|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,895 Views)
|
|
Franakamura
|
5 Sep 2014, 02:30 PM
Post #2561
|
- Posts:
- 2,532
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,946
- Joined:
- 7 February 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- Gonga
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:56 PM
- Franakamura
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:49 PM
- Gonga
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:31 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
See your point mate but realistically, lets say as before 4 become mainstays. Can you really see us signing all 4 on a permanent basis? We should only look to have two loanees in IMO. Obviously there is short term benefits but it should be used within reason.
If by then they have formed a decent backbone to the squad and we tackle the CL qualifiers with a settled squad and a bit of talent, then yeah I could see us signing them. If not for another year loan, then at least because we haven't really spent eff all this year. Of course next year could well see a repeat of bringing in a number of loans but I'm not so sure its the worst way to do business any more. These guys are unlikely to want to succeed less in the Hoops just because their owned by another club. They will probably have no more affiliation to their parent club as most players these days, unless already playing for their boyhood club think of their careers as their personal journey. If they sense they can win a few trophies, and be part of something exciting they will probably stay longer. I have no doubt the guys in on loan would want to do well for us, both for our club and their careers.
My problem with the whole scenario is that assuming they are a roaring success, I have zero confidence in our board to release the funds required for signing permanently, even though it would be the right thing to do.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist(or a realist) but my opinion of our board and the people that run our club is currently as low as it has been for 20 odd years.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gonga
|
5 Sep 2014, 02:33 PM
Post #2562
|
- Posts:
- 27,872
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #5,057
- Joined:
- 28 September 2006
- Favourite all-time player
- McStay
|
- Franakamura
- 5 Sep 2014, 02:30 PM
- Gonga
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:56 PM
- Franakamura
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:49 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If by then they have formed a decent backbone to the squad and we tackle the CL qualifiers with a settled squad and a bit of talent, then yeah I could see us signing them. If not for another year loan, then at least because we haven't really spent eff all this year. Of course next year could well see a repeat of bringing in a number of loans but I'm not so sure its the worst way to do business any more. These guys are unlikely to want to succeed less in the Hoops just because their owned by another club. They will probably have no more affiliation to their parent club as most players these days, unless already playing for their boyhood club think of their careers as their personal journey. If they sense they can win a few trophies, and be part of something exciting they will probably stay longer.
I have no doubt the guys in on loan would want to do well for us, both for our club and their careers. My problem with the whole scenario is that assuming they are a roaring success, I have zero confidence in our board to release the funds required for signing permanently, even though it would be the right thing to do. Maybe I'm just a pessimist(or a realist) but my opinion of our board and the people that run our club is currently as low as it has been for 20 odd years. If the board think they can oversee another pre season, CL qualification and transfer window like this one then they really are completely insane.
If Ronny performs well between now and Christmas we will probably spend some money in Januray.
|
|
|
| |
|
bobosfirsttouch
|
5 Sep 2014, 02:58 PM
Post #2563
|
- Posts:
- 450
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20,358
- Joined:
- 29 June 2008
|
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:11 AM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 4 Sep 2014, 04:09 PM
- herbert viola
- 4 Sep 2014, 02:21 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
 You do know i'm not Peter Lawwell right? As far as Lawwell's wages go, i couldn't give an eff. He's still in the job because Desmond and the rest of the board dont seem to reckon they can get someone better for cheaper, if they eventually find someone who can, great. As far as wanting the club to spend more on admin staff than we already do, absolutely yes i do. I want someone who can negotiate a transfer in a more timely manner (relieving Lawwell of his "pseudo-DoF role") and if that costs us an extra half mil a year then so be it. Getting some players in before the qualifiers this season could have made us far far more than that.
You actually want us to spend more on admin? And you don't care how much Lawwell earns? You do get the point that we are wasting money, right ? As i said already, If a proper DoF would improve the running of the club and reduce the power held by Lawwell in this area (which you yourself are unhappy about) then it seems pretty straightforward to me. The money were currently spunking away on 3rd choice signings and collapsed transfers, not to mention the resulting failure to qualify to CL, makes Lawwell's wage look like a pittance.
Being aghast at "spending more on admin" strikes me as penny wise, pound foolish, same way the the club is being run.
|
|
|
| |
|
herbert viola
|
5 Sep 2014, 04:07 PM
Post #2564
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 9,852
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #11,925
- Joined:
- 9 November 2007
|
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 02:58 PM
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:11 AM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 4 Sep 2014, 04:09 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
You actually want us to spend more on admin? And you don't care how much Lawwell earns? You do get the point that we are wasting money, right ?
As i said already, If a proper DoF would improve the running of the club and reduce the power held by Lawwell in this area (which you yourself are unhappy about) then it seems pretty straightforward to me. The money were currently spunking away on 3rd choice signings and collapsed transfers, not to mention the resulting failure to qualify to CL, makes Lawwell's wage look like a pittance. Being aghast at "spending more on admin" strikes me as penny wise, pound foolish, same way the the club is being run. criticising celtic for paying a CEO 20K a week is certainly not being pound foolish, particularly when you consider the cost cutting thats going on elsewhere in the club.
No one disputes your other points, regarding value for money in what the club spends, or bringing in a proper accountable DoF as opposed to the current unaccountable incumbent - heyve been written often enough on here, but to sit and suggest that you dont care what the CEO earns when the club is cost cutting elsewhere is ludicrous.
|
|
|
| |
|
bobosfirsttouch
|
5 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
Post #2565
|
- Posts:
- 450
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20,358
- Joined:
- 29 June 2008
|
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 04:07 PM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 02:58 PM
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:11 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
As i said already, If a proper DoF would improve the running of the club and reduce the power held by Lawwell in this area (which you yourself are unhappy about) then it seems pretty straightforward to me. The money were currently spunking away on 3rd choice signings and collapsed transfers, not to mention the resulting failure to qualify to CL, makes Lawwell's wage look like a pittance. Being aghast at "spending more on admin" strikes me as penny wise, pound foolish, same way the the club is being run.
criticising celtic for paying a CEO 20K a week is certainly not being pound foolish, particularly when you consider the cost cutting thats going on elsewhere in the club. No one disputes your other points, regarding value for money in what the club spends, or bringing in a proper accountable DoF as opposed to the current unaccountable incumbent - heyve been written often enough on here, but to sit and suggest that you dont care what the CEO earns when the club is cost cutting elsewhere is ludicrous. You just argued against bringing in a DoF as you didnt want us increasing our admin spend!
I think Lawwell's wage is like a red rag to a bull for some on here. It does seem too high and i already said id be delighted with someone doing the same job for less but its much harder to find a good CEO than a manager or player. Dermot Desmond certainly isnt one for overcompensating his employees, thats for sure.
Its certainly not ludicrous to be more concerned by the tens of millions we're losing due to poor transfer dealings than with the half a mil a year we could save replacing our CEO.
|
|
|
| |
|
mick82
|
5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Post #2566
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 8,829
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,412
- Joined:
- 30 June 2005
|
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
|
|
|
| |
|
herbert viola
|
5 Sep 2014, 08:17 PM
Post #2567
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 9,852
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #11,925
- Joined:
- 9 November 2007
|
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 04:07 PM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 02:58 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
criticising celtic for paying a CEO 20K a week is certainly not being pound foolish, particularly when you consider the cost cutting thats going on elsewhere in the club. No one disputes your other points, regarding value for money in what the club spends, or bringing in a proper accountable DoF as opposed to the current unaccountable incumbent - heyve been written often enough on here, but to sit and suggest that you dont care what the CEO earns when the club is cost cutting elsewhere is ludicrous.
You just argued against bringing in a DoF as you didnt want us increasing our admin spend! I think Lawwell's wage is like a red rag to a bull for some on here. It does seem too high and i already said id be delighted with someone doing the same job for less but its much harder to find a good CEO than a manager or player. Dermot Desmond certainly isnt one for overcompensating his employees, thats for sure. Its certainly not ludicrous to be more concerned by the tens of millions we're losing due to poor transfer dealings than with the half a mil a year we could save replacing our CEO. Jesus Christ, you really miss the point dont you?
Ive been banging on on this website for 3-4 years that Lawwell is massively overpaid. Much of this before the major downsizing of the last few years. A CEO of a football club in Scotland shouldnt be earning 1m a year. Period. A competent CEO should be able to bring in a DOF, and ensure that money, the finite amount of it that the club has, is spent wisely on players.
He is massively overpaid and has been a crap CEO for years. The few good decisions that are made are outweighed by the many eff ups he has made, year after year, going back to freezing out Balde, to not signing Fletcher, McCarthy, Hooper etc etc, all the way through to the disasterous buys of the last few years. And to cap it all off, he has had the audacity to basically put the entire blame at purchasing players on the shoulders of Neil Lennon, which we all know is a lie.
I want the carrot gone because he has overseen the disasterous last few years, whilst earning a massive sum of money. Bringing in a competent CEO (easily on a third of his wages) and a competent DOF, who takes responsibility for his role would go a long way to avoiding the things you are moaning about. Lawwell is cause.
If you dont care how much he earns, then thats your beef, I give a eff because I dont want our CEO on almost the same salary as our best players.
|
|
|
| |
|
GetFunky
|
5 Sep 2014, 08:24 PM
Post #2568
|
- Posts:
- 7,545
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #31,505
- Joined:
- 9 August 2012
|
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
Aye, on loan ffs.
Most of our new players will be away in May, a long with Van Dijk.
|
|
|
| |
|
Glorious_1967
|
5 Sep 2014, 08:29 PM
Post #2569
|
- Posts:
- 4,514
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #24,559
- Joined:
- 4 October 2009
|
- GetFunky
- 5 Sep 2014, 08:24 PM
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
Aye, on loan ffs. Most of our new players will be away in May, a long with Van Dijk. If the ones with agreed prices work out, we'll still have to work out contracts with them.
So, yeah. They'll be away.
|
|
|
| |
|
frankebhoy
|
5 Sep 2014, 09:08 PM
Post #2570
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 1,957
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13,246
- Joined:
- 23 December 2007
|
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 08:17 PM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 04:07 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
You just argued against bringing in a DoF as you didnt want us increasing our admin spend! I think Lawwell's wage is like a red rag to a bull for some on here. It does seem too high and i already said id be delighted with someone doing the same job for less but its much harder to find a good CEO than a manager or player. Dermot Desmond certainly isnt one for overcompensating his employees, thats for sure. Its certainly not ludicrous to be more concerned by the tens of millions we're losing due to poor transfer dealings than with the half a mil a year we could save replacing our CEO.
Jesus Christ, you really miss the point dont you? Ive been banging on on this website for 3-4 years that Lawwell is massively overpaid. Much of this before the major downsizing of the last few years. A CEO of a football club in Scotland shouldnt be earning 1m a year. Period. A competent CEO should be able to bring in a DOF, and ensure that money, the finite amount of it that the club has, is spent wisely on players. He is massively overpaid and has been a crap CEO for years. The few good decisions that are made are outweighed by the many eff ups he has made, year after year, going back to freezing out Balde, to not signing Fletcher, McCarthy, Hooper etc etc, all the way through to the disasterous buys of the last few years. And to cap it all off, he has had the audacity to basically put the entire blame at purchasing players on the shoulders of Neil Lennon, which we all know is a lie. I want the carrot gone because he has overseen the disasterous last few years, whilst earning a massive sum of money. Bringing in a competent CEO (easily on a third of his wages) and a competent DOF, who takes responsibility for his role would go a long way to avoiding the things you are moaning about. Lawwell is cause. If you dont care how much he earns, then thats your beef, I give a eff because I dont want our CEO on almost the same salary as our best players. THIS
|
|
|
| |
|
bobosfirsttouch
|
6 Sep 2014, 12:24 AM
Post #2571
|
- Posts:
- 450
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20,358
- Joined:
- 29 June 2008
|
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 08:17 PM
- bobosfirsttouch
- 5 Sep 2014, 05:58 PM
- herbert viola
- 5 Sep 2014, 04:07 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepwhen
You just argued against bringing in a DoF as you didnt want us increasing our admin spend! I think Lawwell's wage is like a red rag to a bull for some on here. It does seem too high and i already said id be delighted with someone doing the same job for less but its much harder to find a good CEO than a manager or player. Dermot Desmond certainly isnt one for overcompensating his employees, thats for sure. Its certainly not ludicrous to be more concerned by the tens of millions we're losing due to poor transfer dealings than with the half a mil a year we could save replacing our CEO.
Jesus Christ, you really miss the point dont you? Ive been banging on on this website for 3-4 years that Lawwell is massively overpaid. Much of this before the major downsizing of the last few years. A CEO of a football club in Scotland shouldnt be earning 1m a year. Period. A competent CEO should be able to bring in a DOF, and ensure that money, the finite amount of it that the club has, is spent wisely on players. He is massively overpaid and has been a crap CEO for years. The few good decisions that are made are outweighed by the many eff ups he has made, year after year, going back to freezing out Balde, to not signing Fletcher, McCarthy, Hooper etc etc, all the way through to the disasterous buys of the last few years. And to cap it all off, he has had the audacity to basically put the entire blame at purchasing players on the shoulders of Neil Lennon, which we all know is a lie. I want the carrot gone because he has overseen the disasterous last few years, whilst earning a massive sum of money. Bringing in a competent CEO (easily on a third of his wages) and a competent DOF, who takes responsibility for his role would go a long way to avoiding the things you are moaning about. Lawwell is cause. If you dont care how much he earns, then thats your beef, I give a eff because I dont want our CEO on almost the same salary as our best players. What the eff are you on about?
If you just wanted to rant about wanting Lawwell sacked you could have made a new post instead of replying to mine, plenty of others have managed it. Instead you've ignored most of the points ive made, seized on the one about me not giving an eff what he's paid (still dont, sorry petal) and then accused me of missing the point!
The real point, which i was making and you replied to was that there seems to be far too much blurring of the lines when it comes to who has control of what at Celtic. A clear division of tasks, with Lawwell on the business side, Park scouting and a new competant DoF controlling transfers could only be of benefit the club.
But you carry on painting "Peter Out" on yir bedsheet, just dont carry it by any playgrounds or you'll end up on a register.
|
|
|
| |
|
Bawman
|
6 Sep 2014, 12:35 AM
Post #2572
|
- Posts:
- 33,093
- Group:
- Senior Member
- Member
- #106
- Joined:
- 1 September 2004
|
I think it a tad hypocritical to be guffawing at the huns for what they pay McCoist while we pay our CEO 20% more than that. Lawwell is overpaid, grossly overpaid in fact.
|
|
|
| |
|
herbert viola
|
6 Sep 2014, 12:52 AM
Post #2573
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 9,852
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #11,925
- Joined:
- 9 November 2007
|
- Bawman
- 6 Sep 2014, 12:35 AM
I think it a tad hypocritical to be guffawing at the huns for what they pay McCoist while we pay our CEO 20% more than that. Lawwell is overpaid, grossly overpaid in fact. he gets paid english wages, which if you can get them, then fair enough. But, all celtic supporters should give a shampoo what he gets paid when it is as grossly overstated as you say Bawman. Its disgusting that he gets paid 20K a week, in Scotland, at a club with a turnover of less than 80m. Its disgusting if truth be told, particularly in light of their refusal to pay the living wage, as was suggested at the last AGM.
|
|
|
| |
|
popeyed
|
6 Sep 2014, 06:33 AM
Post #2574
|
Climbing walls while sittin' in a chair.
- Posts:
- 45,147
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #10,307
- Joined:
- 26 August 2007
- Favourite all-time player
- Peter van Honkdonks
|
- Glorious_1967
- 5 Sep 2014, 08:29 PM
- GetFunky
- 5 Sep 2014, 08:24 PM
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
Aye, on loan ffs. Most of our new players will be away in May, a long with Van Dijk.
If the ones with agreed prices work out, we'll still have to work out contracts with them. So, yeah. They'll be away. Pretty sure the way we do those loans is to agree the contract beforehand. So they sign, say, on 15k p/w for 4 years, but the final three obviously only kick in if/when the transfer becomes permanent (which is also agreed beforehand.)
Can't remember what deal it was I was reading about, but that's the way it was put.
|
|
|
| |
|
Klepton
|
6 Sep 2014, 06:38 AM
Post #2575
|
- Posts:
- 7,149
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #30,505
- Joined:
- 16 February 2012
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik
|
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
There's certainly credit for making the signings, but it's outweighed by the board pissing away £15m through making the signings a month late. Being papped out of the Champions League twice in the one month has done our club's reputation no end of harm.
|
|
|
| |
|
josephledley
|
6 Sep 2014, 08:25 AM
Post #2576
|
- Posts:
- 1,289
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,363
- Joined:
- 17 March 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- henrik larsson / Paul lambert
|
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
They sold 50% of the assets we have left before the biggest game on the season so no no credit given on that front.
Again on the attacking player part they didn't sign them anywhere near quick enough. The time to sign them was before legia not after getting pumped out for a 2nd time. So no they can stick there credit up there arse.
As far as I'm concerned someone's head should roll for costing the club 20 million. In any other line of business making decisions that cost you that amount of money would cost you your job unfortunately our board members have circles the wagons so much that no carrot is getting close to them
|
|
|
| |
|
CELTBHOY1988
|
6 Sep 2014, 08:51 AM
Post #2577
|
- Posts:
- 5,441
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #24,665
- Joined:
- 25 October 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- Bawman
- 6 Sep 2014, 12:35 AM
I think it a tad hypocritical to be guffawing at the huns for what they pay McCoist while we pay our CEO 20% more than that. Lawwell is overpaid, grossly overpaid in fact. Most companies overpay their Chief Executive. Lawell is no different to others.
|
|
|
| |
|
randombloke
|
6 Sep 2014, 09:05 AM
Post #2578
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,905
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #359
- Joined:
- 16 November 2004
|
- josephledley
- 6 Sep 2014, 08:25 AM
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
They sold 50% of the assets we have left before the biggest game on the season so no no credit given on that front. Again on the attacking player part they didn't sign them anywhere near quick enough. The time to sign them was before legia not after getting pumped out for a 2nd time. So no they can stick there credit up there arse. As far as I'm concerned someone's head should roll for costing the club 20 million. In any other line of business making decisions that cost you that amount of money would cost you your job unfortunately our board members have circles the wagons so much that no carrot is getting close to them We didn't "lose" £20million, or £15million or any of the other sums that people are bandying about - we failed to qualify for the next stage of a football competition.
I know it's a crazy idea....but we are primarily a football club, the business side is just there to generate the cash to pay wages and put a decent side on the pitch. If we're accusing Lawwell and the board of losing sight of that then we maybe need to take a good look at our own obsession with the CL cash windfall and remember it's only a reward for getting to the group stage, not the reason for being there in the first place.
If you choose to look at it in pure business terms then we pitched for a big contract and failed to get it.....happens all the time in every business and heads don't roll for it.
|
|
|
| |
|
randombloke
|
6 Sep 2014, 09:29 AM
Post #2579
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,905
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #359
- Joined:
- 16 November 2004
|
- Franakamura
- 5 Sep 2014, 02:30 PM
- Gonga
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:56 PM
- Franakamura
- 5 Sep 2014, 01:49 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If by then they have formed a decent backbone to the squad and we tackle the CL qualifiers with a settled squad and a bit of talent, then yeah I could see us signing them. If not for another year loan, then at least because we haven't really spent eff all this year. Of course next year could well see a repeat of bringing in a number of loans but I'm not so sure its the worst way to do business any more. These guys are unlikely to want to succeed less in the Hoops just because their owned by another club. They will probably have no more affiliation to their parent club as most players these days, unless already playing for their boyhood club think of their careers as their personal journey. If they sense they can win a few trophies, and be part of something exciting they will probably stay longer.
I have no doubt the guys in on loan would want to do well for us, both for our club and their careers. My problem with the whole scenario is that assuming they are a roaring success, I have zero confidence in our board to release the funds required for signing permanently, even though it would be the right thing to do. Maybe I'm just a pessimist(or a realist) but my opinion of our board and the people that run our club is currently as low as it has been for 20 odd years. Denayer is out of our reach if he proves to be a good 'un - that seems clear to me. Man City won't be desperate to sell and if he's even good enough for their bench he'll be heading back there come the summer.
Tonev and Bergot could possibly be secured if they do well and are still surplus to demands at their clubs by the summer. Transfer fees should be achievable, the wage cuts we'd be asking them to take might be more of a stumbling block.
Guidietti seems like the most likely to become a permanent signing as he'll be a free agent by the summer so we can probably afford to bring him in at the top of our wage scale (if he's good enough to merit it of course). The caveat there is that if he impresses then other richer clubs may be sniffing around by the summer.
In any case, I think the reliance on loan signings this summer is just a temporary fix for the gaps that Ronny sees in the squad....his remit (IMO) is that by next summer he'll be progressing more players from our youth side through the first team to fill those gaps and having less reliance on throwing money at mediocre/unproven players to get them to choose us over English Championship clubs as their stepping stone to the EPL.
There's nothing to say that we can't supplement a "grow your own" strategy with the odd quality signing of course. However it may take a season or two of pain as we transition to a mostly home grown squad to free up the money we are currently spending on unspectacular purchases and use it for one or two genuinely exciting players.
As I think I've said in a few recent posts, if the move to a mostly home grown side is the plan (and if it isn't then Deila's appointment makes no sense whatsoever) then the club have shot themselves in the foot by not making it clear to the fans. Having said that, I can see why they wouldn't want to make it too obvious to the current squad that their days may be numbered while we are relying on them to get us through the early part of the season.
|
|
|
| |
|
josephledley
|
6 Sep 2014, 10:28 AM
Post #2580
|
- Posts:
- 1,289
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,363
- Joined:
- 17 March 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- henrik larsson / Paul lambert
|
- randombloke
- 6 Sep 2014, 09:05 AM
- josephledley
- 6 Sep 2014, 08:25 AM
- mick82
- 5 Sep 2014, 06:04 PM
Been on holiday so had restricted access to the site.
I assume there has been no credit afforded for selling just one major player (who we all thought would be sold this window), retaining the bill of the rest of the squad, and bringing in four attacking players in the areas we need them?
They sold 50% of the assets we have left before the biggest game on the season so no no credit given on that front. Again on the attacking player part they didn't sign them anywhere near quick enough. The time to sign them was before legia not after getting pumped out for a 2nd time. So no they can stick there credit up there arse. As far as I'm concerned someone's head should roll for costing the club 20 million. In any other line of business making decisions that cost you that amount of money would cost you your job unfortunately our board members have circles the wagons so much that no carrot is getting close to them
We didn't "lose" £20million, or £15million or any of the other sums that people are bandying about - we failed to qualify for the next stage of a football competition. I know it's a crazy idea....but we are primarily a football club, the business side is just there to generate the cash to pay wages and put a decent side on the pitch. If we're accusing Lawwell and the board of losing sight of that then we maybe need to take a good look at our own obsession with the CL cash windfall and remember it's only a reward for getting to the group stage, not the reason for being there in the first place. If you choose to look at it in pure business terms then we pitched for a big contract and failed to get it.....happens all the time in every business and heads don't roll for it. Aye and if morrisons had pitched for 20 million contract against the local convenience store and didn't get it cause they failed to prepare properly then that person would be getting the heave ho.
Celtic lost 20 million by failing to do the job properly off the field.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|