MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

26 Million back in MON's era would have bought you a better standard of players than 27 does now.

Also note the impact of Sky dropping the SPL and then the rise of the spending power of the EPL. MON bought his players before this and GS has been spending since.

e.g. £5 back in the 80's was worth alot more than it is now

 

MON didn't manage Celtic in the 80s.

The difference in net spend is relatively low.

 

I didnt say he did,

It was a general example to show that the value of money has changed over time but the value of money in football terms has changed dramatically in the last few years

MON's spending in todays terms is about £50M, estimating what players of Hartson, Lennon and Sutton calibre are going for in todays market.

 

You made a good point the first time but I don't really understand your second post...

 

Your £50m is a wild guess, to suit your argument.

MON had more money than WGS, I accept that.

MON got more money quickly, I accept that.

All I'm asking is that people are big enough to acknowledge that the difference in net spend is not so huge.

Also - the figures we have are not definitive; getting all your money in the first year isn't ALL good, MON got very little after the first year; MON had a better ratio of successful signings. These points are relevant.

 

And I'll admit... I for one expected the amount spent by O'Neill to be far higher than Strachan's- regardless of how much it would be worth nowadays. And it wasn't a lot more.

 

This is getting ridiculous!!!

One of the main arguments used by folk comparing MON and WGS is the claim that MON had vast amounts more to spend.When it has been showed that the net spend between the 2 is relatively small.There has been a succession of posts trying to backtrack on this and claiming that the money spent by MON is somehow subject to hyper inflation without any basis in fact.

Nobody has ever argued that MON received more money in his first season than WGS,so why are people so obsessed with this point.

Both have had similiar amounts to spend and have been successful,end of story.

 

I was a very rough estimate but its not far from the the truth. You are ignoring a valid point to suit your argument, imo

BTW, I do agree with your points but that happened for MON because spending power difference between the EPL and the SPL were much much closer. MON was able to sign 2 former record British transfer record breaking players on knock down prices. We are unable to do this anymore.

Also MON's wage bill was significantly higher than GS's and I've gone through that in a good bit of detail before. I dont remember you posting in that thread though, I can search for it if you like.

Its a situation we cant replicate again without borrowingly very heavily (A big no-no for me) and GS has done very well in a more difficult climate for Celtic FC and he should be getting more credit for that but some people (not saying you) are ignoring the problems we face and expect spending similar to an EPL club. They blame GS when this doesnt happen.

 

No they havent. MON could buy a higher calibre of player for his money. You havent figured in economic adjustments since his time as manager which gives a completely false look at the spending between the two. How are you ignoring that??

 

I don't accept that. That is an inflation rate of 250%. You are exaggerating to suit your argument.

The gap between the SPL and the EPL was still huge back then.

A player under Gordon Strachan earned more than any player under MON. inc Henke. And btw the guy was a failure. I've seen you go through things 'in detail' before. It wouldn't convince me.

[/QUOTE]
WGS has done very well. As did MON. Still, the difference in net spend isn't very big. It would be a bit more dignified if some folk would acknowledge that.

 

If it was huge back then, what do you call it now??

Well they were figured directly taken from the clubs financial statements, I dont have to do any convincing, they speak for themselves.

Again, people are looking at the figures without economic adjustment which is abit ridiculous, imo

 

In his first season yes,I repeat again no one has disputed that.I also repeat that you have inflated figures without any basis in fact.How does anyone know how much Sutton,Hartson etc would go for now.Also WGS has had been party to sanctioning the highest salary paid to a Scottish based player.How are you ignoring that?

 

You are exaggerating the economic adjustment.

The fact remains that the difference in net spend is not huge.

Another thing to consider. Transfer inflation has occurred most acutely in a few select markets. Markets we don't really shop in. The inflationary figures you cite (which are in themselves exaggerated) are not in operation in the markets we shop in. Good players are still available at good prices. Stachan has had a fair bit of money to spend.

 

How much would a 27 year old, internationally capped striker who'd scored 85 goals at the highest level and been top scorer in the premiership just two years earlier cost us now? He cost us 6 million then.

Now, a 24 year old striker, also internationally capped, who'd scored 44 goals at the highest level and never been top scorer in the premiership cost 16.5 million.

 

Who knows. It would depend on the circumstances. Both Hartson and Sutton were gambles. There are gambles available for less than £6m today.

I really don't see the point in your post, sorry.

 

I assume you are speaking about Chris Sutton.Chelsea were desperate to cut their losses at the time because he was considered a flop.That was our good fortune,I'm not sure it strengthens your argument though.

Everybody and their dug knows that we cant compete in the EPL market.We had 1 season where we purchased players from this market and even then the players we bought were in the mid to lower end of the spectrum.

 

Point= huge inflation in prices.

 

I meant to add to my previous post.The EPL's transfer market since Sky's involvement has been grossly inflated.Players have always gone for huge fees down there.Fact.

 

Our main market outside of Scotland for decades was the English Leagues, transfer inflation has gone wild in there

e.g. EPL, negotiated to start from the 1997–98 season, rose to £670 million over four seasons.

EPL, negotiated a £1.024 billion deal with BSkyB for the three seasons from 2004–05 to 2006–07.

EPL, the last deal for domestic rights is due to run from 2007 to 2010 for £1.7bn between Sky and Setanta, again 3 seasons compared to the first one quoted, 4 years.

Thats a increase of well over a £1bn!!

These figures are directly proportional mad asking prices that EPL clubs demand.
Better players were available for £6M in MON's day, fact. I dunno how you are disputing that.

That backs up my arguement and fact that face value of money has gone down

 

The posters who state inflated prices have made WGS's job more difficult compared to when MON was in charge raise a valid point.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
However if you tried to buy a wanted player, contracted to another club during O’Neil’s days I think 2 million or so would not have bought the quality we required at that time also as it has rarely done presently under WGS as well.<o></o>
<o></o>
Yes the market down south is madness now. However this just means we need to look at other markets&countries. There is talent out there that we can afford you just have to be quick enough and clever enough to get it. <o></o>
<o></o>
All this talk of comparing budgets to me is unfair as different circumstances bring different challenges. MON's remit was to produce a winning team from a losing one immediately hence he spent most of his money in his first season. WGS's was to build on what had gone before which is why he has strung out his budget.<o></o>
<o></o>
You can argue. If you felt we needed so many players brought in by Strachan or not. My own personal view on that is we did not and WGS has wasted substantial money on deadwood. When the money could have been combined to buy fewer better quality players.<o></o>
<o></o>