Downsizing is a Myth

No, , I'mo not a shareholder, neither do have an interest in being one.

 

Have they not tried to spend higher amounts on a striker 4-5 million before getting told to * off twice and in some papers claiming pukki was 4th choice.

I don't think the club wants to be bringing in sub 2 million players all the time but the splfplf is a tough * thing to sell.

 

We should have went for: van Persie, Khedira and Mats Hummels when we sold Wilson, Hooper and Wanyama.

 

May I ask what exactly these "intangible assets" you speak of are?

I don't mean the definition, I mean what intangibles do we actually own?

 

That's it exactly.

 

Good post. One of the more sensible contributions to this thread.

I'm sure I got laughed at the other day when I said that there is nothing wrong at all being in debt - in fact it's better.

 

An asset that is not physical in nature. Corporate intellectual property (items such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, business methodologies), goodwill and brand recognition are all common intangible assets in today's marketplace. An intangible asset can be classified as either indefinite or definite depending on the specifics of that asset. A company brand name is considered to be an indefinite asset, as it stays with the company as long as the company continues operations. However, if a company enters a legal agreement to operate under another company's patent, with no plans of extending the agreement, it would have a limited life and would be classified as a definite asset.

 

I know what an intangible asset is... I done exams on IAS 38 in my bachelors degree.

I'm asking what the exact intangibles Celtic own, I figured a shareholder might have some exact details.

 

I'm was thinking he means things like the brand name, goodwill of the fans, etc (as opposed to tangible assets like the stadium). I might be wrong, though, I'm not an accountant.

Edit: ah, he answered it while I was typing.

 

Yes you are right last season the targets where as follows in order;

1. Alfred Finbogasson and we all know how that panned out with fee constantly changing.

2. Artjoms Rudnevs: £3.2m bid accepted by Hamburg but player wanted to fight for his place.

3. Marko Arnatovic: £3.4m bid accepted by Werder Bremen but player said SPL was a joke. Later moved to Stoke for £1.5m because Werder wanted rid of him (mourinho said he was the most difficult player he has ever had to manage!).

4. Temmu Pukki who we signed.

 

Who said there was anything wrong with running a manageable level of debt? If we were stockpiling money in spite of investment opportunities, I'd worry about the competence of our board.

Lawwell explicitly said they'd be willing to spend £5m (I think that was the figure) if the right investment opportunity came along. Seemingly guys like Finbogasson who fit our profile and are in that price bracket don't want to come (so far), so what would you have the board invest in? Ten £1m strikers instead of three?

 

You also have the tangable assests but for PLC and football accounts players fees, registrations can be intangable assets as celtic class them.

Such as VVD and FF being the main two for example:

if you have £3m debt, you could sell VVD for £8m and in the make up of the fee you could have £5m up front then apportion £3m to wipe debt out and use £2m as working capital.

You also have Lennoxtown, Celtic Park, all players etc.

and before anyone starts i am not saying sell any of the above.

 

What reason would Lawwell have to give in saying we went for Finbogasson, then roughly a week later they said they wanted a few milliin more than what we were willing to pay (presumably OVER the 4/5milliin quid mark)?

 

you are right eddie in IAS 38 an Intangible Assets, is defined as 'An identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance'

but for a football club it is different thats why in the annual accounts celtic show player registrations and agents fees etc as intangable assests i beleive

 

Dunno, mate. He said we'd be willing to pay that much for the right opportunity and I think it's clear that we bid for him. The rest is just guesswork on my part, but I think it far more likely that he didn't want to come or that his club upped their price when more bids came in (which was certainly the rumour at the time) than that Lawwell was lying because what he really wanted wasn't one £5m striker at all but 5 Pukki's or £5m in one pound notes for his swimming pool.

 

As i have always said eddie show me a honest accountant and i will show you a bad accountant lol....

 

Well look at what happened in January too celtic had been working for 6 weeks on a deal for Johhansen of AZ Alkmaar and the deal was nearly done the fee was agreed then Alkmaar moved the goal posts and that was a £3.75m deal, then we went to leigh griffiths... cest la vie

 

Sack the board!!!!!!

 

why you over reacting, nothing wrong with players knocking us back at least we tired.

 

Never seen the guy play. I'm assuming our scouts didn't think he was a good investment at more than the initial £3.75m. Different players are good investments at different prices. If we were offered Messi for £20m, you can guarantee our board would sanction the move as such a good investment that it'd be worth going over our budget; if we were offered Keith Lasley for £100k, it'd be a * investment, so we'd say no.