Why did we decline? (Conspiracy theory warning!)

What a power of *.

Also, even the bits that are sane are incorrect. Such as the club selling our best players over Lennon’s head.

The only regular who left us last summer was Forster (who was a loanee). Then Frimpong in January.

 

Why did we decline?

Because in 2003 we hired an accountant as a CEO, as a defacto DoF.

We hired one that was involved as a financial director during the 92-94 era under the whytes and Kelly's.

His sole remit in 2003 was to reduce the footballing costs, but to make sure books are balance every year to ensure shareholders got their cut, no matter what.


Lawwell works on a very basic principle, financially the shareholders and board members need to get paid.

Doesn't matter to him if the turnover is £52million a year of £152million a year. So long as the books are balanced, then he gets paid and so do the rest. Bonuses and all.

From that very moment 18 years ago, everything was put in motion to being us to this very day.
The only blip in the entire thing was Desmond's ego taking a battering and the splash out on Rodgers.
But that was short lived and we recouped money on that in compensation.
Yet we will still use it as an extravagant outgoing that still needs to be paid off.

McKay, going forward, looks like just a continuation of this.
So strap on in Bhoys.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

I think if the shoe was on the other foot, the huns would have buried us. Aye it’s also what caused the whole scenario but we absolutely should have done everything in our power to ensure 10. Top manager, top players on short time deals. We made a pishy half hearted attempt when what was required was a board room of * killers.

 

People really need to get this into their heads;

Celtic lives and dies by it's share price.

Not the profit
Not the debt
Not the on-field results
Not the silverware
Not the season tickets
Not the TV money
Not the merchandise
Not the global profile

Buuuuuut, all those thing go into makeing the share price. Therefore global profile is more important than on field results however on field results do go into giving us a bigger global profile.

People need to understand that the majority of Peter Lawwell's pay would be shares or share options, not cash in hand.

That is why investing in a few big runs in Europe is second to jaunting around the world to do friendlies and buy an exotic foreigner from each continent, the latter can increase the share price more.

It's why Dermot has a huge hard on for joining the EPL.
It's why the board would rather not completely bury Rangers as they should have done preferring them to be a close second.
It's why we would rather build a hotel and museum than increase the capacity of the stadium.

When you accept this, pretty much all of their decisions come across as calculated and mostly very competent (they do make mistakes) but also antithetical to the ambitions and expectations of the support.

 

This sums it up perfectly for me @Peej. Peter Lawwell is a parasite on this club that was put there by Dermot Desmond and kept there by him and the other investment funds that are majority shareholders.

I would argue on four occasions during his tenure managers who were performing for the club have been driven out by his penny pinching ways. Firstly O’Neil European final and then last 8 whilst wresting back domestic dominance in his penultimate season. The team was badly ageing and needed investment like his first season again. It wasn’t forth coming. He goes for personal reasons but was also clearly fed up with no investment in the team.

Step forth Gordon Strachan, some initial investment Zurawski, Boruc, Nakamura, next season big JVOH and Jarosik. Two CL last 16 appearances running AC Milan to extra time. On course for 4 in a row but our strike force badly needs reinforcements, we fail to land Fletcher and instead sign Willo Flood. In fact we were in a good position to go for a treble then. We only win 7 of our last 15 league fixtures lose out on the league by 4 points our top league scorer only has 16 goals and we have 10 draws many of them goalless clearly showing a striker could have made the difference.

Lennon in his first spell well backed first season or two. Some good signings and the likes Ki, Wanyama, McGeady, K Wilson, Adam Matthews, Ledley, Hooper and FF sold for tidy profits. The spine of the team is ripped out we get to the group stages of the CL but unlike the previous season aren’t competitive. Team needs a decent injection of new signings budget is to be zero, Lennon walks.

Rodgers everyone knows the story there.

It is quite incredible over that 18 years we have been through this cycle 4 times with any manager who delivers an ounce of success.

 

Doesn’t have to be that complicated.

We’ve operated very poorly for a number of years but it’s been masked by the lack of any real domestic competition.

That completion has now stepped up and we’ve continued to operate in the same manner under the belief that it was responsible for our prior success, so should serve us well going forward.

 

This. People point to 9 in a row etc but our mismanagement is highlighted when you look at our European record. Any club winning its league every year and being pitted against sides with far inferior players and finances should be qualifying for the groups 90% of the time. We managed 4 from 10 and each year we lined up with patchwork teams thanks to our complete mismanagement

 

Agree with everything there. Sadly especially that last bit. I really do fear for us going forward right now we are in that big of a mess.

 

An underperforming team isn't good for business, end of. It's in Lawell and the boards interests to have a successful team on the park. I really think it can't be underestimated just how big a factor it was that it was Lawells last season.

I think they took their eye off the ball and it was all about the hand over and him getting his ducks in a row for moving on. The performance on the park became a sideshow and there was a complacency that it would take care of itself as we had cruised to 9 titles and the huns didn't look like a threat.

When it started to go * up there was a burying their head in the sand element to it bcos nobody wanted to make the decisions that we required due to the imminent hand over of power. I think the Howe fiasco is another victim of the behind the scenes uncertainty.

There was no real succession planning and it was happening on the hop, symptomatic of the Lawell reign and why no incoming CEO should ever hold the amount of power and influence that Lawell did.