DHoopster
Well-known member
TETS A
liked your article,
But are you looking through green tinted specs?
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.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.
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
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
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.
