a foreign takeover

seeing what is happening in paris and the blue parts of manchester and london i was thinking to myself could a foreign takeover happen to us too....

would you want that to happen?

what would the positives and negatives from such a foreign takeover be?

 

Man City's owner - Yes of course.

Hearts owner - * NO!

It would be a risk. You never know when these foreign owners are going to get bored and jump ship.

Desmond and co do a good job.

 

What happens to the club when these owners get bored? You're left with a team of players on stupid wages that the club probably won't be able to maintain.
Not a fan of it at all. Live within your means, keep debt free and just be sensible. These guys are ruining football.

 

It could be risky on a number of levels, would he/they have an emotional affinity?, what would we be getting,a Whyte a Romanov or an Abramovich?, what is his/ their motive? etc. etc.

Another question: can we be sure that we would get full financial backing?

As I said above, too risky.

Now, if Bill gates gave me half his fortune....Id be a great owner

 

No thanks. I don't want foreigners who have no connection to, or real affinity for, Celtic owning the club. They'll just * off and leave us with a myriad of debts when they get bored.

The club is currently in the hands of people who care about it and won't see it run into the ground. In these financially turbulent times that is good enough for me.

 

The family that own Manchester City also own PSG and Malaga....malaga have spent no less that £50M on players this season and i know PSG are splashing serious cash as well! I mean they are close to buying Pastore so thats £35M right there! These guys are eventually going to walk away from these clubs and think they can buy themselves into another sport! Money ruins sport because it has certainly ruined football! The english premier league is going to go bust because of these foreign owners paying over the odds for * players! Its a total joke! i will laugh myself to death when the premiership comes out and says Manchester United or Liverpool or Chelsea have went bust because there debt levels are that high!

 

It would depend entirely on the set of circumstanes that arise at the time. If Desmond and co wanted out, and we got a few competing offers in, I think it be daft to dismiss a foreign if its the best deal on the table.

Would rather it didnt need to happen mind you but again depends on the circumstances at the time.

 

Dont hold your breathe mate, it wont happen.

 

no thanks. the way * is going just now finance is destroying the game as we speak and there are too many foriegn people involved with clubs especialy in the epl. and to me they are the reason(along with sky) that are * up the rest in europe. so na no for me rather we keep going the way we are after all if these clubs need to get sugar daddys in to help them be better and take the short cut as to speak! then * them it will come back and bite them someday.

 

Everyone hates the likes of Chelsea and Man City because of their rich owners and greedy players.. Plus (as people have already said) it's simply not viable to maintain that level of spending when the owner runs off to spend more cash for fun.

Then there's the expectations - you have to get your monies worth in silverwear! Of course we would win the league by Christmas if Lenny could buy who he wanted in the market.. But that would mean extreme pressure in european competition! The SPL is the only thing halting Celtics progress, we have good structure, management, fans and facilities.. Just not the bankroll to support it

 

If you watched 'How To Buy A Football Club' on Channel 4 you'll know why i'm against foreign take overs.

 

While the money would be good, I think, overall, it would be a bad thing because as some people have already said, you never know how it's going to work out. A lot of these take-overs are done by people who, in my opinion, aren't interested in the football but in just the money.

Look at Chelski for a start. Abramovich is just a money man - that's it. He got rid of Mourinho (and look what he done for the club), he got rid of Ancelotti (who done excellent in his first season with them) - all because they never won the Champions League Cup. If it was more for the football than the money for Abramovich then he would have stuck with Mourinho or Ancelotti. For him to expect Ancelotti to win the Champions League in his first season as well as the EPL league title is unreal - especially when the manager brings in his own players. Time is what is needed for these managers and the money men of these clubs don't allow that.

Man City is another one - they have went through 4 managers in 6 years. It could be a safe bet that if Mancini doesn't win the league title this season it will be a case of him probably getting punted as well.

Also one other word in why these foreign takeovers are very risky - Portsmouth. Look what happened to them with their several takeovers in just the one season. Plus their overspending didn't help as because in the 09/10 season they were reportadly in debt by about £135M. Big spending and foreign takeovers definately didn't help them.

Look at mad Vlad with Hearts as well. Another reason right there in why foreign take-overs can be very dodgy.

Like I say the money would be good but you just never know who would be putting the money up.

 

whilst in the spl we aint a commercially acceptable proposition to one of these arab billionaires. we are probably trading at just below our maximum....it will get a wee bit better if we win the league again but still nowhere near premiership levels of income.

 

Its just unrealistic, therefor I didn't vote, would need a foreign owner to invest in every team to make the league more competitive

 

Keeping this debt free * has brought to where we are, in a diddy league against pish and now getting beat off Welsh teams ha ha how much more do you want us to go.

No I want the best, not second here or anywhere, show me second best and I will show you a loser

 

Any way have we not got a foreign owner who does * all, ha ha wait for it

 

I for one would rather the club do their best to have as little debt as possible than run up the huge amounts that you see other clubs have. Look where it has got Hun FC. Look at where the over-spending has put them and the likes of Portsmouth as well. Portsmouth were on the brink of closing down for good. And even if the league IS a diddy league, that's not down to Celtic & how they control their finances - that's down to how the SFA & SPL run the game in Scotland. A few years ago the SFA had the choice of making a mega-money deal with Sky Sports to show the league matches. In their wisdom the SFA refused (at that time). Says a lot for how the game is run in Scotland.

Just because clubs like Chelski, Man City, Man Utd and Real Madrid have got big bucks behind the scenes or have owners that have money it doesn't mean that the club will stay debt free either. For example, Man Utd recorded £286M in turnover last year BUT because of the costs and the interest that the Glazers have loaded onto the club they actually pushed United into LOSING £79M and they have an overall debt of £590M! Chelsea made a loss at £78M and they have an overall debt of £734M.

Big spending comes at a price and it catches up to the club eventually. Huge spending by Hun FC in the 90s and early 2000s has caught up with them now. Big spending by Portsmouth within the last 10 years has caught up with them now as well. Leeds Utd were another team that had been done eventually by the spending. The player fees, the agent fees now, the player wages - it all mounts up. Michael Ballack said he was looking forward to playing for Chelsea when he signed. I bet the £100,000 a week helped that decision. Torres cost Chelsea around £95M in total - £50M transfer fee and then £45M for Torres himself over a 5 year period which is about £175,000 a week! He has scored ONE measly goal so far for them in 14 appearances. Hooper cost Celtic £2.4M and has scored 20 goals in 27 appearances.

Success does usually come at a price BUT what sort of a price is down to how the club manages the finances and I would rather Celtic carry on the way they are going that fork out huge amounts for a player that doesn't/won't perform.

 

If the new owner was a proper Celtic fan and had the clubs best interests at heart, and the money was invested wisely, then it could be just what we need to take us to the next level.

Otherwise I'd be against it.

 

Couldn't agree more.

There are plenty of people on here who like to shout sack the board every other week, but the fact is the way we're being run is sound financially in the long term, living within our means, not relying on a sugar daddy to pump artificial wealth into the team.

I wouldn't have it an other way, we have to be run as stable as possible, especially considering the relatively low income of the league we're in.

I can't help but wonder when I see people on here sayign we should spend 4/5/6/7/8 mil on players, if they have any real understanding of the financial climate the club is working in, or maybe they're just too young to remember that the club was so badly managed that we were literally minutes from going bankrupt back in the 90's.

 

nonononono bring in a rich owner and your selling yourself to the devil and along with that goes your respect. Look at Man City they buy every available player for silly money, pay them crazy wages but is the team settled? or are they respected? Every 2 minutes you hear a player wanting away or complaining about the team.

Give me the hard slog and get viable respect like the way normal clubs do instead of rich arabs/russian billionaires playing fantasy football with clubs.