Peter Lawwell's lies

He's full of *. He says we can't sign 5mill players then give big wages. Well what about free agents surely there must be scope to offer higher wages for these players. There's also atleast 4/5 players from Scotland we could have signed that would improve our squad over the last couple of years.

 

If after the loan we want to keep them they have to be paid for.

 

Yes i noticed him pull that trick and wasn't impressed, but I also noticed something else:

I've been asking (this last few days) what had changed. Strachan was backed, so was Mowbray, why did Lenny end up bringing in more than was spent? The above quote more or less amounts to a direct claim that what changed was Rangers dieing! This is an extraordinary claim because we had CL football the two years since they died and I don't remember turnover being down. I'm not sure about this claim at all.

Does anyone know where I can find our turnover with a breakdown of how much of that was due to a profit in player trading the last few years?

 

And the young Man City lad?

 

In that thread that got closed ILTC posted the account totals for about 10 years....its about two weeks back.

 

Thanks.

 

He is the only one we have no option to buy.

But if that striker signs he is about 3 million and the winger from russia if we want to keep him i seen it was about 4 million.
Add to that the others its not just loose change.

 

http://www.talkceltic.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144283&highlight=celtic+accounts


In there.

 

Based on that, what changed was the number of season tickets and it happened before Rangers died. When will we get the figures for the season just gone (with the Wanyama money, etc)?

 

The striker is £2.2 million.

There's no guarantee Celtic will buy the loanees. If they are good, they'll most likely be a queue of clubs trying to sign them too.

 

I think its more for squad harmony, if you have someone on 15 grand a week and then a guy comes in on 40, the guy on 15 grand wouldnt be very happy about it.

 

It's hard to argue with his rationale!

 

Completely contradicted himself in the interview with celtic tv earlier ...

"there is no mountain of cash we are stockpiling lying around somewhere, everything we have is invested straight back into the club "

45 seconds later ..

" we do have a small reserve of funds that we have been building up for a wee while that we will spend at the appropriate time "

slippery , lying * he is .

 

* it turn out the lights....

 

That particular part got my attention too. I'm glad you spotted it as well.

I remember the day Pedro proudly proclaimed that we had a "stand alone" business model and that we were not reliant on any other clubs to prosper. Now he is turning round and saying that our ability to spend has been impacted by Rangers going down the pan and that we've had to sell players to fill the holes created by Rangers absence.

Not exactly a consistent story is it?

I just flat out don't trust Peter Lawwell anymore. Him or the board in general.

 

Agreed.

He completely contradicts everything he says in the OP which was in February or March this year I think.

Expect him to retake this line next February or March.

 

Did he genuinely write the questions himself?

 

Pravda.

 

Either that or he agreed to them in advanced. His interview with Clyde was almost word for word the same as his interview with Celtic TV. He's obviously been rehearsing his answers.