Celtic are a PLC

That's not quite true, he has received preference dividends as he is entitled to by law, however, he doesn't take the entire dividend in cash, instead he is part of the scrip dividend reinvestment scheme.

He owns around 13million preference shares but according to last years financial statements there are only mandates in place for the dividend reinvestment scheme for just over 1.2 million preference shares, assuming that all of those are DD's preference shares that still leaves several million shares on which a preference dividend would have been received.

That's not to say I disagree with his policy of not throwing money at Celtic, he's right to ensure the club is sustainable. I also agree he's not the major shareholder for financial reasons but it's slightly misleading to suggest he's never had a dividend from the club.

As it is preference shareholders are more like lenders, they don't have voting rights and the dividend they receive is more like interest (6% in the case of Celtic).

 

Not saying he's never but he's got it set up now that he doesn't. Last few years anyway.

 

He doesn't have it set up for all of his preference shares as far as I'm aware.

 

I read something about it last week. It was about him taking nothing out and anything gets reinvested.

Great guy to have at the helm.

 

Have you got a link for that, as when the scheme was set up it certainly didn't cover all of his preference shares?

 

Trying to find it. It was also discussed on Clyde 1 last week

 

Just read all this about Desmond. Yes Celtic is being run like a Business, because at the end of the day - football is money, money is business.

If the fans started saying lets get this guy to * cause he;s not giving us money.

He could pull the plug and walk away, we would then be in a spiral that would give rangers even a rid neck. We need people like him in high places. May not be investing were we want him to. But he has Financial Backing.

Lawell and the board are smart, no matter what anyone say's and celtic are gearing themselves up for the future - yes the future.

Not many clubs can stand back and say they are debt free. With no debt, comes confidence, confidence will then bring the Glory.

Since O'Neil left is been a new road for Celtic - the glory days no more people say. But for me looking forward from the dark times of now.

I would say, the Glory times should just be starting and all this build up - could be to something mind blowing.


(a need another beer....hope everyone knows what am getting at with the above and av said it right)

 

In any business, especially football, that is clearly not true, being debt free doesn't bring confidence, winning trophies bring confidence.

I agree with how DD has handled his investment, we need to be self sufficient, that does not mean however that we need to be debt free.

 

The thing is surely even if all this money was pumped into Celtic for transfers, by Desmond for instance, there is no guarantee that the actual signing's themselves would be a hit. Look at Flo just for an example for Hun FC - £12M he cost them and he was * GARBAGE! They let him go for £6M I think it was, so there's a loss of £6M already. Also Torres for Chelski. £95M he's costing them from Liverpool (the original £50M transfer fee plus the £9M a year 5 year contact he's got) and he's scored an amazing 1 goal for them so far.

You could have the money but it would also need to spent it WISELY else we would just be pumping money out our arses and we would end up in the same hole as the orcs.

 

No-one on here is just suggesting that the investors throw money at the club, but can you honestly say that you are happy with how we've "strengthened" this transfer window?

The club is financially stable, that's down to the good work of the board, however, we can use that financial stability to obtain loans at favourable rates, especially considering how low the interest rates are just now to invest in the couple of players we need to improve the squad.

No signing will guarantee we win the league, but it's obvious we are lacking experience just now so by spending a little (not going in to huge amounts of unsustainable debt) then we increase those chances. The better we do on the field, the better we will do off the field as well as it generates increased revenue, however, the opposite is not true as has been seen these last few years.

No-one wants the club to go back to the dark days of being minutes away from foreclosure, however, we can still be financially stable with a realistic level of debt.

 

We could take a slight gamble on genuine quality.We always take the cautious aproach.Thats why der hun have 3 in a row.Because of our lack of intelligence.Its as if we want to to keek em alive. Coz theyre *.They literally have * all money.We should have buried em.Alas the board penny pinched and here we are.

 

Totally agree: thats what I said and for the life of me some people who have made comments on this forum cannot understand...there is a need to take some risk...investment in 2 or 3 quality signings could make all the difference...the difference between winning the league and losing....

 

Nobody has said we shouldnt spend money. Just not at the levels some want/expect.

Rangers do have money. It's a myth to suggest otherwise. They would never be buried, like we wouldn't.

 

I've seen nothing to suggest this is true. Rangers are still indebted to the tune of over £18M and have spent £1M of Shooters myhtical "warchest". Their subsequent double failure to enter the European group stages means virtually no additional income than their season ticket money, which they have already ringfenced.

No-one knows anything about Shooter. "Billionaire" Craig Whyte, may well be just that, or he may be a clever conman without a pot to * in. Time will tell on that, but the club, with it's enormous potential tax liability, and without a major bank's backing, is on the verge of total disaster if HMRC win their case.

Unless Shooter actually puts his hand in his pocket and spends some serious cash, you can only come to the conclusion that Alistair Johnston and the sacked Ibrox board members were correct in their conclusion, and in their warning to the Orcs, to be vigilant about Shooters promises.

 

Whyte has cleared the debt allegedly.

In any case, their debt shouldn't be our concern.

We obsess far too much about their finances and tax issue.

As far as I know rangers have agreed a deal
In principle with HMRC

 

I'm agreeing that the team does need strengthened and I am happy that the club is practically debt free but on the other hand we do need to spend money on strengthening the squad. I think as long as the debt is manageable then I don't see why spending can't happen. We can't carry on not spending or hardly spending anything else we will never progress in Europe and if we don't do that then we will only attract a certain level of player. It's a bit like a vicious circle at times.

We are in a position where we can spend because of the low debt. I don't know if some of the thinking on the board is along the lines of "Well, if we get rid of debt then we won't owe anyone any money i.e. the banks repayments, which means we will have more money to spend on ourselves."

I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said though - I was just putting my tuppence in :icon_mrgreen:

 

Whyte has not cleared their debt and nor have they agreed any deal with HMRC. I don't think anyone is obsessing about Rangers debt. These are just the facts. Rangers debt is the same now as it was when Murray owned the club, and they also have two (one relatively small, and one absolutely HUGE) tax cases pending.

 

I'm not a banker and I don't claim to know the full in's and out's of tax cases and the tax sage at Hun FC etc but hasn't Whyte only paid off the banks debt meaning that HE has taken it on himself (or put it somewhere else) which mean that Hun FC STILL owe the money It may just not be owed to the bank anymore but surely it's still owed somewhere. Their debt won't have just vanished because Craig "billionaire" Whyte has come in.

I think, from a personal point of view, we just like seeing the * squirm :icon_mrgreen: Especially when Murray had his foresight of "for every £5 they spend we will spend £10" mentality because they are definitely paying for that foresight now

 

Celtic are a plc = public limited company made up of share holders if he invests more money into the club it has to be matched by the other share holders or else he won't get a return on his investment because it will be shared out among the other share holders as a dividend payment

 

If he was to own the club out right that would be different as he would get the full rerun on his investment . So would you throw money at it ?