MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

Martin that was unneccessary but I will bite my tongue. Your still treating this as some sort of competition. You really need to learn to debate without getting into this one on one personal thing. You do this every time. I am not an agressive/competitive/ego driven person. Im interested in the subject and myth busting and care not a jot about winning or losing a debate with you or anyone.

The thread has been great as we now have stats thanks to Aidan McGeady who clearly is decent at accounts as well as dribbling. Your going to hang onto the old post dredging approach you love and imply that theres less of a differential than I thought in net spend or wharver which unless you are a mind reader you didnt really know. Big deal we have both admited that at first glance its not exactly what we thought. What you think I may have thought is of no importance as everyones opinions were then guesswork.

We have new hard evidence in this thread. Here are stats and IMO the overall real story is actually worse in terms of underinvestment under WGS.
The updated figs have stretched the difference somewhat. MON had a 100% bigger net spend in his first year than WGS has cumulatively had to date in three season. Thats a BOLD figure in context. WGS HAS CUMULATIVELY IN THREE YEARS ONLY HAD HALF THE NET INVESTMENT THAT MON HAD IN ONE. Thats not spin thats a very stark statistic. Overall net investment has been low in both cases so the percentage rather than the figure matter.

There is simply no comparison between the investment in the two managers. As I have said I am only posting repeatedly on this thread because there has been a myth that they have had similar investment. Its nonesense. Maybe with a big investment with no major sales some sort of real terms investment parity will be reached this summer.

fin

 

The surprise is both net spends compared to spend is very low, in which case the percentage difference is more important. WGS has had only 50% of the net spend of MON.

 

The economic adjustment is based on what you get for your money not on actual inflation. Sutton, Hartson and Lenny were all very solid professionals and internationals at their peak and despite minor recent blips were very highly thought of over a long period. Sutton has simply gone to a club with the wrogn style of football for his skills but really was a world class old fashioned CF. Lenny for me was underated and should and likely would have played for a better EPL team in the upper half. IMO he was better in his role than guys like Lee and Batty. Hartson was an anomoly. Everyone thought very highly of him and he was a goals machine but just had one of those careers. I would guess that the modern equivilents would all cost more than 10 million each.

 

actually * knows what sutton would be worth now. If I was an EPL manager with him at peak years on my books and hadnt forgotten what he can do, I would be wanting 20 million for him. There are only a few old fasioned CB in the world as good as him at his peak- Luca Toni maybe but very very few.

 

Signed

 

You are the one who has no respect for other posters. And I am not alone in thinking that. Watching you wriggle is embarrassing. All you need to do is be man enough to admit that the difference in net spend is not as big as you have suggested. End of.

New hard evidence ? We have two sets of figures. Of course you treat as gospel those figures which suit you (we all know how creative you are with stats) whereas I realise that the real figure will be somehere in between. Interestingly you ignore my points (which is your forte) re how getting all your transfer money in one go has drawbacks. You ignore the fact that WGS has had almost as much money in 3 years as MON had in 5; you ignore that MON signed less players in 5 years than WGS did in in 3 etc etc.....

BTW you are WITHOUT QUESTION ego driven in your debates, you seem to think you can see things which the rest of us weegies can't see. Your intellectual vanity blinds you and leads you to post utter drivel, make up stats and completely dodge the issue.

There has been no myth that MON had the same as WGS. The myth has been that MON had far, far more (perpetuated by the likes of you). Now we know that isn't true.

EDIT

I love the 'fin' - how pompous and up your own * can you get ?

 

You little *-licker.

 

That's just plain wrong. There are many markets where that sort of inflation hasn't happened. How much did we pay for JVOH, a Dutch international ?

Quite a reasonable fee. In fact he'd probably have cost us more back under MON.

 

You can still get players on reasonable transfer fees if you stay away from the exorbitant markets.

 

no because alot of those figure are not completely accurate for a start(not your fault as therre are alot of undiscolosed fees) and because of inflation and the fact that you have to pay more for the same standard of player now compared to 7 years ago

 

I don't accept some of your figures btw.

Valgaeran and Thompson for example.

 

Both of them are 100% right.

Martin you have to try to learn how to debate without resorting to child-like arguments.

 

Listen ya wee * less of your insults.

There is no way on earth that you can say with 100% certainty that those figures are 100% right. No way on earth, unless you brokered the deals. Did you broker those deals ?

I would point out that you provided one set of figures, then another and I am sure that someone could provide a third set. The correct answer, obviously, will be somewhere in between. There is no way on earth that you can provide us with figures which are 100% correct. Feel free to contradict that.

I do not accept that Valgaeran cost nearly £4m and I do not accept that Thompson cost nearly £3m. I also do not accept your wild speculation, which has no root in facts, that £20m then is £50m now or that MON in reality had 4 or 5 times the money that WGS had.

This from a 16 year old boy - who never even saw Tommy Burns play - yet who PM'd me to call me 'scum' and 'a disgrace to Tommy burns'. Don't make me laugh son. Did you contribute to his wreath ? Did you go to CP to pay your respects ? Did you get copies of The View for other members.

FYI Keltoi has a history of using stats inaccurately and being evasive. I find Keltoi's superiority complex insulting and patronising and disrespectful.

 

Martin don't get to wound up.

And i agree with you, some of those figures are not right IMO.

 

As a fan it does not matter to me if we spend 50p or 50 million all that matters is if the money is spent wisely.

 

The figure for Agathe is wrong too.

 

And Sylla has been counted twice. With different figures each time - so much for the credibility of your figures.

 

In summary AM your figures are highly dubious.

 

It's an increase from the previous deal to the current one of about 70%, which is a significant rise. It is however well short of the 250% cited in the example of £20m being £50m nowadays. I think the phrase is 'creative accounting'.

 

I have already admitted on a previous post that the net investment
discrepancy is not quite as imagined so I dont know why I am being asked to say it all over again

No respect for other posters?? Unlike yourself I have always remained polite even when provoked. I will let this thread speak for itself on that score. I have tried to be placatory to you even when you have singled me out constantly. Thats no weakness. Thats something I feel I have to do being a soft boiled christian.

I dont know where you get this keltoi intellectual superiority idea. I just post as I am. I am from a family of poor intellectuals in the way they debate around the table but are very humble folk in everyday life. You really misread me Martin. I am a actually a semi-religious sort of bloke who hate ego and big wheels etc. Strangely, to me, you seemed to be the person I percieved as thinking they were the wise owl of TC which is what you are accusing me of. But you are one of the best posters and debators and really important to the site and it doesnt bother me. Your one of the older guys and you have a lot of perspective.

I always rate your posts even when I disagree but I think your attitude to me is wrong. Have never experienced this sort of reaction in the real world. Martin, honestly, I think you mistake a bit of a florid wordy style on my part with snobbery or feelings of superiority. Its just not me. In the real world people think im a bit of a blether, a bit of a mad-prof,, a bit OTT/camp for a straight guy etc but noone would ever think I am a snob or ego.

Anyway, I cant see any good coming of further debate as its obvious there is just some sort of personality clash and it doesnt look like we are not going to get on. I dont feel it myself but I obvoiusly annoy you. The fact that you hate WGS's patter and I love it probably is a probably a symptom of us having very different ideas on personality. Fair enough. We will just have to live with that. Vive la difference! lol is that too pretentious!!

all the best

Keltoi (extending the hand of peace)