Celtic record debt of 5.85 million.

og1 · Aug 17, 2010

CelticFC1967 said: ↑

I think you'll find they do. Dermot Desmond has put in a lot of money for Celtic. 6 million for Lennoxtown, 5 million for the share issue in the late 90's, never takes his dividend which he is entitled to - his approah to running the club is the right approach. Rangers had an owner who for years ploughed money into their club - look at the effects its had now. Not only that but the vast sums of money we spent at the turn of the century has resulted in us having to reduce debt and have a squad like the one we have now.

Celtic are a PLC - money can't just be handed to the club, shares need to be bought and if Desmond was to buy anymore shares he would, by law, have to buy them all and take full control of our club. This would mean we had only person running the club and no fans would have their say. Also why should he invest money into the team? It's his money and he knows he would never see it again if he put it into the team - he has done the right thing in the oast with investments to help secure our future - he didn't get to be a billionaire by throwing money away.

I think it's pretty unfair of fans, like you, who exclaim he must put money into our club when he already has.
Click to expand...

Totally agree we should always live within our means

celticminded89 · Aug 17, 2010

sure its nothing to worry about lads

shughie · Aug 17, 2010

celticminded89 said: ↑

sure its nothing to worry about lads
Click to expand...

Right now it isnt, but what if that deficit starts accumulating?
I still have no cofidence in the board, keep your eyes peeled on those smoke screen artists!

CelticFC1967 · Aug 17, 2010

one good season and that debt will be wiped out easily. If we win the league this season we will have done so having made a profit in our transfer dealings, and will also have a better chance of getting into the champions league. The club has done well to be prudent in recent years and, ironically, when they did spend quite a bit of money (last year) it failed. It's all about the manager and the players he chooses to sign

jokeybhoy · Aug 17, 2010

we have the mcgeady money and also a couple more will likely leave so debt will be fine

jcwelsh · Aug 17, 2010

CelticFC1967 said: ↑

Celtic are a PLC - money can't just be handed to the club, shares need to be bought and if Desmond was to buy anymore shares he would, by law, have to buy them all and take full control of our club.
Click to expand...

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> Have to disagree with this sorry.

Whilst working with Intel I had many shares which where one day worth $30 and the next went down to about $15 but in return my stock increased to no particular loss in my investment.

The reason was because the company decided to buy in more investment to increase the revenue and many more shares became available due to the development.

This can also be carried out by Celtic to allow the club to have more money if the board voted for it. (More than 50% of the share holders)

Share capital

The members must agree to take some, or all, of the shares when the company is registered. The memorandum of association must show the names of the people who have agreed to take shares and the number of shares each will take. These people are called the subscribers.
There is a minimum share capital for public limited companies: Before it can start business, it must have allotted shares to the value of at least £50,000. A quarter of them, £12,500, must be paid up. Each allotted share must be paid up to at least one quarter of its nominal value together with the whole of any premium.

A company can increase its authorised share capital by passing an ordinary resolution (unless its articles of association require a special or extraordinary resolution). A copy of the resolution – and notice of the increase on Form 123 – must reach Companies House within 15 days of being passed. No fee is payable to Companies House.
A company can decrease its authorised share capital by passing an ordinary resolution to cancel shares which have not been taken or agreed to be taken by any person. Notice of the cancellation, on Form 122, must reach Companies House within one month. No fee is payable to Companies House.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> I just want to add, that I am not implying that Dermot should be putting his money in.

I just want to emphasize that what is being said about plc companies is wrong.

jcwelsh · Aug 17, 2010

CelticFC1967 said: ↑

one good season and that debt will be wiped out easily. If we win the league this season we will have done so having made a profit in our transfer dealings, and will also have a better chance of getting into the champions league. The club has done well to be prudent in recent years and, ironically, when they did spend quite a bit of money (last year) it failed. It's all about the manager and the players he chooses to sign
Click to expand...

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> The debt more so is made of the season ticket sales with which are 7.5 mil down on maximum capacity. So winning the league this year will only help for year 2012 and that will only be if we go back up to 52,000.

All the other revenue outlets won't really bring in much difference due to on running contractual agreements. And the way things are going just now, we are going to find it difficult to get any better than we have now as Celtic a couple of years ago was a more attractive deal to bargain with.

jokeybhoy said: ↑

we have the mcgeady money and also a couple more will likely leave so debt will be fine
Click to expand...

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> More the reason not to spend it all, now we all know where we stand.

DanniGhirl · Aug 17, 2010

jcwelsh said: ↑

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style>

Share capital

The members must agree to take some, or all, of the shares when the company is registered. The memorandum of association must show the names of the people who have agreed to take shares and the number of shares each will take. These people are called the subscribers.
There is a minimum share capital for public limited companies: Before it can start business, it must have allotted shares to the value of at least £50,000. A quarter of them, £12,500, must be paid up. Each allotted share must be paid up to at least one quarter of its nominal value together with the whole of any premium.

A company can increase its authorised share capital by passing an ordinary resolution (unless its articles of association require a special or extraordinary resolution). A copy of the resolution – and notice of the increase on Form 123 – must reach Companies House within 15 days of being passed. No fee is payable to Companies House.
A company can decrease its authorised share capital by passing an ordinary resolution to cancel shares which have not been taken or agreed to be taken by any person. Notice of the cancellation, on Form 122, must reach Companies House within one month. No fee is payable to Companies House.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CNicola%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> I just want to add, that I am not implying that Dermot should be putting his money in.

I just want to emphasize that what is being said about plc companies is wrong.
Click to expand...

The previous poster wasn't talking about Celtic not being able to change their authorised or issued share capital, they can do that easily, however if a major shareholder takes their ownership over the 30% benchmark then they are forced to launch a take over bid to buy all the shares. So although Celtic can easily issue more shares DD needs to ensure his holding stays under the 30% benchmark:

The City Code (of the Takeover Panel) requires that if a shareholder or a concert party acquires more than 30% of a company it must offer to buy the remaining shares on terms as good as its most recent purchases.
<script type="text/javascript"> </script> <script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript"> </script><script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/expansion_embed.js"><script src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/test_domain.js" /><script>google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);</script>The reason for this is that 30%, although not giving a shareholder formal control, is sufficient to give effective control.
When a change of control takes place it may adversely affect the share price. This is because minority shareholders are likely to worry that the company will be run to suit the controlling shareholder, and the interests of minorities may be affected. Therefore, it is only fair to allow them to sell out at the price that the new controlling shareholder paid before the change of control.
Click to expand...

CelticFC1967 · Aug 17, 2010

yeah i was talking about what Danni said - if Desmond put in more he'd need to make a bid to buy the club outright.

shughie · Aug 18, 2010

The prudent frugal gang, the smoke screen bhoys have succeeded in making Celtic a laughing stock throughout the fitba world, and although short of 6 million in arrears aint bad, who says it wont get worse!

victoryamaha · Aug 18, 2010

shughie said: ↑

The prudent frugal gang, the smoke screen bhoys have succeeded in making Celtic a laughing stock throughout the fitba world, and although short of 6 million in arrears aint bad, who says it wont get worse!
Click to expand...

the only people who can make this club a laughing stock are fans like you!!!

shughie · Aug 18, 2010

hungoverbhoy said: ↑

the only people who can make this club a laughing stock are fans like you!!!
Click to expand...

Check it out ask fans of other clubs through their forums if they fear playing Celtic, the majority will surely laugh, fact novice!

celtic warrior · Aug 18, 2010

shughie said: ↑

Check it out ask fans of other clubs through their forums if they fear playing Celtic, the majority will surely laugh, fact novice!
Click to expand...

what do you expect when scottish footbal is so poor? honestly there is only so much celtic and rangers can do to help improve it's co effiency and stuff like that to try and help improve the league by getting it more noticed and attracting better players.

we may have had some great success in recent years like the UEFA final and such BUT when no one outside of scotland is interested in the SPL, we seem completely unable to coach and bring up promising youth compared other countries and because of the "old school" nature of britians footballing idea we are simply not adapting to the evolution of football and it's "new school" style of play and it's constantly decreasing qaulity there is not alot ONE shareholder of ONE club can do about all of that.

like others have said he's not a billionaire for no reason he knows when and when not to invest and over recent years celtic have been doing more behind the scenes like lennoxtown etc.. to ensure it's future.

DD could easily splash £50mill on transfers if he really really really wanted to but when there is just so many problems within scottish football it would obviously cripple Celtic and as a prude business man it would effect DD pocket as he won't be getting any substantial return on it.

the only crazy unrealistic way I could see the SPL getting any better is if a shyte load of crazy rich arab billionaires bought all the SPL clubs so theres billionaires everywere willing to splash the cash on any player the respective team wants causing almost basically a level playing field and making the league more competitive

Rosleabhoy · Aug 18, 2010

Shugie ain't no Celtic fan. He's well known on the forums for winding up opposition.

mmmikey · Aug 18, 2010

How can anyone complain of £6m worth of debt? That's microscopic!

My only fear is we've now lost our two traditionally largest sellable assets - McGeady/Boruc although we got pretty good money for them (£12.5m combined). Have we spent that equivalent already in players coming in? (I doubt it)

So anyway without those 2, and this is slightly offtopic, but who do we have left that can generate quick income? Brown? Samaras? Fortune? Ki? Ledley? Juarez?

I'm wondering if our highest valued player must be around only the £3m mark? That's a first for us. I hope Juarez and Ledley particularly can drive their values up through good performances.

e9tims · Aug 18, 2010

mmmikey said: ↑

How can anyone complain of £6m worth of debt? That's microscopic!

My only fear is we've now lost our two traditionally largest sellable assets - McGeady/Boruc although we got pretty good money for them (£12.5m combined). Have we spent that equivalent already in players coming in? (I doubt it)

So anyway without those 2, and this is slightly offtopic, but who do we have left that can generate quick income? Brown? Samaras? Fortune? Ki? Ledley? Juarez?

I'm wondering if our highest valued player must be around only the £3m mark? That's a first for us. I hope Juarez and Ledley particularly can drive their values up through good performances.
Click to expand...

We will know by next year if thair value has gone up by the amount of interest shown in takeing them to the prem

og1 · Aug 18, 2010

mmmikey said: ↑

How can anyone complain of £6m worth of debt? That's microscopic!
Click to expand...

Yeah sure it is but i think we should strive to be debt free

CelticFC1967 · Aug 18, 2010

People always criticise the whole 'zero debt' aim but if we were to have no debt then its a foundation, a platform if you like, for us to spend money on new players as we aren't having to pay back debt and interest every month.

mmmikey · Aug 18, 2010

og1 said: ↑

Yeah sure it is but i think we should strive to be debt free
Click to expand...

I know I just posted about how we've got comparitively low value players but we are practically debt free. I reckon we could make that £6m at the drop of a hat by selling just 2 or 3 players and it wouldn't really affect our strength on the park.

Celtic record debt of 5.85 million.

victoryamaha Gold Member Gold Member