MON/WGS Expenditures at Celtic

Apologies in advance if it seems I am interfering in your spat Keltoi & Martin. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
However it just seems from an observers perspective that neither of you find it easy to give quarter.<o></o>
<o></o>
Although my own opinion is more in line with Martin’s. I think the two of you are brilliant, thoughtful and inteligent debaters.<o></o>
<o></o>
I just think both of you at times show a similar trait as you can come accross in your post´s (especialy between one another) as believing what you are saying is the be all and end all. There seems to be little acknowledgement of the others views and that is why I think there is such a clash.<o></o>
<o></o>
I think you are both top guys, top Tims just stubborn so and so´s a bit like myself.<o></o>
<o></o>

 

98-02 £167.5M per season

04-07 £341M per season

07-10 £567M per season

Huge hikes in all the tv deals. You want to talk about creative accounting, you've just done it to save face on your argument!

Also you will get infracted if you dont calm down. Resorting to insults gets you nowhere.

 

I made it clear in my post that I referred to the current deal vis a vis the previous deal - and my figures were accurate. You also ignore my other valid points.

I don't need to 'save face' here Dempsey. I have argued one simple point throughout this thread - that the difference in net spend between MON and WGS was not so big - and I have been proven right. Even if AM's figures are not as accurate as he would have us believe.

 

I made it clear in my post that I referred to the current deal vis a vis the previous deal - and my figures were accurate. You also ignore my other valid points.

I don't need to 'save face' here Dempsey. I have argued one simple point throughout this thread - that the difference in net spend between MON and WGS was not so big - and I have been proven right. Even if AM's figures are not as accurate as he would have us believe.

In fact I am not going to be patronised by a sixteen year old boy and if he does I'll likely insult him.

 

Keltoi is lousy at debating. He ignores questions, makes up stats and comes out with nonsense that is irrelevant.

 

You are ignoring the other deal, why?? Because MON joined us in 2000 in the middle of that deal. It has complete relevance to this argument as a starting point, ignoring it is creative accountancy as you put it.


You are talking about net spend at face value which is completely misleading in the real world

 

I am talking about a very specific point which was put forward repeatedly by people - and was in fact not true.

Why don't you factor in the fact that WGS has had in 3 years nearly the same amount that MON had in 5 ?

How far do you want to go back ? The tv deals in the 70s or 80 s ? The fact remains that players of good quality are available at similar prices to 5 - 8 years ago if you stay out of the exorbitant markets. Gary B also pointed out the the fees paid for Lennon/Hartson/Sutton were not big deals in comparison to what other EPL clubs were signing. Another fact - WGS has signed more players in 3 years than MON did in 5. Had WGS got more signings right then the average spend of his on players would be higher.

 

And when you stay out of the english market and go continental, you'll get players that will find it hard to settle in Scotland and play the Scottish style and this is why some signings struggle.

£6M wouldnt get you a quality championship player nowadays, never mind a reserve player in the EPL whereas MON was able to get 2 players that broke the british transfer record previously that has gone wayward but still in their prime.

 

£6m would get you a good player nowadays.

Do you think I'm daft ? Do you think I don't realise that the transfer market in England is crazy ? Folk keep mentioning Bent at £16m- so what ? Don't pay it. JVOH was what £3m ? He's a better player than Bent. A player who goes for £16m in the EPL isn't by definition a good player. The mistake you are making is equating price tag to quality. In some cases this is obviously true but not in every case, in the EPL.

Sorry to repeat myself but one point only concerned me in this thread - and we have an answer on it (albeit with AM's rather botched figures).

 

I never said that these players with high price tags are quality or anything like that but thats what the EPL clubs will ask for if we came knocking. I didnt even go onto the subject of speculating wether a EPL player of certain prices are quality or worth it because thats another issue.

Thats another problem with the EPL, we would spend 16M on a player and not get anything special. I didnt say this because I thought we were on the same page on what EPL players should be really worth.

Yes £6M could get you a good player but wether they could settle in Scotland and into Scottish Football is the problem you run into then, something you rarely get with an UK or Irish player

 

And that was as true for MON as WGS.

You have argued the point though that we have less money (which I accept) and that good players cost more now than when MON was in charge (which is partially true). My point that players are still available at reasonable prices, similar to 8 years ago is still valid.

 

GS's big signings have been mainly outside the UK & Ireland whereas MON''s have been from the UK though

 

i.e. in the market where good players are available at good prices and tend to be more technically gifted.

Let's get a few things straight.

Did MON get more money than WGS ? Yes

Is WGS operating with tighter financial constraints than MON ? Yes

Is the difference in net spend as big as many have led us to believe ? No

Has Strachan had a decent amount to spend ? Yes

Has WGS spent almost the same amount in 3 years that MON spent in 5 ? Yes

If WGS's spending rate keeps up for two more years will he have spent more than MON ? Yes

Had WGS's signings been more successful would his average spend per player be higher ? yes

 

1) Who led you to believe this big net spend and what sort of difference are we talking about here?

2) In face value terms, yes but if you look at the economic adjustment needed for between when MON started and GS started, no

Also, add to that MON had a much higher wage bill in which to entice players to Glasgow.

I think we agree on most things though

 

i said this and i was told to get out of the thread because i cant contribute anything and that i'm a sheep for not believing his figures, and have no opinion for not believing him

 

1. Keltoi and many others who, in their desire to defend WGS, put down MON's achievements. I would say in the region of £15-20m.

2. So far neither you, Keltoi, or AM have convinced me that your methods of calculating the economic adjustment is accurate. This is equally vague - but MON figures were over a substantially longer period. That needs factored in to any 'adjustment'.

 

Don't worry about it. AM is trying to brown-nose his way in to the forum.

 

cheers martin, he is a wee wido keyboard warrior

also is it just me or has he been starting a lot of MON vs WGS style threads recently

 

Martin, infraction issued, you were warned earlier