Celtic Interim accts

The likes of Benkovic, Burke etc as I was excluding (although i think we will extend the loans of 2 possibly) as you said permanent players originally.
Aye there is a good few leaving* and that will save money but we have signed/extended improved the salaries of 13 players. Without knowing the amounts they are all paid I would highly doubt that those leaving once you add those 13 players on improved/new terms/salaries would equate to us saving anything like 6 million in wages, just cant see that at all. Unless, as i said, Pete is a genius and the players agents have sold them short.

* I would not be surprised if we still have Lustig, Benyu, Compper, (as he is gonna want the full wack in wages now as he isnt going to get another daft * to sign him, so he will hang about unless he gets the full amount paid and there is little benefit to doing that for us really) and Hayes still with us.

Even if the above figures are correct, I would be a bit skeptical but none of us know for sure tbf mate, we are then back to the 13 new/extended improved contracts that will eat into the figure and I would think 6 of them anyway will have had hefty increases - Ajer, Christie, Forrest, McGregor, Ntcham and Rogic.
I'm not saying we shouldn't invest I simply said I doubt very much its 6 million saving overall, whatever way its cut up. I've said previously that a 60 million quid wage bill is something we need to watch, especially when many seem to reckon having approx 38 million in the bank is too much. imo its a tad low for the wages/running costs we currently have as its not a massive safety net should we fail to get CL groups next year again. Remembering we are also looking at building a hotel although I reckon we will franchise that.

 

Its money sitting there obviously NOT being invested that gives rise to hun conspiracy theories about peado rings and pay offs.

 

Jesus, is that their theory now? I'd have thought if money is being held back for anything its for building the hotel

 

Looks good, means * all .

 

Couple of them in the work convinced we have millions tucked away for all the compensation claims about to land on our door and this will Finnish us for good ha

 

Didn't Liverpool just post a £106mil net profit?

 

with who is on that 6 million , surely we could distribute that across 3 or 4 really good players rather than the 8 or 9 who its wasted on the now

 

They received £142m for Coutinho which may explain that one. They also got to the Champions League final.

 

Liverpool have a debt of 150million though.

 

Aye that’s the what they are all claiming hundreded in millions from the USA and Digby Brown

 

Hotel wont cost too much, it’s not going to be massive and they’d probably use a loan to pay for it anyway and use profits to pay that off.

 

they are obsessed with us going out a business , for what its worth i'll be surprised if we do pay any compo as we are quick to distance ourselves from CBC anytime its mentioned

 

Keep reading the title of this as “Interim Acts”

Thought we were gonna be subjected to a Cher impersonator at half time again

 

Down to £57mil as of 2018, which they could really wipe out at any point they wanted, but doesn't it make more financial sense to keep it for some reason? Tax or something, and it allows them to invest more in the team, infrastructure, etc. By investing it in themselves rather than fixating on the debt, their revenue increases. Debt's only really an issue if you start to collapse on the pitch and your revenue shrinks, which ironically is more often than not fixed by investing more heavily in the team.

 

Not really, it doesn't make a difference if you make a loss but you have money set aside or if you make a loss and you don't so need loans to help you, you still pay less tax either way.

The only good thing about having access to loans and overdraft from a bank would be if you have a good relationship with them so you can get help and use them to get out of trouble.

But if you have £40million you don't need then the bank doesn't really matter. You never want to be in debt but you'd rather be in debt than have no money.

 

The way the club is run though we never account for the extra money, to use the extra money means increasing the wage-bill which means eating away at the money then when that money runs out we need to lower the wage-bill back to managable levels. We are never going to step out of our budgets like that.

So thats why we see no real difference, we are always going to be run based on the money we know we are guarenteed. The extra money means we can buy disco lights and use the extra £1million here and there on a transfers and stuff like that What we won't do is buy 2 £10million, £50k a week players that we then won't be able to afford in 3 years.

The money also allows us to keep players as well, had we not had the money we'd probably have had to sell Dembele just to give us money to spend over the next 3/4 transfer windows and cover money we'e spend in the last 2/3 but now we have all that money then we have enough money to spend over the next 10-12 transfer windows even if we never qualified for the Europa League in that time.

 

I think this is something people forget about. Regardless what we pay on transfer fees - paying two players £50k each is just under a 9% increase in our current wage bill if £60mill is correct, that is something we just can not afford to do. Only because of where we are based and how hamstrung we are by it because domestically Scottish football finances are utter pish.

 

Aye people always think though but the two guys could get us into the CL 2 season in a row then we might be able to sell them for £30million each and make £80million out of them.

But there will just never be gambling like that as the same two guys could see us not in the CL for 2 seasons and both be hampered by injury or * and then have to be sold before they enter the last year of their contracts at a loss.

We will only set wage-bills and use money that is set in stone that we can afford no matter what. Anything over that will slowly trickle in over years or we might spend the odd £1million more than we might have before to get a player since we can but the money will never be used to inflate our guarenteed budgets since it could run out and we don't gamble like that.

 

Imagine as well, what giving new guys £50k contracts, the current lot would also want increases to equal or at least close to the same amount.

It should say it all really that the only way we can make money is getting into the CL twice ever 3 or so years with players sales filling in the gaps where we perhaps don't reach the CL groups.

Unless there was a massive overhaul in the promotion of Scottish Football, things will only get worse whether we've got £1 or £38 mill sitting in our bank accounts or not.

 

There's a section of our support that will just never accept this though, who always want to * and moan about the board no matter what (no, I don't agree with everything they do) who see these figures of money in the bank and say "why can't we buy a couple in the 5-10mil range instead of 2-5m" and never look past the transfer fee headlines. It's much more likely the wages players with these price tags can command than the fee itself that sees us missing out.