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 (1,414,596 Views)
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mrs HF4Ls Biggest fan
28 Jul 2016, 02:01 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 08:13 PM
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't care one way or the other whether Lawwell is here or not. I made that clear, I am no apologist for him or his salary so I don't need to explain anything to you about whether or not he deserves it.

So lets assume we bring on a new CEO and save £500k a year. What strategic advantage do we get from it? It makes very little as I stated beforehand.one extra squad player or £10 off the season ticket.

My point is that changing CEO will not change anything.

So we sack Lawwell, dance on his grave, feel good for a day and save half a million pound. But fundamentally nothing will have changed.

Is Lawwell overpaid? Maybe.

Will we be far better off by getting a cheaper version? No.

Will we be slightly better off by getting a cheaper version? Maybe

What bit of that do you disagree with?
Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion you would never try to move a player on with a view to replacing them as we may not be better off.

Taking your financial point first, £500k need not be "another squad player". It could mean being able to pay an additional £10k a week to pull in a quality signing.

But the key point here is that Lawwell's MO appears to be to take no risk whatsoever. And when I say "risk" I mean risk as he perceives it. The strategic advantage we may gain by removing him is that we might actually be able to appoint someone who understands the need to address the issues on the park.

With some better management of the club we could have qualified for the CL over the past couple of years. That would have brought in significant income that could be invested back in the team. Which improves the possibility of qualifying. And sells more tickets. Which improves the income and so on. It is a virtuous circle.

Lawwell's approach of we'll try and get through with what we have has cost the club a huge amount of money. Which means less income. And therefore less quality signings. Which has resulted in a worse product on the pitch and less tickets sold. Which has reduced the income and further failures to qualify and so on.

People talk about Lawwell treating Celtic like any other business. And that is entirely wrong; if Lawwell was the CEO of any other kind of business that had gone through the decline in the last 3 years that he has presided over he would have been sacked long before now.

And before anyone replies with comments about look what happened across the river, I absolutely understand that you cannot continually spend beyond your means. That results in what happened under Murray and Whyte. However, businesses that do not invest can just as easily stagnate and die. A small amount of appropriate investment could have reaped huge rewards over the past couple of years.
Read my posts.

I said we will be slightly better off by possibly £500k.

I also said because this is only a small amount in strategic terms it is not an argument not to do it. A decent squad player will cost around £10k a week when you add in all costs Taxes, bonuses, traveling accommodation etc.

£500k though is not strategically important.

If you look at Our accounts I think you will find we do invest more than a small amount, we maybe not have invested it wisely over the last few years and therefore a new strategy was required.

Brendan Rodgers has been brought in as a change of strategy only 2 months ago. Before we look to change strategy again should we not give this strategy a chance?
Edited by Adam Smith 11, 28 Jul 2016, 02:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 08:13 PM
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 02:25 PM

* If Rodgers isn't in charge of these things then that is because the board have decided otherwise not the CEO. So changing the CEO under the same board changes nothing.



The CEO makes no difference? OK, by that logic, Lawwell's salary is an even more egregious waste of money.

What would a new CEO do differently to what we're doing right now? As I said, we can only judge by the end product, and presumably there is still activity going on behind the scenes. It's more a question of what he would have done up to his point? Hired a manager with more experience with Deila. Shown some signs that he knew how hopeless Celtic's scouting system is. He would not have acted as a de facto DoF, playing Football Manager with real money.

The more realistic question here would be, what do you think Lawwell has done to deserve such an outrageous salary at a time when Celtic repeatedly failed to qualify the Champions League, and when attendances went into decline? (And yes, that decline has now been halted--by Desmond's signing of Brendan Rodgers.) Beginning to wonder if you're really serious about defending Lawwell, or just at the wind-up.
I don't care one way or the other whether Lawwell is here or not. I made that clear, I am no apologist for him or his salary so I don't need to explain anything to you about whether or not he deserves it.

So lets assume we bring on a new CEO and save £500k a year. What strategic advantage do we get from it? It makes very little as I stated beforehand.one extra squad player or £10 off the season ticket.

My point is that changing CEO will not change anything.

So we sack Lawwell, dance on his grave, feel good for a day and save half a million pound. But fundamentally nothing will have changed.

Is Lawwell overpaid? Maybe.

Will we be far better off by getting a cheaper version? No.

Will we be slightly better off by getting a cheaper version? Maybe

What bit of that do you disagree with?
Just noticed your reply to my last post, and the subsequent comments from other posters. Most of what needed to be said has been said.

I'm still not sure where you would place responsibility for the declining standard of the football played at CP over recent years, and the decline in SB sales pre-Rodgers. Your last few posts make an aggressive case for Celtic remaining passive. You ask, "Will Celtic be better off by getting a cheaper" CEO--then you reply "No" to your own question! Quite remarkable. Firstly, the size of Lawwell's salary is almost irrelevant compared to the money we have lost under his stewardship. (It's hard to quantify the collateral damage, but it has been significant.) Secondly, how is it possible to predict the chain of events that would unfold under a new CEO?! I was almost going to ask you about the identity of the new executive that you factored into your calculations, but I don't want to drag this any further into the realm of absurdity.

One quick footnote: your comment about dancing on Lawwell's grave was in pretty poor taste. It was also an ineffective attempt to derail the discussion--none of this is personal. Peter Lawwells will come and go. This is about what is best for Celtic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
29 Jul 2016, 06:19 PM
Adam Smith 11
27 Jul 2016, 08:13 PM
QualityStreet1970
27 Jul 2016, 07:31 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't care one way or the other whether Lawwell is here or not. I made that clear, I am no apologist for him or his salary so I don't need to explain anything to you about whether or not he deserves it.

So lets assume we bring on a new CEO and save £500k a year. What strategic advantage do we get from it? It makes very little as I stated beforehand.one extra squad player or £10 off the season ticket.

My point is that changing CEO will not change anything.

So we sack Lawwell, dance on his grave, feel good for a day and save half a million pound. But fundamentally nothing will have changed.

Is Lawwell overpaid? Maybe.

Will we be far better off by getting a cheaper version? No.

Will we be slightly better off by getting a cheaper version? Maybe

What bit of that do you disagree with?
Just noticed your reply to my last post, and the subsequent comments from other posters. Most of what needed to be said has been said.

I'm still not sure where you would place responsibility for the declining standard of the football played at CP over recent years, and the decline in SB sales pre-Rodgers. Your last few posts make an aggressive case for Celtic remaining passive. You ask, "Will Celtic be better off by getting a cheaper" CEO--then you reply "No" to your own question! Quite remarkable. Firstly, the size of Lawwell's salary is almost irrelevant compared to the money we have lost under his stewardship. (It's hard to quantify the collateral damage, but it has been significant.) Secondly, how is it possible to predict the chain of events that would unfold under a new CEO?! I was almost going to ask you about the identity of the new executive that you factored into your calculations, but I don't want to drag this any further into the realm of absurdity.

One quick footnote: your comment about dancing on Lawwell's grave was in pretty poor taste. It was also an ineffective attempt to derail the discussion--none of this is personal. Peter Lawwells will come and go. This is about what is best for Celtic.
Not sure where you got that I said we would not be better off? I specifically said we maybe slightly better off. :ponder:

Read my post again.

The question I asked was "would we be FAR better off"? I gave the answer "no"for the reasons I have stated.

I then asked "will we be SLIGHTLY better off". I gave the answer "maybe" because I can't predict the future but we could definitely save some money.


The blame for the past few years has already been apportioned partly to Deila who was sacked (or left) and partly to PL who in my opinion has had his wings clipped. I have stated that 3 times now if you read my posts.

We have set down a new strategy by putting in place one of the top managers in the country to run the football department and therefore curtailed PL's role in the football side of the business. What does sacking him achieve other than a possible saving in salary if you take away any need for personal retribution which gains Celtic nothing in itself.

If you think bringing in BR was a passive move then we have to agree to disagree, I think it was a massive statement that we are going to do things differently.

As for the "dancing on his grave" phrase it is used regularly when unpopular people people get the sack, sorry if it offended you.

However there are fans who would be absolutely delighted to see him go, which is a fair enough opinion. My point is will it achieve anything beyond a possible saving in salary? Hence I said we would maybe be slightly better off if we sacked him.

Lastly you state that under Lawwell we have lost money over the last few years under his stewardship. This assumes that another CEO would have guided us to the CL. You then ask how it would be possible to predict the outcome of a new CEO which I haven't done (I said maybe) but you just did with the above statement. You can't have it both ways.



Edited by Adam Smith 11, 29 Jul 2016, 09:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
29 Jul 2016, 07:56 PM
Lastly you state that under Lawwell we have lost money over the last few years under his stewardship. This assumes that another CEO would have guided us to the CL. You then ask how it would be possible to predict the outcome of a new CEO which I haven't done (I said maybe) but you just with the above statement. You can't have it both ways.



Sorry about the misquote. You did indeed ask if we would be "far better off by getting a cheaper version of Lawwell." Then you answered yourself with a definite "No." So my original point still stands, Nostradamus.

Apology accepted for the "dance on his grave" comment. Not sure why you then felt the need to a wee remark about the "need for personal retribution" against Lawwell. (Is that what the youngsters call "trolling"?)

I certainly did point out that the last few years of Lawwell has overseen a decline in SB sales, and in the standard of football at CP; we have also done very badly in the transfer market; and repeatedly failed to get into the CL proper. You say I assumed that another CEO would have taken us into the group stages of the CL. No such assumption was made--I do not share your ability to predict the future with certainty. Sorry, but I think that last wayward allegation just violated an old Kerrydale Street rule: "posters can only have 11 straw men on the park at any given time."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
29 Jul 2016, 09:31 PM
Adam Smith 11
29 Jul 2016, 07:56 PM
Lastly you state that under Lawwell we have lost money over the last few years under his stewardship. This assumes that another CEO would have guided us to the CL. You then ask how it would be possible to predict the outcome of a new CEO which I haven't done (I said maybe) but you just with the above statement. You can't have it both ways.



Sorry about the misquote. You did indeed ask if we would be "far better off by getting a cheaper version of Lawwell." Then you answered yourself with a definite "No." So my original point still stands, Nostradamus.

Apology accepted for the "dance on his grave" comment. Not sure why you then felt the need to a wee remark about the "need for personal retribution" against Lawwell. (Is that what the youngsters call "trolling"?)

I certainly did point out that the last few years of Lawwell has overseen a decline in SB sales, and in the standard of football at CP; we have also done very badly in the transfer market; and repeatedly failed to get into the CL proper. You say I assumed that another CEO would have taken us into the group stages of the CL. No such assumption was made--I do not share your ability to predict the future with certainty. Sorry, but I think that last wayward allegation just violated an old Kerrydale Street rule: "posters can only have 11 straw men on the park at any given time."
You need to get a thicker skin if you think that is trolling. You said you wanted his head on a spike - that sounds a bit like someone seeking retribution to me. I'm sure you don't mean it literally so not sure why you are so tetchy about others phraseology.

I stand by the statement that we would not be far better off if he was sacked. You have not said what benefits PL being sacked would bring.

We have a new manager in place and a CEO who has a proven track record of running the other parts off the business quite well when he was not diverted by being a de facto DOF.

So give me your answers.

What would a new CEO do differently that would make us far better off?

You said that I was.advocating passiveness after one of the boldest moves the Celtic board has made in years, do you stand by this?

You continually say that PL has cost us a fortune, the underlying assumption in that assertion is that you are predicting that you can see a counter factual history where another CEO did better. Usually I wouldn't bother about this but again you seem to be quite tetchy about others doing it.

So are you still certain another CEO would have done better? Nostradamus ;)

Edited by Adam Smith 11, 29 Jul 2016, 10:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
29 Jul 2016, 09:54 PM

What would a new CEO do differently that would make us far better off?


So are you still certain another CEO would have done better? Nostradamus ;)

I think you've got to the crux of the matter: I'm not the one who thinks he can predict the future with absolute certainty, as you did when you declared that Celtic would not be far better off with a new, cheaper CEO. Who (apart from yourself) could possibly tell tell what would happen to Celtic with a new CEO in charge?! If the new guy got things back on track, confidence would breed more confidence; just as failure has bred more failure in successive years under Lawwell. No-one in their right mind would insist that we have to be far better off--that's just yet another straw man argument from you, I'm afraid. There are no guarantees in football--I think Celtic supporters are just looking for better performances on the park, and an end to Lawwell and Park's incoherent signing policy. (Which includes Lawwell's mystifying decision to upgrade Deila from assistant coach to manager.) We seem to agree that having Lawwell as Celtic's de facto DoF was counter-productive; neither of us know how that came about, or exactly how decisions were made while he was in that role. Lawwell either grabbed the DoF role for himself, or he was co-erced into taking it. Either way, he was happy to cash those bonus cheques while presiding over our decline on the park. (For the avoidance of doubt [!], I'm not absolving Dermot Desmond of blame for the Deila/Lawwell farce.)

What should a new CEO do differently? That's hard to say without knowing exactly what kind of role Dermot Desmond has given Celtic's new manager in the running of the club. But job number one for the new bhoy in the boardroom would simply be, don't repeat the mistakes of the recent past. If the duties of Celtic's CEO have just been significantly reduced, the message should be, don't repeat the mistakes of the recent past, while the remuneration should be less than 50% of what PL was getting. Being right next door to the most over-inflated football market in the world isn't an ideal situation; however, the EPL can't scoop up every bit of the talent from every European league every year. So we're in a position where we can buy foreign players and introduce them to British football (while also giving them European experience), thus reducing the risk for potential buyers down south--as the Wanyama deal (among others) proved, that can be worth a lot of money. I'm not suggesting that we should adopt a revolving-door policy in the transfer market--but we should be able to sell to the EPL whenever we want/need to. Our inability to do this over recent years cannot be down to bad luck alone--no excuses needed, it's just not good enough. Peter Lawwell, come on down!

You seem to share Lawwell's "nothing ventured, nothing gained" attitude to the business of football. Fair enough--I'm sure there are circumstances in which a that approach works. But we all know where Lawwell's vision (sic) took us--Dermot Desmond had to step in and hire a new manager to rebuild the team, boost season ticket sales and spare your boy from the growing anger of the Celtic support. The fact that you called the Rodgers' hiring "one of the boldest moves the Celtic board has made in years" makes me wonder why on earth I'm still typing away here. The board?! I can't even remember the last time anybody accused the Celtic board of making a significant decision. The fact that we're even discussing would suggest that this is one of those "agree to differ" moments.

Who knows how long it will be before Brendan Rodgers manages to clear out Deila and Lawwell's dead wood, and give us the Celtic team he has in mind--once again, there are no guarantees in football. It's just good to have a football man calling the shots again.


[BTW, when I mentioned "trolls," I wasn't referring to bad language or abuse. No problem on that front. :thumbsup: ]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Smith 11
Member Avatar
Contract up for renewal, now on a diet and trying harder.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
"Your boy" what is that about?

You really are personal about PL aren't you? This is leading you into a mindset of you are either for or against on this subject with no in between allowed.

You have somehow managed to totally misrepresent my ambivalence to PL ( as stated numerous times ) into he is my boy.

You need to either show the evidence of where I have defended him ( I'll save you the time if you want , outside your head I haven't) or ask yourself the question as to whether or not you are actually capable of having a rational debate on this subject anymore?

You have decided what you want my argument to be (defender of my boy) so that you can argue with it rather than meet it on it's own terms.

The board ( yes the board, get your tinfoil hat off and let's keep things rational ) made the decision to radically change the organisation with the appointment of BR but you seem to give them little credit for this or don't think they have went far enough.

I choose to see a lot of good on what has happened in the last few months, I don't need heads on spikes I just want to see how this evolves and whether PL's undoubted commercial and marketing skills fit in with the new organisation/strategy. If not he needs to go. If I move a good right back to centre back and he bombs I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I find out if he is still a good right back.

I'm prepared to give the board the time to see how the new organisation/strategy unfolds over the next 12 months. This is not "nothing ventured nothing gained" tactics, I think most people see the appointment of BR as a bold move/venture.

As for " Your boy". Let's leave that patter to the playground.




Edited by Adam Smith 11, 30 Jul 2016, 09:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paulfg42
Member Avatar
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The appointment of BR suggested a change of strategy. Our dealings in the transfer market since then would suggest not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
andybhoy65
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
30 Jul 2016, 10:22 AM
The appointment of BR suggested a change of strategy. Our dealings in the transfer market since then would suggest not.
The strategy was to bring in a big name manager to sell season tickets.
It worked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quiet Assasin
Member Avatar
..for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
andybhoy65
30 Jul 2016, 12:19 PM
paulfg42
30 Jul 2016, 10:22 AM
The appointment of BR suggested a change of strategy. Our dealings in the transfer market since then would suggest not.
The strategy was to bring in a big name manager to sell season tickets.
It worked.
I'm sure the Celtic board would have loved that but from Rodgers' point of view, that strategy would give his reputation a total tanking. For that reason I'm still hopeful that some decent deals are there to be done. :twitch:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pussyfoot
À la mode if you will
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 11:20 AM
Adam Smith 11
28 Jul 2016, 11:02 AM
paulfg42
28 Jul 2016, 10:10 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If that is true then it is a new board that is needed not a new CEO.

We probably also need a new manager, because if he has accepted this job without guarantees that he is in charge of the football side of the business from end to end then he is a fool.

My opinion is that PL has had his wings clipped and we will see the evidence of this over 3 transfer windows.

It is far easier for me to believe that DD and BR are not fools who are getting the run around by the dark master of machiavelianism Peter Lawwell than these pronouncements of Lawwell's ability to manipulate everyone and everything at Celtic to achieve his own aims.
The lack of forward planning in this transfer window is pretty damning.

I'm a bit bemused by your argument though. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter who the CEO is. What is the point of having a CEO in that case?
I'm not bemused at all, he has hit the nail on the head.
Edited by Pussyfoot, 30 Jul 2016, 03:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Adam Smith 11
30 Jul 2016, 08:55 AM
"Your boy" what is that about?

You really are personal about PL aren't you? This is leading you into a mindset of you are either for or against on this subject with no in between allowed.



Well that's a bit embarrassing. You have thrown your toys out the pram due to a minor misunderstanding. "Your boy" is merely a casual bit of vernacular that means the same as the Irish phrase "yer man" (or "yer mon").
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quiet Assasin
30 Jul 2016, 01:41 PM
andybhoy65
30 Jul 2016, 12:19 PM
paulfg42
30 Jul 2016, 10:22 AM
The appointment of BR suggested a change of strategy. Our dealings in the transfer market since then would suggest not.
The strategy was to bring in a big name manager to sell season tickets.
It worked.
I'm sure the Celtic board would have loved that but from Rodgers' point of view, that strategy would give his reputation a total tanking. For that reason I'm still hopeful that some decent deals are there to be done. :twitch:
Agreed. The one thing we have going for us right now is Brendan Rodgers' ego. He has come to Celtic to restore his reputation; and if he manages to do so over the next few seasons, both parties will benefit. This wasn't a decision that was made casually--Rodgers would have had a lot of very specific question for Desmond, and he must have been satisfied with the answers he got. I can't imagine Rodgers letting himself be undermined at this critical juncture in his career--we'll have to wait and see what happens over the next few weeks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
auldbhoy1975
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
If Rodgers doesn't get the backing he may have been promised, he'll walk and say why

I say may as we don't know under what conditions he took the role
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big_Bobo_Balde
Member Avatar
Lizzie's Lothario
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm sure our CEO was a tad uncomfortable on the 93 minute...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Forza
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's not funny anymore. This mob need to deliver a signing or two that gives the manager serious options for the Play Off Round.

Any further pissing about and I fear we'll be found wanting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
georgiesleftpeg
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What Splob patently fails tae get, is the value of momentum in driving a football club/team forward.

What should be happening, for a club of our size right here/right now, is that Sinclair should be signed, and making his debut at Tynecastle on Sunday.

That lot are likely to be waiting to see if we get lucky, in tomorrows draw, before making any kind of move :twitch:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QualityStreet1970
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
georgiesleftpeg
4 Aug 2016, 11:32 AM
What Splob patently fails tae get, is the value of momentum in driving a football club/team forward.

What should be happening, for a club of our size right here/right now, is that Sinclair should be signed, and making his debut at Tynecastle on Sunday.

That lot are likely to be waiting to see if we get lucky, in tomorrows draw, before making any kind of move :twitch:
Forgive my ignorance/bad memory, but what is SPLOB again? I remember "sharp-suited man" (those were the days), but it all goes a bit hazy after that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big_Bobo_Balde
Member Avatar
Lizzie's Lothario
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
QualityStreet1970
4 Aug 2016, 11:47 AM
georgiesleftpeg
4 Aug 2016, 11:32 AM
What Splob patently fails tae get, is the value of momentum in driving a football club/team forward.

What should be happening, for a club of our size right here/right now, is that Sinclair should be signed, and making his debut at Tynecastle on Sunday.

That lot are likely to be waiting to see if we get lucky, in tomorrows draw, before making any kind of move :twitch:
Forgive my ignorance/bad memory, but what is SPLOB again? I remember "sharp-suited man" (those were the days), but it all goes a bit hazy after that.
Sir Peter Lover Of Bonuses :twitch:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cardross Bhoy
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Big_Bobo_Balde
4 Aug 2016, 11:49 AM
QualityStreet1970
4 Aug 2016, 11:47 AM
georgiesleftpeg
4 Aug 2016, 11:32 AM
What Splob patently fails tae get, is the value of momentum in driving a football club/team forward.

What should be happening, for a club of our size right here/right now, is that Sinclair should be signed, and making his debut at Tynecastle on Sunday.

That lot are likely to be waiting to see if we get lucky, in tomorrows draw, before making any kind of move :twitch:
Forgive my ignorance/bad memory, but what is SPLOB again? I remember "sharp-suited man" (those were the days), but it all goes a bit hazy after that.
Sir Peter Lover Of Bonuses :twitch:
Is that what it is?

Well it's pish and should never be used again :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply