MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

First point perhaps you are right however you would have thought WGS would have shown more progression in with regards to his team during his 3 years in charge.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
I don’t think anyone is saying sack him (certainly not me) that is a big leap to make there Dempsey.<o></o>
<o></o>
Regards to budgets both managers had a similar amount’s of money to spend. It was just in MON´s time substantial surgery was needed straight off the bat.<o></o>
<o></o>
WGS inherited a team with decent quality "yes" they may have been ageing but most still had life in them at that time and made major contributions.<o></o>
<o></o>
It is unfair to compare transfer activity in terms of budgets as different circumstances dictate how and when money is spent. IMO the only way to judge is by quality of player and IMO MON bought better.<o></o>
<o></o>

 

While they spend similar amounts of money on transfer wages, player wages were substantially higher under MON

 

The amounts aren't similar Dempsey... Strachan bought three more players- and although the expenditure is only about a million more from MON, nearly 20m of that was spent in 2000-2001. In terms of financial backing, 20m in 2000-2001 (just one year) is a lot more than 26m nowadays in Strachan's first three years.

 

One non MON v WGS angle that emerged from discussion is that the average net spend per year over the last 7 close seasons was less than 2 million. What has our real profits been in this time. I think the real degree of investment is when you see the low net spend together with big profits. I dont have the figures but I am sure the last couple of years has seen decent profits. If the net spend is only averaging a few million then what are the profits for?

 

can i also say MON inherited the likes of larsson and moravcik when strachan inherited a bunch of old men

 

Those figures look to have been tightened up since yesterday. Well some points are clear:

1. WGS was given a much smaller first season net spend (c. 40% of MON's). However, it is worth noting that WGS didnt have much to sell compared to Viduka, Berkovik etc and WGS's net spending in first year on players was only about a third of what MON had. This was at a time 5 years later so he probably spent less than a quarter or even a fifth compared to MON in real terms. Simply no comparison at all in backing.

2. Even after three seasons, MON's net spend (nearly all in his first season) is double WGS's. Again if that was adjusted to cover the 5-8 year time lag since MON spent most the money then the gap would be much larger still.

I think this thread should nail the myth that there is any comparibility between the backing the two recieved. The simple total spend is mega misleading. The net spend comparison is more revealing of the truth but close inspection shows WGS has had really limited and drip fed backing compared to MON.

I hope never to hear the misleading claim that they have recieved similar backing.

 

Exactly... I hope Strachan gets a good financial backing soon... even though I don't think he needs it lol.

 

it's the most useful/interesting thread Ive seen round here in weeks.

 

Desperate.

When have you ever heard any one claim they received similar backing ? The point has been made repeatedly, by you among others, that MON spent far more than WGS. These figures show that to be untrue.

BTW We've had two sets of figures. It's interesting that you place much more credence in the ones that suit your argument. Within the range of the two different set of figures the difference in net spend is still far less than you have trumpeted. That's that.

EDIT

Re-reading your post, I have to say you have plummed new depths of wriggling here. Pathetic.

 

Cheers mate... I'd posted it in the deep pages of a longer thread- but I thought it was interesting enough to deserve it's own topic.

 

Not to undermine your point- but the details I posted before were not as complete.

I do agree that the amount spent by MON is surprisingly close to that spent by GS, but wouldn't you value 20m spent in 2000 as far more than the same amount spent now?

 

That's all I've argued in this thread.

 

I know, but would you agree that that's significantly greater than the same amount nowadays?

 

It would depend on your calculations as to what would mean 'significant' Your conversion rate from euros to pounds is also inexact (as the rate will have been constantly fluctuating) but the general picture is clear - the difference in net spend is not as much as a gulf as has been argued.

BTW getting all your money right away has some drawbacks too, it's not without it's risks. There ain't much room for error.

 

Yeah good point.

However, calling Keltoi's post 'pathetic' is wrong in my opinion. Everything he said was supported by facts.

 

I beg to differ.

 

That everything was supported by facts?

I've bolded facts he's used to support his opinions.

1. WGS was given a much smaller first season net spend (c. 40% of MON's). However, it is worth noting that WGS didnt have much to sell compared to Viduka, Berkovik etc and WGS's net spending in first year on players was only about a third of what MON had. This was at a time 5 years later so he probably spent less than a quarter or even a fifth compared to MON in real terms. Simply no comparison at all in backing.

2. Even after three seasons, MON's net spend (nearly all in his first season) is double WGS's. Again if that was adjusted to cover the 5-8 year time lag since MON spent most the money then the gap would be much larger still.

I think this thread should nail the myth that there is any comparibility between the backing the two recieved. The simple total spend is mega misleading. The net spend comparison is more revealing of the truth but close inspection shows WGS has had really limited and drip fed backing compared to MON.

 

Are you and Keltoi a double act.

 

There is only one FACT that I have discussed in this thread and that is that the difference in net spend is not as huge as some would have us believe.

BTW you now seem to be taking the 2nd set of figures as gospel. I am quite sure that someone could produce a third set and another figure. The gist of it is that the difference in net spend isn't so big.

BTW No one has ever argued that they received equal financial backing. Some folk have argued though that the gulf in net spend was huge. It isn't.

 

You're getting carried away now.