Downsizing is a Myth

Er, we're a PLC, mate. Wish we weren't (wish we'd stuck to McCann's vision of a club owned by the fans) but we are. So the majority of the club's shareholders would disagree with you.

 

Why are people trying to figure out if certain numbers are true or not?

The year end statements are PUBLIC, just go look for yourself.

 

I know, I know. The reaction has been literally incredible...almost Rangers-esque. (From the point of view of the sense of entitlement, the failure to see that the new guy has only signed one player, and has only had a few weeks to get to know the squad.)

As a matter of fact, I don't think we would fail to win any trophies under Austerity Rules.

The current squad would win the league for a couple of years. As their contracts wound down or they left, then as we brought in players cheaply we'd only be doing the same as every other SPFL club. Over five years of austerity, I'd still expect two or three league titles and a couple of cups.

We would still be able to pay higher wages by virtue of bigger crowds, so we'd be able to tempt the odd out of contract, perhaps ageing, Italian defender to stroll through the SPFL and talk his 19 year old development squad centre back partner through games.

Out-of-contract young players released by big clubs could be tempted with the possibility of first team and even European football, and we'd still hope to sign the odd Wanyama for not much outlay.

If we saved £10 million a year doing that, then in five years we could invoke a new wage structure paying the first team stars a premium and holding on to the talent we had brought through.

We would also be able to hold out for "realistic" fees for players we decided to sell.

(I also wonder if the imminent collapse of Banco Espitito Santo in Portugal will affect the fees certain clubs can pay shortly.)

To coin a cliche, "cash is king".

 

P Lawwell

Basic wage (reported to be around £200k) including perfomance related salary £507,625

Team and Commercial performance Bonus £398,500

Benefits in kind £17,322

Private Pension Cont £76,144

Total salary in 2013 £999,591

 

From a business point of view that's nonsense, mate. We have to sell if we would make more money by selling and we have to hold on to players if we make more money by holding onto them. This is true regardless of how mich money we have in the bank or how much debt we're in, except in the very peculiar case of being in so much debt we're un danger of being wound up in the short term i.e. a forced fire sale.

 

Any idea what his benefits in kind are?

No doubt a company car with decent capital allowance on it.

 

So what you out earlier isn't true, then?

 

there you go , 19m profit on players when the other managers all spent more than they made....the board have simply put what happens on the pitch as second priority behind an impressive balance sheet. We have clearly downsized , and the board has clearly pulled in the reigns of our ambition . They simply will not spend any money to the point where we have completely decimated our playing squad, reducing it to the sorry level it is at now (Pukki Blade Stokes Griffiths frontline )No wonder Lennon walked out.

 

No, that's £19m profit on player trading, not players. It only takes into account what we spent and recouped in transfer fees, not what we spent in wages, gym equipment, youth development, nutritionists, medical staff, scans, etc.

 

Sorry, I disagree.

If you decide making the maximum money possible is all that matters, then what you say is true, but at a football club there is a balance between financial success and footballing success. (That is what has given rise to the debate, surely?)

Keeping Larsson, and turning down £25m, might not maximise profit. But if you win the league when you otherwise wouldn't, then you may decide to keep him.

 

http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php?func=d_home_documents

open the 2013 reports and take a look for yourselfs at the falling attendances and investment or lack of, laid out in laymens terms for all to understand!

 

all directors take around £1.3m out in salaries i should have said but lawwell take £1m of it sorry

 

nope eddie probably a few jollies and a car allowance

 

Dude, we're a PLC. We're owned by shareholders who expect to make money (either through dividends or growing the business). If we can make more money by success on the pitch, we'll do that; if we can make more money in other ways, we'll do that. There is no debate because we fans have no say.

 

what you mentioned is put into operating expenses so the £19m is clear profit on trading but some of it has to be utilised for what you mention but not all of it.

so your right in a round about way.

 

You are contradicting yourself, mate. Clearly if there are two possible ways to go, as you accept, there is a debate.

Whether fans are part of that debate or not depends on whether or not they hold shares in the PLC.

There is permanent tension between football success and financial success and getting striking the right balance is not easy.

I run a (not insubstantial) business, and no investment will always mean shrinkage and ultimately failure. Over-investment, or investment in risks which do not pay-off will do the same, only faster.

 

How much dividends does a shareholder make?

I can't open the document right now, but does it have an EPS figure?

 

My point was merely that we hadn't made that much on our players. See the post I quoted.

 

No, mate. There is no debate. The shareholders appoint experts to run the company for them (i.e. the board) with the brief to make them money and we do not get any say, regardless of the fact that you are a competent businessperson.

I agree with you about no investment BTW, which is why I said I don't believe the board are sitting on substantial money as they're not that incompetent.

 

pretty sure it does eddie i cant open it just now either.