I have to agree with a lot of what's being said our board see lenny as the cheap option.that's good for the money people as for European football we are standing still or going backwards.I understand we can't go out and blow all the club's money on 3 or four 10 million plus players.but if the club was to get 3 or 4 5 million plus players in the positions that are needed that would give lenny or a new manager the strength to carry us to the 10.we have gone this far don't take your eye of the ball thier is to much at stake .
Poll on Lennon to be the next full time Manager
- Thread starter TET
- Start date
TET
Well-known member
So what are these figures you are basing Celtics investment upon.
Ive given you the figures above that i see from last years accounts.
55m income from winning treble
103 from CL plus treble
our wages were 87 million.
You are claiming board are not taking corect risk level.
Im saying forget about income from player sales just now.
Im estimating losing dembele and rodgers team makes op costs around 80 million like for like last year as estimate.
Before any business can invest properly into anything it needs to set its opertaion cost risk assessed levels
So im asking you what should those levels of operation costs be set at to get at least 105 million from champions league top level income of 105 million group stage total income.
its quite plain and simple question.
If we get treble we get 55m income if we get Champions legaue windfall we get 105 million
What is the risk level you require with operation costs?
Currently 80 level would mean 25 million loss if we get KO in first qualifier 25 million profit if we get CL group stages.
Ive given you the figures above that i see from last years accounts.
55m income from winning treble
103 from CL plus treble
our wages were 87 million.
You are claiming board are not taking corect risk level.
Im saying forget about income from player sales just now.
Im estimating losing dembele and rodgers team makes op costs around 80 million like for like last year as estimate.
Before any business can invest properly into anything it needs to set its opertaion cost risk assessed levels
So im asking you what should those levels of operation costs be set at to get at least 105 million from champions league top level income of 105 million group stage total income.
its quite plain and simple question.
If we get treble we get 55m income if we get Champions legaue windfall we get 105 million
What is the risk level you require with operation costs?
Currently 80 level would mean 25 million loss if we get KO in first qualifier 25 million profit if we get CL group stages.
Noah Billy
Well-known member
We need a new broom. Not a former player. Not Irish. Not Ginger. Not cheap. 40 odd leagues in Europe , surely there's something new and exciting out there?
TET
Well-known member
Aye but is the new exciting dude value added?
Does he guaranteee anything?
Ia he motivated to do well for Celtic?
Is he likely to run off in middle of season?
For me value added with motivation and acclimatised to the particular cultural pressures Glasgow can and will bring are absolutely necessary.
Very few people tick more boxes for me than Neil.
Who is the best value added on/off field manager that would be motivated to take on the risks and pressures of playing in small league with relatively low budget and can bring in better players than we currently have for less wages than we currently pay.
Aprrox Total Income
lets say Celtic win jack. 45
Celtic win treble 55
Reach Europa League Group 85
Reach Champions league 105
Now lets say your bookies man and these are your winnings potentials. How much do you stick down as your gamble with these returns as example.
Brendan Rodgers ran away (I love Celtic, man) with bet of 87 Million. Is 87 million a worthwhile bet with the high odds against getting to Champions league?
Does 87 Million get you high enough quality willing to play in cold Scotland against hammer throwers and does it guarantee you at least 105 return, with the much higher odds for getting less than 85 million return.
I cant undertsand why so many want better players but very seldom address the risks of getting these new players.
I want new better players.
I want to get to Champions league latter stages more often.
Looking at the potential incomes is fine.
But where is the corresponding risk values to acheive those returns.
And who are these people who can and will guarantee better value on feild for lower costs off-field?
Im assuming most pople are aware Rangers are dead.
Was it the risk retrun model that killed them?
Did they need to pay more money than European clubs as wages to attract these highest quality players?
At one time Scotland produced high quality players accross board and therefor could afford higher quality players by buying from home market at reasonable prices.
Keeping foreign best players (mercanaries) to come to Scotland needs much higher wages than they could get in a league with better on feild and talent prospects.
Scotland isnt a culture that many people can handle for long periods except people who have similar culture.
Most of worlds top players who are attracted to champions league want big wages or big city lifes in Europes elite cities wher they can blend into the back ground.
Scotland not only offer you few big city perks, it actually comes with fish bowl mentality, and intense scrutiny, and lower wages than much easier places to work and thrive.
Im all for New broom.
No matter who gets job Im gonna support them.
But at moment for me Neil ticks most boxes relating to above pressures and expectations, IMO.
Rdogers who claims he still adores Celtic couldnt handle the pressures at the budgets that are necessary for sustainable progression.
I genuinely think Lennon adds much more value for money.
manhattan tim
Well-known member
my feelings exactly im afraid.... they should have shown Lawwell the door when the sleekit one slunk out
manhattan tim
Well-known member
all these questions have a positive answer. we have qualified for the groups enough times in the last decade to prove that we can do it whent the team is run properly. even this year we made money while not making the cl. remember, celtic runs its club not to pay taxes. the key thing is not how much you earn on the statement but how much your cash flow is. we have lots. some of that wage bill is for accruals that may never be earned.. they threw in the kitchen sink for expenses this year....if revenue is down next year so will accruals be..............
if we sit on our hands the huns will catch us. they really dont care and when dave king goes bust another gloryhound will take his place.
this year we could have made the groups if we bought some good backs instead of nickel and diming through hendry and compper..if we bought two we could have sold boyata and recouped a lot of the investment.
being fatalist means giving up.......we must keep demanding better until we get it
manhattan tim
Well-known member
if we dont keep progressing and the imported players see we are not after excellence the good ones will leave us before we mature them and we will get 5mm transfer fees instead of L15 or more..............going small is not the answer.
TET
Well-known member
What im putting forward is a basic risk metric MT
You say demand more but im asking for figures that are more appropriate than mine or at very leats ballpark figures to digest and analyse as to value added.
Your specualtions of had we done this guarantees nothing.
I agree with you, but this is divertion to what im asking.
Im hering lots of we should have done this differently but im hearing no real viable breakdowns of what would have been better risks and their financial costs.
I hear lots of to get the 50 million add on from CL we should be spending bigger.
But for some reason most people bypass the fact that had we qualified fro CL this year without any additions our costs would have probably been 87M approx
And im asking how much more should club have spent getting more Central defenders that were better value added than the guys who with hindsight didt cut it.
Hindsight is wonnderful but at time they seemed reasonable purchases.
Real figures or at least ball park estimates please.
TET
Well-known member
Who is saying go small?
We are already pretty risky without further expansion of operation costs.
What further expansion should Celtic risk to get same return they would get with less risk.
87m would have been the op costs approx this season had celtic reached CL with 105 M approx return.
Would anyone have liked to see them up the op costs to 100M to get 105?
Last edited:
TET
Well-known member
We cant really talk about investments until we have examined a set practical risk assessed operation cost per year budget.
We want 105M return what should club be rsiking per year or operation costs to acheive the 105M
Rodger had taken it to a new record high of 87 Miilion
Im estimating that with rodgers and dembele off the pay roll current op costs if we earned 105 M would be 80 million.
Should we be higher than 80 million op costs or less or is 80 million the correct level?
A new manager of high calibre would be expecting same as rodgers at least which is closer to 90 million but he alone would raise the ops to that level currently without expnasion of op costs for players.
We can all say must be moving forwards always. but the retrun of 105 million is pretty fixed around 105 million for forseeable future.
To get beyond Group in Champions league you are then into the oligarchs playground, but with Celtics income around 105 max Celtic would need more than just couple good players to compete at that higher level.
So lets just stick to Champions league which is at least acheiveable each season.
What should the operation costs be assuming we it guarantees Champions league group stages.
70 million
80 million
90 million
100 million
bearing in mind 105 million is probably around what these operation costs would be trying to acheive.
The dynamic for Lenny was come in when Rodgers walked out, steady the ship, win the treble and in doing so get himself the job. Why change that at this stage?
Imagine giving him the job then things go badly wrong...like Inverness away in his first season as boss.
Imagine giving him the job then things go badly wrong...like Inverness away in his first season as boss.
jinxy67
Well-known member
We are devoid of all ambition and Rogers proved that?????
How did Rogers doing the dirty on us prove we had no ambition???
He done everything behind the boards back, the only thing he proved was that he was a rhat bastard!!!
I agree with you about it being futile about us (the fans) thinking about who we would want as manager. Also I don't think it should be lennon if its only because its cheaper and the board think they can walk all over him. Don't think lennon will let that happen
Winter
Well-known member
What's changed with lenny since last he left? Some say that hes a more mature manager now even though he was only just dismissed from his last post for throwing a chair allegedly. I don't know the details of that incident it reminds me of when fergie threw a boot at Beckham's head, for which fergie was applauded almost but times have changed since then. Others say that he's a ned and will never change. I like to think a little of both. His experiences of being Celtic manager previously coupled with his other managerial experiences would suggest that he's a more matured and learned manager and this time round even better suited. We need the 'ned' in Neil Lennon for whats coming up. We will face a fight like no other next season off the park as much as on it and we will need the rebelious never say die attitude lenny has in him. The more I think it through I'm actually convincing myself that we will need lenny as manager or as part of the staff team more than ever.
Theverdict1
Well-known member
My point is there is no way Rogers would go to Leicester if it wasn’t clear there was a problem with different definitions about ambition. How he did it doesn’t answer why.
Last edited:
TET
Well-known member
Youve lost me.
Problem with different definitions of ambition?
When does ambition become wealth destruction and going backwards rather than forwards?
Rodgers was not even able to guarantee 105 million income from operations with 87 million contractual certainty.
Was that good or bad ambition by board?
Did Rodgers need more than 87 million to reach 105 million?
is that beyond Rodgers undertstanding of management? If so, is he rally world class manager?
Winter
Well-known member
It's too early in the day for my hungover head to go into numbers etc. I would say that there are clubs such as AEK and many more with similar aspirations to ours that would love to be in Celtics financial position. They aren't but still AEK advanced past us. Things went wrong definately many things at a crucial time. The costs you mentioned , i would think should be enough for Celtic to advance to the group stages of the champions league at least. It's a sport though so costs guarantee nothing.
Theverdict1
Well-known member
TET
Well-known member
I fully agree that Celtic should have been favourites in that match.
But on the other hand they jumped straight into competition at that stage we at least had few games behind us.
So with no real match speed/fitness they played basic counter football and beat us. Even though greek league is crippled financially they must have higher overall cooefficient since Celtic started in round 1 they entered at round 3.
Was always a triickky tie to naviagate. But with better practical tactics and a manager who wasnt playing funny bugger behind the scenes we could mand maybe should have beaten them.
Didnt and put whole operation risks into jeopardy. Seems they managed to overcome the risks with decent europa run but with lotta luck, and to be honest even a dismal underperfoming with the costs to run our years operations.
IMO rodgers was not value added.
He did get doubletrble and invincible run but he did it by having trully excessive operation costs that were thankfully covered by CL entry.
He neded to reach CL to match those costs he burdened club with.
Yet most people see the club as being biscuit tin and not risk aware. I dont buy that theory until i see more detailed sustainble growth budgets for these new levels of ambition.
But still the Not Ambitioius enough proponents never seem to lay out the better ambitious budgets and how they can be sustained with growth.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Celtic Signing Kieran Tierney Would Not Remotely Be In Our Best Interests.- Latest: James Forrest
Share this page