Celtic plc annual results for year ended June 30, 2025

Aye, its the Tax on profit we get hammered on?

 

Yeah it’s more the fact we should be spending more of what we bring in to improve the club and team on the pitch so that our profit figure is lower and therefore subject to a smaller amount of tax.

Now as others have said this can’t all be on players as fees are split over the length of their contract and amortised, so it’s only a percentage of the fee that counts in a given year.

However, we could spend some more there, some more on our set up such as coaching for youth teams, the stadium it’s self, and that could include the museum concept, we have done Barrowfield now but without the investment in coaching and how we actually get talented kids into the first team that’s probably a waste.

Being fair they won’t have to worry too much about it this year as no Champions league probably means little or no profit.

Most businesses will have a wish list of ready to go projects and move forward with them if they found themselves in the sort of position we did.

 

So we get to the stage we have a full years worth of revenue before we then start to actually spend the money we bring in each season?

But where is that point?

During the deilia years it was circa £54m revenue.
Last two years it's circa £120m (Rodgers first year was circa £103m)


Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

 

I get them saving some in the bank for years we do miss out. Thats fine imo. However that should mean we are spending all profit we make each season now to improve instead of paying more than our record signings in tax. Thats just stupidity now. Invest every single penny of profit in the team and facilities. Break even or pay minimal tax.

We just paid enough in tax that could have paid for huge digital screens/partyLEDs or something ace to cover the metal outside the stadium since the * can't negotiate for any players until the final day.

 

Imagine we actually did spend £33m on players to break even. Spent wisely that would be some amount of quality we could've brought in.

 

Its crazy. Thats exactly what we should have done then it would have technically saved £12m.. even if maybe the squad wages etc had to be kept at a level to avoid huge losses non champion league years.. then spend half on players and half of improving the stadium/training facilities etc. When you've got a huge safety net in the bank, we can now safely spend all profit to avoid tax.

 

See how much we've paid on tax this year, it's £12m was it? More than we paid for Engels?

What still baffles me (but think Blochairn and others do a good job explaining), is that if we are making that much profit to pay £12m in tax, then how in the * did money at the bank only go up by £100k?

The explanation the guys give for more paid upfront for players bought and money paid in installments for players sold, is fine - but I still can't grasp how it's that small of a bank increase?
Does that then mean, along with as you say, surely from here out we spend all of the money before posting profits, we actually intend to get MORE money in the coming seasons as these deals for players sold are paid off?
It would also mean, if we wanted to, for a couple years, we could pay some transfers also in installments (most clubs do), meaning our annual transfer kitty can be stretched even more so?

At some point, even if these arseholes remain in situ, they have to realise they're gonna need to spend big at some stage?

What is the end goal if not?


Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

 

Aye well thats in the £20m plus bracket

 

Ayr we are due

Aye we are due £24m plus in cash receivable still to come in front fees for the sales from last season

 

Once the full report is published few of us will do a deep dive into it eh @Foley1888 @Agathe17
There is another user pretty clued up so forgive me for not tagging you whomever you are

 

What we dont need financial backgrounds in is to know to pay £12m in corporation tax is * gross negligence.

Be interesting to see the board remuneration in the full report.

 

I did a post a few pages back that breaks down the near £34m spend to get down to £100k, it’s explained in the cash flow statement page 9 of the document. It shows all the figures of where the spend has gone.

- we paid £12.4m in tax
- during the period we paid out £7m more in fees than we took in on transfers (not reflecting total fees but what actual cash changed hands)
- we spent £11.7m on property, plant and infrastructure (Barrowfield largely)
- we wrote of £2m of the value we put on our squad previously.
- we paid £0.5m dividend

So that gets you to around your £34m profit give or take £0.3m largely due to rounding numbers up or down

However, when you look at the balance sheet (page 7) the assets at the club have gone up by £44.5m.

This is explained between squad valuation increasing, property, plant and infrastructure value going up (Barrowfield) and our receivables gone up by £18.5m. Where our payables have only gone up by £7.5m so the gap between what we are owed vs what we owe has got bigger by £11m. This points at we have been happy to pay what we owe for transfers to keep the cash number down than how quickly we are demanding to be paid. I think if you added back in the £7m more paid out in the year if we bought and sold on similar payment timetables our cash would be over £84m.

Essentially we have done a £20m infrastructure project in Barrowfield over the last two years and paid for it without having to touch our cash in the bank, in fact we have gained £4-5m cash since that project was announced.

The reality is given how much tax we have been paying, we should have been taking on more investments like that or buying more players which could have made a dent in that tax bill. We should really be looking to operate at around break even not making £45m profit that we have to pay substantial corporation tax on. We don’t want to drop revenue so the only way to do it is increase our costs and expenses.

The tricky thing with that is, most things we would look to invest in have more than a single year impact on our finances and our risk adverse Board essentially bank on us failing to get Champions league football and that holds us back from actually getting Champions League football.

It is the polar opposite model of Club Brugge for example who do the opposite, they budget for an OPEX loss that is covered by player trading.

 

Cheers for that man!

The £45m profit, that's what we've paid the £12m tax on?

I know there is the balancing of the numbers for player fees in versus out and we could add/exclude the plant/infrastructure money (barrow field) depending how you look at it.
But to a simpleton, am I wrong to assume, the raw number of £45m, we in theory could have spent that in addition to what we spent this summer in regards to players (be that in fees, wages or agent nonsense) ?
Or is that too simple and too large a value to have assumed we could have spent?

I wonder if even being able to push that "boat" out and spend even half of that value at an additional £20m, we would still have posted profits and still have paid some corporation tax, but still also have probably been able to get another 3 quality players in for that money and still have been sitting pretty?

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

 

£12m Tax.. is not the performance of a well ran Football Club.

 

Celtic has released the full 2024-25 Annual Report.

I will try to stick to reporting on the report and refrain from too many editorial comments on Celtic’s current situation. Please excuse me if this post sounds cheery.

Note that the Chairman’s Report by Lawwell is the same as the one in the preliminary release of 19 September.

Revenue

Revenue exploded to a record £143.6m (2024 - £124.6m, then a record). The increase was driven by Football & Stadium Operations at £61.2m (2024 - £50m) and Multimedia/Commercial at £52.3m (2024 - £44.5m)

The F&SO increase was due to 29 home matches vs 24 in 23-24. The MM/C increase was due to additional UEFA revenue from improved UCL results.

Operating Expenses

OpEx falls into 2 broad categories: Labor and Other OpEx.

Together, they made a significant jump in 24-25 to £117.1m (2024 - £105.6m).

Labor cost increase to £74.8m (2024 – 65.6m) was attributed to “…investment in the Men’s First Team, an increase in performance related bonuses and general wage cost inflation across the business.”

Other OpEx increase to £42.3m (2024 – £39.8m) was attributed to “…the higher number of home matches noted previously as well as increases in utility costs, travel costs for European matches and general overhead inflation.”

This level of OpEx in 25-26 would lead to a dramatic decrease in profit given the failure to reach the UCL League Phase & smaller UEL crowds. The bonus portion should be lower after failing to reach the UCL League Phase

Profit

Pre-tax profit was £45.7m (2024 - £17.8m). After tax profit was £33.9m (2024 - £13.4m). The biggest drivers in the increase were improved UCL performance and a huge jump in profit from player sales to £31.5m (2024 - £6.6m).

For some perspective, the other Prem club to report a profit on their latest (23/24) report was Livingston at £115k. The other 11 Prem clubs collectively had after tax losses of £35.5m on their latest report. Only Dundee United and Hearts have reported 24/25 so far.

Celtic has reported £80m in after-tax profit over the past 3 years, and £105m in the past 10 years.

Celtic sent about £12m to HMRC last season. Many will think that it could’ve been better spent elsewhere.

Cash

Celtic reported £77.3m cash (2024 - £77.2m) on the balance sheet. That is 77% of all the Prem cash. Hearts are now 2nd at £10.26m; Hibs are 3rd at £2.9m.

A common question is: Why did cash not increase with such a massive profit? The simple answer is not all cash flow is treated equally on the income statement. For example, Celtic spent £11.7m in cash on infrastructure. That only appears on the income statement as a small amount of depreciation. They also spent £7m more on buying players than they received by selling them. This is not reflected in the income statement.

Celtic has a revolving credit facility (RCF) with Co-op Bank. It was originally £13m during the COVID season. It has since been reduced to £3.5m. It expires in December. It has never been used. Due to this, Co-op still holds security over Celtic Park, land adjoining the stadium and at Westhorn and Lennoxtown. Seems bizarre to me.

Equity

Equity is simply assets minus liabilities. Accountants will also highlight the “current” ratio, that is, assets with life of less than 1 year (cash, receivables due in less than 1 year) minus current liabilities (e.g., payables and loans due in less than 1 year). A simple way to determine if resources are available to meet near-term liabilities. If not, borrowing or share issues are usually required to meet expenses.

Celtic has total equity of £155.6m and current equity of £41.4m.

The other 11 Prem clubs have combined equity of £106m (Hibs 2nd at £28.7m) and current equity of MINUS £54m (Motherwell 2ndat £1.7m).

A side note: Deferred income is considered a current liability. Deferred income is money already received for services not yet rendered. The simplest example is season ticket money. Say you take in £20m before the season starts for 20 home matches. That £20m all goes into deferred income. With the completion of each home match, £1m goes to revenue and DI decreases by £1m. It’s considered a liability until the match is played as it is assumed that the money will be refunded upon cancellation.

Celtic’s Deferred Income on the AR is £35.5m.

For perspective, Rangers have equity of £23.8m and current LIABILITY of £49m

Wages

Wages jumped to a record £74.8m (2024 - £65.6m). Celtic does not break out the 1stteam wages. It is safe to assume that Celtic are well within UEFA PSR limits. The ratio will rise as Celtic’s revenue declines in 25/26, but they should still be well within limits.

Director pay is a sore point for some supporters. In total, they received £1.68m in total compensation in 24/25, including pension costs (23/24 - £1.70m). Nicholson (£822k) and McKay (£533k) got most of that.

Other notes of interest

Celtic earned £3.07m in bank interest (2024 - £3.35m). That is more than the year-end cash balance of any other club in Scotland other than Hearts.

Contingent receivables and payables, commonly called add-ons to transfer fees. Celtic has a large positive balance in this. If all conditions (appearances, achievement, etc.) are met, Celtic has potential payables of £9.8m on 40 players transferred in over the years). They have £24.6m in potential receivables on 22 players transferred out.

Celtic has capital commitments of £3.2m, down considerably from £8.7m in 2024 due to Lennoxtown/Barrowfield work being completed.

Summary

Financially, it was a historic year for Celtic, with record revenue and profits. Sadly, it may be the high-water mark for a while. Scotland’s poor UEFA coefficient now looks to force Scotland’s champion (hopefully, Celtic) into 3 rounds of CL qualifiers starting in 27-28. With any luck, a hard lesson was learned by the board this summer and Celtic will be better prepared for that challenge. If Kairat and Pafos can negotiate 4 and 3 qualifying rounds, Celtic should be able to figure out how to also.

brilliant from that guy as usual btw if you add the cash to the summer disposal and the fees we are due then it makes the summer look even * more incompetent that we knew it was easily £110m plus to play with and nowhere near any PSR or FFP UEFA issues wouldn’t shock me the board demand the guy to take the post down, Swiss ramble one should drop soon too!