Celtic Supporters Thread (contains GB chat)

I don't disagree with anyone taking that stance, as I say without my other thing in play I would be very likely to do the same.

 

Back the team Sack the Board.

Not buying STs is just cutting our nose off to spite someone else’s face.

In what universe is starving the club of money actually helping us long term?

To be honest I think a lot of people online who are pushing the withhold money angle don’t have the clubs best interests at heart.

There is other things that can be done, starving the club of money is just going to make things worse in the short term.

Back the Team Sack the Board.

 

To be fair, it could be argued that they only way to get the board sacked is to withdraw our financial support.

They've shown this season that they can ignore everything else. Social media posts - Dinghied, emails via the SLO - passed on then patched, protests outside.- painted as bad guys to deflect from the reason they were there.

If you're expecting this board to feel some pang of guilt and need to offer their resignation then you're going to be disappointed. Brian Wilson was telling people at the Celtic Shared/Celtic Trust meeting that it was time for people to forget last season and get on board together for the future. Their egos won't allow them to see themselves as part of the problem.

 

I’m not sure 30,000 STs are going to move them either though mate.

I’m also sure that those 30k holding off is going to cripple us in the short term, which will effect us in the long term.

Like I said. Back the Team Sack the Board.

Concerted protests outside the ground, campaigns against the boards other businesses, and loads of protests on the Celtic Way.

This withholding money from the club is counter productive if you ask me.

 

Keep funding them, nothing will change, it’s that simple. You won’t shame this shower of charlatans into leaving. Protest on top of it. This board have crippled us.

 

It'll definitely hurt in the short-term but if it stimulated change then it would hopefully be good in the long run.

Do you honestly think these * would take any action based on supporters protesting outside? They wouldn't give a single *. The 6ft fences erected round the stadium, the radio silence, the Desmond Herald interview, all show they couldn't care less what we think.

The huns wanted Ashley out and only got it by boycotting books, crashing the share price and creating such a toxic environment whereby he then wanted to wash his hands of it and sold to King.

I'd like to think we don't have to go down that route but with the evident lack of appetite for change from the board, they may eventually push people to it. I know double figures of people not renewing their books because of that and I can't find any decent arguments against their stance.

It is the board that has created this poisonous atmosphere and they've done nothing at all to change the mood, if anything they're making it worse by the day.

 

Ashley is still involved in the huns.

 

So we don’t by match day tickets, we don’t buy merch. What happens then? We get a poorer quality of player, we get canvas on the top tier. We get embarrassed in Europe and we maybe remove the board in a year or two.

We had banners covering the top tier a few years ago and they didn’t give a *. Why would it be different now?

 

Through lingering merchandise deals aye but he has no stake in the actual Ltd company any more.

 

I’ll take your word for it mate. Last I heard they were still having court battles.

To be honest that is something that scares me. We starve the PLC of money and the share price plummets and we end up with venture capitalists sniffing around the club.

I would much rather play the long game where the supporters buy up shares and pool them together with the Trust. It’s a long long road but it ensures our long term survival.

 

Aye, the court cases are over merchandise rights. He divested his total shareholding about 2 years ago I think.

I don't think there's a risk of similar happening. We're a PLC so the board have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. If revenues, dividends and share price all fall as a result of a collective supporter action then they'd be forced to explain that to shareholders at an AGM/EGM.

If the reason for the collective supporter action is widely known to be particular individuals continuing to be involved at the PLC/club eg. Bankier, Wilson etc. then they'd be forced to take action.

 

What happens at the hypothetical EGM when the support can’t buy out Desmond and he sells to one of the hedge funds who have a stake in us?

For me this is a long game. The end result is the support having a shareholding that can effect change.

This will not happen overnight, neither will it happen if we starve the club of income.

This must be a long, drawn out process in my opinion.

It might be another generation before we get our club back but it will be worth it.

Back the Team Sack the Board.

 

Why would a hedge-fund buy a stake in a company whose customer base was boycotting them? Hedge fund managers have also got a responsibility to their investors to make money but I'm sure they'd want a safer bet than that, especially if Desmond was selling due to a drop in share price.

Long-term the goal has to be 50%+1 owned by the fans but that's miles down the line, 10 years+ minimum

If we continue putting money into the club in the same fashion with no improvement in fan engagement, then it'll be even more difficult for the above to happen.

Continued financial backing of the widespread support will mean the PLC will be run to a profit, which means current corporate shareholders will have no reason to sell when they're getting a Return On Investment via dividends and an increase in share price.

The competing aims of the PLC (to make a profit) and the football club (to have a well-run, successful football team) aren't being balanced and I don't think the way to instigate change is to keep doing what the PLC board want us to do (keep shelling in our £££s but in a way we have no say in the running of the PLC)

 

Who else is going to buy his shares if we are boycotting? More to the point who is going to buy his shares if we are boycotting and we also can’t afford to buy him out?

We need to be clever about this. We need to be able to afford change to affect change.

 

Expectations for next season. League title.

Not going to happen if we starve the club of money.

What is the upside of this? Desmond sells up? To who?

 

Change doesn't necessarily have to come about by him selling his shareholding, at least not immediately. He's still a minority shareholder, there are others in the picture too and they would be the ones applying pressure if their dividends and share price were threatened by a financial boycott.

Here's quotes from Nick Train of Lindsell Train Ltd (2nd largest shareholder)

“We believe that the world will never be bored of being informed or entertained and that sports franchises have the power to draw the largest number of eyeballs, making them amongst the most valuable of intellectual properties,” he says. “And their value is rising with the proliferation of distribution platforms - whether they be broadcasters, cable channels, social media or direct to consumer – needing quality content to capture the attention of their customers. Live sports content is perhaps the most valuable as it draws in loyal, large and engaged audiences of the type that advertisers most value. Moreover, football has a growing audience globally.”

The short term turmoil of Brendan Rodgers’ departure is but a blip. “We take a long-term view on our investments in football clubs and are not concerned by short-term performance on the field,” says Train. “We take comfort from the fact historic takeovers of sports franchises are valued at generally much higher levels than the current valuations of the sports holdings in our portfolios.

“However, there are few quoted football clubs to choose from globally. We have long-standing investments in Celtic and Juventus and two years ago started an investment in Manchester United (having held it before it was taken over by the Glazers). Celtic has a relatively small market cap and is tightly held so we look to take advantage of increasing our stake when shares are available.”

Clearly they vote for the reappointment of Board members as they all get in by landslides at present (95%> of voters) but if their profits and capital gains on long-term investments are threatened and it is known to be that it's as a result of Celtic fans opposition to Bankier, Wilson, Chris McKay, Sharon Brown then they will push for either A. Them to make attempts to solve the Mexican stand-off or B. Want them replaced by other individuals that get the customer base back onside.

 

That’s * terrifying if you ask me mate. They seem like the sort of of company who would hoover up Desmond’s shares if the share price plummeted due to a boycott, they would rightly think that the share price would rocket if we got rid of the moustachioed *.

 

Nah, they hoover up at the moment because Lawwell basically ensures the PLC is ran to profit and the share price continues to climb; those things couldn't be guaranteed amidst a supporter boycott.

They could gamble on some mediation getting the fans back onside but it would be exactly that, a gamble. The "large, loyal and engaged audience" is noted as a key component of their investment. If the audience is no longer loyal and engaged, that presents them a problem.

 

So what? They sell low? Knowing that a concerted fan boycott is happening? Or do they read the room and buy out Desmond when his holding is at its most vulnerable, knowing that the fan base want rid of him?

We as a support need to be in a position to buy up his shares in that scenario.

That won’t happen overnight. In fact we need to forget about rescuing our club for a good while and actually put a long term plan in place to take it back from the PLC.

 

It’s not as serious but even Celts for Change would have been paying lip service if it wasn’t for Fergus.

We protested, we witheld money, we backed the team and tried to sack the board.

That board was going nowhere without getting a pay off.

Why would it be any different now?