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 (1,414,894 Views)
FenianJack
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Exactly "we pitched for a big contract and failed to get it". The question is why ? We were in pole position to get the big contract- wed been handed every opportunity - a chance to re-present our powerpoint.....- the obstacle to our getting it was a no hoper and we lost it ? Happens all the time ? Naw.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CaltonBhoy1967
Member Avatar
Billy McNeill - "Mr Celtic"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CELTBHOY1988
6 Sep 2014, 08:51 AM
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. Lawwell is no different to others.
Any CEO who cost their company £15-£20million+ would be hunted let alone one who had a second bite at it and still did feck all to improve the scenario which cost the failure first time around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lenobhoy
Member Avatar
Catch some light and it'll be alright
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Klepton
6 Sep 2014, 06:38 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?
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.
Exactly, add in the fact that the we nearly ended up with no striker and two by the skin of our teeth and it again proves that we do not have a proper transfer startegy in place. Lawwell should not be given any credit, his huge salary will see him ok.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe the Baker
Member Avatar
It feels like yesterday... I wish it was tomorrow.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CaltonBhoy1967
6 Sep 2014, 10:37 AM
CELTBHOY1988
6 Sep 2014, 08:51 AM
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. Lawwell is no different to others.
Any CEO who cost their company £15-£20million+ would be hunted let alone one who had a second bite at it and still did feck all to improve the scenario which cost the failure first time around.
This, absolutely bang on the money this.

After the let off with Warsaw, Celtic fans the length and breadth of the country, and beyond, were hoping we capitalised on our incredible piece of good fortune. For Lawwell to recklessly throw the dice again in a gamble and go at Maribor without a player added should cost him his job.

I'm not happy we're in the Europa, Deila takes his share of the blame for tactical naiviety but Lawwell could have done so much more to help us get to the Champions league.
That he point blank refused to do so should see him out on his ear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubbytubthumper
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To be fair to the board and Lawwell they have finally loosened the purse strings and signed a couple of decent strikers. Guidetti could turn out to be a fantastic bit of business if he can grab some goals and stay fit and sign on again next season. I was slating the board on Transfer deadline day due to their inactivity - but they finally got what we needed.
That said they have closed the stable door after the horse has bolted when it comes to the CL given Stevie Wonder and the guy out of Peters and Lee could see we needed a more potent goalscoring threat, for that gamble alone he needs his bawsack toed but it wont happen. Just happy we got the new guys in eventually.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CELTBHOY1988
6 Sep 2014, 08:51 AM
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. Lawwell is no different to others.
More than 1% of annual turnover (and that's not including bonuses)?

But hey, he listened to the boos and got in a couple of as yet unproven strikers. I'd like to think a million earning CEO would be a little more proactive than that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
herbert viola
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
We punt footballers when they don't perform over a period. Why not Lawwell?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
prettygreen
Member Avatar
and white upon my chest
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
herbert viola
6 Sep 2014, 01:07 PM
randombloke
6 Sep 2014, 09:05 AM
josephledley
6 Sep 2014, 08:25 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
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.
We punt footballers when they don't perform over a period. Why not Lawwell?
correct. and this is the problem we have. the powers at the top dont take accountability for their failings, and it looks like it is going to continue this way
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
randombloke
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
prettygreen
7 Sep 2014, 08:24 AM
herbert viola
6 Sep 2014, 01:07 PM
randombloke
6 Sep 2014, 09:05 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We punt footballers when they don't perform over a period. Why not Lawwell?
correct. and this is the problem we have. the powers at the top dont take accountability for their failings, and it looks like it is going to continue this way
If we sack the CEO every time we have a run of bad results/poor form on the pitch it will soon become a poisoned chalice position that nobody with any credibility wants.

yes, I know the "failings" that you're talking about are wider than just failing to get to the CL group stage this year.....but clearly the board (okay, Desmond) are still content that Lawwell is fulfilling his remit well enough to keep him in his position.

As a CEO Lawwell's objectives will be broad and long term, so one year of missed CL income won't be anywhere near a sacking offence. His main remit at the moment I'd guess will be to generate cash to fund the team in a time of dwindling incomes across fitba (EPL teams with Sky TV windfall every year excepted).

Basically we don't know what the board's long term plan really is - it could be to move to having a team that has at least 50% of the squad developed from our own youth system (which is as I said previously the only policy that makes sense of the Deila appointment to me)....or they could be conserving cash in case we need to spend big to see off Sevco when/if they return to the top flight - we might think they're a busted flush, but the board may very well be a bit paranoid about them getting a decent level of investment (or just running up a scheidtload of debt while the authorities turn a blind eye).

Point is, while we're unhappy about the level of investment and results on the pitch, for all we know Lawwell is actually exceeding his targets by securing CL income 2 years out of 3 while keeping the wage bill on-budget and whatever 5 year plan he's working to on-track.
Edited by randombloke, 7 Sep 2014, 09:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
randombloke
7 Sep 2014, 09:36 AM
Basically we don't know what the board's long term plan really is
Which is shameful in itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seaneh
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Looks like the Gb Are going to be back for the next game. Entirely predictable from Lawwell and his cronies. If I was them I'd tell him to ram it for the way they've been treated
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubbytubthumper
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
seaneh
7 Sep 2014, 12:34 PM
Looks like the Gb Are going to be back for the next game. Entirely predictable from Lawwell and his cronies. If I was them I'd tell him to ram it for the way they've been treated
Why? They are supposed to be Celtic supporters - just like the rest of us. They have requested things from the club which no otherfan does. In my opinion it makes sense but they have also brought the club trouble in the form of UEFA & SFA fines and other issues.
At the end of the day common sense has prevailed and I am certainly glad the GB will be back in the stands because the level of atmosphere is poor when they are missing. But they need to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. It is a pity there will not be any safe standing area because I think that would suit the GB even more! :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Belgrano
Member Avatar
-
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tubbytubthumper
6 Sep 2014, 11:11 AM
To be fair to the board and Lawwell they have finally loosened the purse strings and signed a couple of decent strikers.
I must have missed this other striker we've signed? In fact, our only outlay this summer was the £2.3m on Scepovic; less than 25% of what we took in from the sale of Forster. All the rest have been loan deals (with Gordon arriving on a free).

For some to be passing this summer off as a "success", shows that the board don't even really need to try that hard to pull the wool over some fan's eyes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
herbert viola
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
randombloke
7 Sep 2014, 09:36 AM
prettygreen
7 Sep 2014, 08:24 AM
herbert viola
6 Sep 2014, 01:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
correct. and this is the problem we have. the powers at the top dont take accountability for their failings, and it looks like it is going to continue this way
If we sack the CEO every time we have a run of bad results/poor form on the pitch it will soon become a poisoned chalice position that nobody with any credibility wants.

yes, I know the "failings" that you're talking about are wider than just failing to get to the CL group stage this year.....but clearly the board (okay, Desmond) are still content that Lawwell is fulfilling his remit well enough to keep him in his position.

As a CEO Lawwell's objectives will be broad and long term, so one year of missed CL income won't be anywhere near a sacking offence. His main remit at the moment I'd guess will be to generate cash to fund the team in a time of dwindling incomes across fitba (EPL teams with Sky TV windfall every year excepted).

Basically we don't know what the board's long term plan really is - it could be to move to having a team that has at least 50% of the squad developed from our own youth system (which is as I said previously the only policy that makes sense of the Deila appointment to me)....or they could be conserving cash in case we need to spend big to see off Sevco when/if they return to the top flight - we might think they're a busted flush, but the board may very well be a bit paranoid about them getting a decent level of investment (or just running up a scheidtload of debt while the authorities turn a blind eye).

Point is, while we're unhappy about the level of investment and results on the pitch, for all we know Lawwell is actually exceeding his targets by securing CL income 2 years out of 3 while keeping the wage bill on-budget and whatever 5 year plan he's working to on-track.
no one is saying lawwell should be punted because of a run of bad results on the field. That is merely the end result of his running of the club.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bhoy_Barker
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
I would say that Desmond is more to blame than Lawwell, Celtic are Desmond's play thing, something for him to brag about on the golf course, he won't put his full backing into the club, he has kept his shares at the maximum level without going the step further and buying the club, he is the one that calls the shots, Lawwell carries out the orders and it wasn't that long ago we were all worried he was going to arsenal, we were all singing his praises at some of the deals he was pulling off, this is a hard time for Scottish football, celtic need to cut back and that's just the way it goes, we don't ever want to end up in a mess like our neighbours and I for one never want to see my club in the state it was in before wee Fergus stepped up.

We are a club in good shape, we are living within our means and cutting back where needed, yes it's not nice or exciting and it's a far cry from our highs with Larsson, Sutton, Hartson etc but we need to get on with it, the good times will come again but slating and blaming an individual is just wrong, he has done a great job for us so far IMO and believe me I am no fan of the man, I've met him and he's an arrogant b*****d.

Until scottish football changes or we get out this is how it's going to be, the days of 6m signings and paying huge wages are long gone, we are now an average team playing in a poor league, we are not going to attract big name players and that's just fact.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Edmontim
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bhoy_Barker
11 Sep 2014, 03:38 PM
Until scottish football changes or we get out this is how it's going to be, the days of 6m signings and paying huge wages are long gone, we are now an average team playing in a poor league, we are not going to attract big name players and that's just fact.

But PL says we would/could sign a 6m player if there was value there don't cha know'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
josephledley
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Bhoy_Barker
11 Sep 2014, 03:38 PM
I would say that Desmond is more to blame than Lawwell, Celtic are Desmond's play thing, something for him to brag about on the golf course, he won't put his full backing into the club, he has kept his shares at the maximum level without going the step further and buying the club, he is the one that calls the shots, Lawwell carries out the orders and it wasn't that long ago we were all worried he was going to arsenal, we were all singing his praises at some of the deals he was pulling off, this is a hard time for Scottish football, celtic need to cut back and that's just the way it goes, we don't ever want to end up in a mess like our neighbours and I for one never want to see my club in the state it was in before wee Fergus stepped up.

We are a club in good shape, we are living within our means and cutting back where needed, yes it's not nice or exciting and it's a far cry from our highs with Larsson, Sutton, Hartson etc but we need to get on with it, the good times will come again but slating and blaming an individual is just wrong, he has done a great job for us so far IMO and believe me I am no fan of the man, I've met him and he's an arrogant b*****d.

Until scottish football changes or we get out this is how it's going to be, the days of 6m signings and paying huge wages are long gone, we are now an average team playing in a poor league, we are not going to attract big name players and that's just fact.

I've not read or heard anyone asking for a £6 million player. There is a good sence of reality within the support but why should we accept been taking for mugs?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
herbert viola
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bhoy_Barker
11 Sep 2014, 03:38 PM
I would say that Desmond is more to blame than Lawwell, Celtic are Desmond's play thing, something for him to brag about on the golf course, he won't put his full backing into the club, he has kept his shares at the maximum level without going the step further and buying the club, he is the one that calls the shots, Lawwell carries out the orders and it wasn't that long ago we were all worried he was going to arsenal, we were all singing his praises at some of the deals he was pulling off, this is a hard time for Scottish football, celtic need to cut back and that's just the way it goes, we don't ever want to end up in a mess like our neighbours and I for one never want to see my club in the state it was in before wee Fergus stepped up.

We are a club in good shape, we are living within our means and cutting back where needed, yes it's not nice or exciting and it's a far cry from our highs with Larsson, Sutton, Hartson etc but we need to get on with it, the good times will come again but slating and blaming an individual is just wrong, he has done a great job for us so far IMO and believe me I am no fan of the man, I've met him and he's an arrogant b*****d.

Until scottish football changes or we get out this is how it's going to be, the days of 6m signings and paying huge wages are long gone, we are now an average team playing in a poor league, we are not going to attract big name players and that's just fact.

"we" werent all worried. there were plenty on here stating at the time that if he wanted english salary, then he should move to england to get it, or commute. We all know his failings, and he should be held accountable for them.

The issue isnt about Desmond, the day to day running of the club has been poorly done in many aspects over the last 5-6 years, and he never appears to be accountable for any of that.

Thats where the beef is. The massive salary, ongoing reduction in ST bookings, acting as a pseudo-DoF, telling us all wee soundbites like we dont need the huns, then sayin the opposite, telling us all lies that neither he nor Park buys players, etc, fell out with Lennon etc. Yet you still say he has done a good job? Unless you are comparing him to Terry Cassidy, Im not sure how we get to answer that says he has done a good job, unless reduction in debt burden is seen as the only KPI to measure the guy against.

A CEO on 1/3 of his salary, capable of bringing in an accountable DOF, and who spends money wisely, with occasional risks taken at the higher end of the market available to us, would go a helluva long way to appeasing fans, oh, and paying the living wages to its employees. :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zurawski 7
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Celtic PLC have today announced results for the year ended 30 June 2014.

http://www.celticfc.net/news/6656

65m turnover even with player sales and champs league. 60m to pay the wages and keep things running
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
herbert viola
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Zurawski 7
12 Sep 2014, 04:17 PM
Celtic PLC have today announced results for the year ended 30 June 2014.

http://www.celticfc.net/news/6656

65m turnover even with player sales and champs league. 60m to pay the wages and keep things running
thats not correct. The turnover is for revenue generating activities, which player sales is not. The profit on player sales is included below profit from trading, and the book gain from that was 17m (which isnt cash, as actual cash proceeds were only 5.6m), it has nothing to do with turnover.

Total net profit was 11.8m, up by 1.5m on the prior year. And that includes a 4m write-off from buying duff footballers by our CEO, sorry DOF, sorry, Chief Scout, sorry, Neil Lennon.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply