Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,908 Views)
quattrobhoy
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
On after the break on BT Sport 1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corky Buczek
Member Avatar
Trolololo
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 04:14 PM
Corky Buczek
30 Aug 2014, 04:06 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 03:46 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
up to a point Murph. Given our resources we should be out-performing them.

The bottom line - for two seasons in a row we went into a CL qualifying campaign totally unprepared. We got away with it - just - last year. This year it has exploded in a way not even a pessimistic burger like me could have expected.

And that is down to PL.
We are out-performing them. You can't just look at one campaign in isolation. These comparisons with Maribor and Legia are absolute nonsense. Maribor have only been in the Champions League once before and Legia have never qualified. We need to steer the debate away from these pointless comparisons with other clubs who happened to take advantage of us while in a period of transition.
What was the transition last summer ? Nope, we decided to cash in our better players and not replace them - and thus we just edged out Elsborg - led up front by a certain Mo Bangura - and narrowly avoided our biggest European humiliation against Karagandy. Had it been either Legia or Maribor last year there is a good chance we would have been out.

Our transfer policy and our way of dealing in the summer is an utter shambles Murph - that is why we are vulnerable against such teams.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barnsey
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Corky Buczek
30 Aug 2014, 04:25 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 04:14 PM
Corky Buczek
30 Aug 2014, 04:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We are out-performing them. You can't just look at one campaign in isolation. These comparisons with Maribor and Legia are absolute nonsense. Maribor have only been in the Champions League once before and Legia have never qualified. We need to steer the debate away from these pointless comparisons with other clubs who happened to take advantage of us while in a period of transition.
What was the transition last summer ? Nope, we decided to cash in our better players and not replace them - and thus we just edged out Elsborg - led up front by a certain Mo Bangura - and narrowly avoided our biggest European humiliation against Karagandy. Had it been either Legia or Maribor last year there is a good chance we would have been out.

Our transfer policy and our way of dealing in the summer is an utter shambles Murph - that is why we are vulnerable against such teams.

Throw in the fact we've a bargain basement manager who is obsessed with systems and playing people out of position and I would say your assessment is bang on
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubbytubthumper
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Where is the questions about the mismanagement of funds brought in. How can we be spending £40M on wages with the level of pish we have in this squad? That is the question I want answered above all others. We have made a rod for our own back by overpaying players of such a poor quality. what would be the combined wage for some of the dross in our squad who are clearly not in our plans. ot even counting players who have just been terrible this season.

Balde
Pukki
Boerrighter
Griffiths
Zaluska
McGeough
Kayal (although he looks to be finding a wee bit form he has been pish the last 3 seasons)

seven players off the top of my head who should have been punted this summer. say an average of 12K a week each there is 84K a week that could be shaved off the wage bill.

Over £4M a year. That is gross mismanagement. I obviously have no idea if the level of wages is anywhere near accurate but as an estimate it isn't far off.

I wonder if the level of wages includes his wages and bonuses, Parks wages and bonuses. These should purely be based on the level of performance - if a signing makes a loss or is a flop this should impact on the bonuses paid to the people in charge of bringing them in.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SacredHoops
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Corky Buczek
30 Aug 2014, 04:25 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 04:14 PM
Corky Buczek
30 Aug 2014, 04:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We are out-performing them. You can't just look at one campaign in isolation. These comparisons with Maribor and Legia are absolute nonsense. Maribor have only been in the Champions League once before and Legia have never qualified. We need to steer the debate away from these pointless comparisons with other clubs who happened to take advantage of us while in a period of transition.
What was the transition last summer ? Nope, we decided to cash in our better players and not replace them - and thus we just edged out Elsborg - led up front by a certain Mo Bangura - and narrowly avoided our biggest European humiliation against Karagandy. Had it been either Legia or Maribor last year there is a good chance we would have been out.

Our transfer policy and our way of dealing in the summer is an utter shambles Murph - that is why we are vulnerable against such teams.

Of course it's a shambles. Anyone can see it.

Selling Forster and replacing him with 3 games in 3 years Gordon is reckless.
Selling Hooper and replacing him with a variety of cheap buys with crap track records was stupid and obviously hasn't worked.
Selling Wanyama and replacing him with nobody was unambitious to say the least.

Obviously players will want to move on eventually but we make no effort to keep them or give them any incentive to stay. I've made this point a hundred times but when was the last time a team came in for one of our players and he wasn't sold? We just allow the team to be broken up and have no consistency year to year through pure short termism, grabbing the cash when it's offered disregarding the future of the team.

On a slightly related note it's no surprise that there is such disinterest in the team from supporters. Who in their right mind is ever going to feel any kind of attachment to these players?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neil Jung
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Same old pish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mubo Loravcik
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why do some people get so defensive when others ask where the money is being invested, if clearly not on signing players? :lol:

It may technically be accounted for, but it's either used on a bizarrely high wage bill or on non-football investments like The Celtic Way and the Kerrydale Bar.

Even taking into account the few million we've lost on the £100 deduction on season tickets and declining attendances (which I'd argue they've largely contributed to), it doesn't detract from the fact we have spend ZERO POUNDS ON TRANSFER FEES. Maybe now we'll spend a couple of million on Scepovic when the damage has already been done and with 30 hours left in this 'difficult environment' that is the transfer window, but it's far from acceptable.

His remuneration and refusal to implement the living wage is just a further slap on the face; pure propaganda and 'more than a club' bollox.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
I was too lazy to check the figures but what you outline was what I suspected. As I recall, season ticket numbers were going down long before the demise of the hun. The MSM aren't going to call him out on it though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marado
Member Avatar
I'll give you a war you won't believe.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lustig and Me
30 Aug 2014, 03:13 PM
What programme?
Cash in the attic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lubo The Magician
Member Avatar
The Devil's right hand...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Marado
30 Aug 2014, 05:18 PM
Lustig and Me
30 Aug 2014, 03:13 PM
What programme?
Cash in the attic.
The Celtic version: Crap on the Bench
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neil Jung
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
30 Aug 2014, 05:16 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
I was too lazy to check the figures but what you outline was what I suspected. As I recall, season ticket numbers were going down long before the demise of the hun. The MSM aren't going to call him out on it though.
Total Labour Costs of the club is £40.75million. I don't know if Lawwell bonus is included in that but if it is one person at the club takes out near 2.5% of the wages. That includes everybody who works at the club. If the bonus isn't included its over 1%. Is that acceptable?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wigwam
Member Avatar
Older than dirt
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lubo The Magician
30 Aug 2014, 05:44 PM
Marado
30 Aug 2014, 05:18 PM
Lustig and Me
30 Aug 2014, 03:13 PM
What programme?
Cash in the attic.
The Celtic version: Crap on the Bench
That was a repeat from 2 years ago, current series is called 'crap on the pitch'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brogan
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Wanyerma
30 Aug 2014, 03:42 PM
brogan
30 Aug 2014, 02:51 PM
Wanyerma
30 Aug 2014, 01:00 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
and whit,,,theyrer pish tae.
They beat us, with a fraction of our resources.

They have better players than us.

I would have thought the "whit" was obvious.
ive never said no one without sky money would beat us..............if we had a proportionate share o sky money ie celtic fans pay in more to skys coffers than most individual english teams fans do then we would have a better chance of competing.in europe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpiritofLisbon
Member Avatar
Getting noticed in the reserves
[ *  * ]
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
Very good points !! So if you have worked this out then surely Lawwell also knows that the Champions League group stages is by far the most important goal of our season.

Why then did he not buy a couple of players in June and tell Southampton they must wait until after the CL qualifiers before they get Forster.

The only reason he is bringing in loan players is so he does not have to spend any capital on transfer fees. Lawwell is single handedly downsizing our club. What happens next year when we have no players to sell ? Even more loans ?

In some games this season we will have 11 players on the field and only 7 of them will be Celts !! Can anyone remember another Celtic side from the past that contained only 7 of our own players ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corky Buczek
Member Avatar
Trolololo
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
Agreed

I don't doubt that we have lost some season tickets (although that nest egg was already on the slide before Oldco's demise) and corporate has been hit hard but as you correctly point out, CL income more than offsets that.

It is utter drivel from Lawwell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zurawski 7
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.
that bits not true. the rules changed long before the huns died and that rule is the exact reason we played arsenal in the playoff. because we lost the league and werent in the champions league

wont be relevant anytime in the future though as theres no chance of 2 sides from scotland making the cl

theres plenty of reasons to pick holes in lawwells nonsense the past few days but i dont think the losing 10m from the demise of the huns is one of them
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
murphio
Member Avatar
Could start a row in an empty room
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Zurawski 7
30 Aug 2014, 06:18 PM
theres plenty of reasons to pick holes in lawwells nonsense the past few days but i dont think the losing 10m from the demise of the huns is one of them
We haven't lost 10m from the demise of Rangers. In 2010, with Rangers in the league, our turnover was 23m less than it was in 2013. Lawwell has added the £100 reduction off the season book to the revenue from the Glasgow derby games and plucked a 10m loss from the air. The actual income generated is more - not less. We took a hit in one pocket but more than made up for it in the other. Rangers demise has not been bad for Celtic's finances and that is a fact no matter what Lawwell says. It is our own complacency and lack of investment which is going to cost us next year - not the lack of Rangers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quiet Assasin
Member Avatar
..for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SpiritofLisbon
30 Aug 2014, 06:16 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
Very good points !! So if you have worked this out then surely Lawwell also knows that the Champions League group stages is by far the most important goal of our season.

Why then did he not buy a couple of players in June and tell Southampton they must wait until after the CL qualifiers before they get Forster.

The only reason he is bringing in loan players is so he does not have to spend any capital on transfer fees. Lawwell is single handedly downsizing our club. What happens next year when we have no players to sell ? Even more loans ?

In some games this season we will have 11 players on the field and only 7 of them will be Celts !! Can anyone remember another Celtic side from the past that contained only 7 of our own players ?

The first team we put out contained none so at least we're ahead of that.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gerry1888
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
30 Aug 2014, 05:16 PM
murphio
30 Aug 2014, 05:10 PM
Lawwell is currently on a charm offensive with the media. In another interview to be published tomorrow he has stated Celtic are losing 10m a season from Rangers being out of the SPL and in order to make that money up, he has to sell players. So, let's have a small look at that particular claim. In 2009 Celtic's turnover was 72.59 - with Rangers in the league. In 2010 Celtic's turnover dropped to 61.7m - with Rangers in the league. In 2011 turnover was reduced again to 52.6m - with Rangers in the league and was a figure consolidated by the sales of McGeady and McManus.

Since Rangers' demise we posted a small reduction in turnover in the following 2012 season (51.34m) but revenue was largely the same and included the sale of Ki. But in the following year, 2013, (with Champions League revenue coming back) we were back at 2009 levels (75.82m). What is clear to me (and I am sure the upcoming figures will see a similar trend) is that Rangers being out of the league is not a major factor in determining Celtic's income levels. We generated £23m more last season than we did in 2011 with Rangers in the league. The only thing which really makes a significant difference to income levels is Champions League participation.

You also have to bear in mind that since Rangers' demise Platini's rule changes done Celtic a massive, massive favour. Back in 2010 - with Rangers in the League - Tony Mowbray had to face Arsenal for a place in the group stages. The introduction of a champions route has made participation in the group stages are much more attainable goal. On top of that, since Rangers' demise, we have no competition for Scotland's only Champions League place. We have effectively a free run at it.

This stuff about having to sell players now that Rangers are gone is - to put it mildly - a lot of crap. Their demise might have cost the club some money in the short term (if you take into account the 100 reduction on the season book and lost revenue from derby games) but the long term gain has been far, far greater. The Champions League is the only revenue stream we should be worrying about but thanks to the fact we have not only wiped out bank debt but are sitting on cash while neglecting the team, next year's results are likely to be back at 2011 levels (with Rangers in the league).
I was too lazy to check the figures but what you outline was what I suspected. As I recall, season ticket numbers were going down long before the demise of the hun. The MSM aren't going to call him out on it though.
don't know if it's 10m but income is down (not all because the huns died)

if you take the £100 of the season ticket
the loss of the huns ticket money for 2 home games
the fall in season ticket sales (not all because the huns died)
the fall in match day sponsorship
prize money for winning the league is down also (tv deal)

there's probably more.

as you say the biggest income for us is CL money, then you need to get your players in early for the qualifiers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply