pretty basic, but my theory is simply based on the fact that we had a lot of money sitting in the bank and have been going into games without players. That isn't the best use of resources as far as I can figure out and I don't think I need to do spending projections and so on. It might not meet the required standard for someone who delves in numbers, but that's my opinion.
I don't think we have to spend more than we have. I don't think we even have to spend all of what we have. I do think we should not be sitting on a pile of cash twice the size of Walter White's when we are playing players in the wrong positions.
I don't think it'll lead us to oblivion like the huns. I think investing in players will give us a better chance of qualifying and earning more money. I don't think that's a particularly controversial opinion, although I'm sure others will differ.
Anyway, apologies from my side also. These internet rammies can escalate quickly!
I know it's probably pretty basic, but my theory is simply based on the fact that we had a lot of money sitting in the bank and have been going into games without players. That isn't the best use of resources as far as I can figure out and I don't think I need to do spending projections and so on. It might not meet the required standard for someone who delves in numbers, but that's my opinion.
I don't think we have to spend more than we have. I don't think we even have to spend all of what we have. I do think we should not be sitting on a pile of cash twice the size of Walter White's when we are playing players in the wrong positions.
I don't think it'll lead us to oblivion like the huns. I think investing in players will give us a better chance of qualifying and earning more money. I don't think that's a particularly controversial opinion, although I'm sure others will differ.
Anyway, apologies from my side also. These internet rammies can escalate quickly!
