Celtic Transfers 2024

It will be interesting to see what kind of money he brings in. English rags saying 50 mil.

 

Can see us selling O'Riley before buying anyone to ensure that We have a net zero spend at the end of the window, its classic Celtic Board.

 

I think we should go get that young Yamal lad... only 16, yeah sure he's scored st euros... but he won't amount to much at all at Barca.

He ain't no Marc Crosas I'd say, but we can get him on a loan with obligation and then offer a buy back clause.

 

It crazy to think Joe Hart announced he was retiring in February and were 3 weeks away from the start of the season without a replacement. We're inviting teams to up their price when we inevitably make an offer for someone

 

It's clear we down sizing the squad, but we're going about it the wrong way. It shouldn't alter our plans to progress and evolve, which it is doing also.

 

And he's already said that one of the reasons he announced it so early was to give the club more time to find a replacement.

As always, we're a complete shambles.

 

Celtic are having to keep money for the abuse cases or infrastructure imo but then they need to come out and tell the fans. Something clearly isn't right with no incoming transfers window open a month come Friday. If we need to downsize then be honest with the fans ffs sure it would be appreciated once the dust has settled. I had a low expectation this window but it's now beyond rock bottom. Something is going on and it's not good or are they simply just looking at huns business thinking we don't actually need to do anything much

 

Legal compensation is the only thing that makes sense. Said it last season and still think it's the case. Given legal sensitivities they couldn't come out and commit to a number but it would explain sitting on piles of cash for no other reason. Even an infrastructure plan would be openly shared with the market and wouldn't be seen as a negative thing.

 

I know we have insurance etc too that would cover it but has to be the main reason.

 

Yeah it absolutely has to be that. Im sure we made an offer to close the deal and it was millions.

 

That and maybe it would be perceived as a bit distasteful to be spending big sums etc and big marketing around those players while the whole thing is ongoing.. either way those affected need to be generously compensated as soon as possible.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

Would that not be counterproductive though? Surely if we're a club that makes absolutely £15-20M a year in profits if successful and we only have about £10-15M set aside we'd have a stronger case for compensation being punitive if the numbers were excessive. Whereas if we've got £150M that sits in our accounts unused...

 

He was also out of contract this summer regardless so even prior to that we should've been preparing

 

Not sure that ANY insurance covers anybody convicted of a legal liability... There's certainly no way a normal Public Liability policy will cover illegal activity, purposefully commited. I'd imagine we're on the hook for the full amount if a decision goes against us, and in fairness, rightly so... I'd be * raging if insurance companies ramped up premiums because they paid out to cover someone who was clearly responsible!

But, I'd say compensation won't be massive anyway, versus the absolutely MASSIVE legal cost that will have accrued over decades of legal actions...

 

Oh, transfer windows, and that inevitable dread... Like hearing the first "dum, dum" in a Jaws movie...

 

Maybe, I see your logic. I know nothing about how this stuff works, but from a finance perspective it would be reckless to spend money knowing compensation was due but hoping by lowering available cash that means the company will pay less compensation. Just keeping back cash is more sensible and less risky.

 

Highest payouts in the Man city cases was £100,000. There are 20 victims in this class action. Eve allowing for inflation your looking at £3m. Even if they are awarded more or more victims then come forward I can't see it being anymore than £10m. No excuse for sitting on £100m+.

However the more cash in the bank = hire bonuses.

We are a football club set up to provide for a few hundred share holders rather than the thousands of supporters.

It's what happens and always happens when you allow tories into positions of power. They take, take, take from the working class and help the rich get richer.
We can moan about it all we like but this board/tories don't give a * about our opinions. We are beneath them. Our job is to shut up and keep plowing money in.

Said it before, as a fan base we only have ourselves to blame. We let them off with it after the covid season and we deserve all we get for not doing more to rid these * from our club. They treated us like * * that season and we still sold out season tickets, in doing so we gave then carte blanche to do whatever they * they wanted.

 

Not really, as far as I have read previous compensation numbers aren't that high - given it's a historical issue, with those involved already prosecuted/dead and it's just a case of poor infrastructure at the time, which is since corrected. But a club with massive cash surplus could easily be deemed as open to a more sizable charge so that they 'feel' the impact of the punishment. Probably rising the cost from minimal (couple of £M) to more substantial (~£5Mish)... Then we're probably looking at doubling that if we're liable for legal fees, which I'd assume we would be...

I'm not in legal/financial services, but I'd assume that the idea of the compensation would be jointly to help victims and to set an example. A number that just sees the perpetrators cut a cheque and carry on regardless seems unlikely...

 

Something is defo off with celtic nobody could be as * incompetent

 

I would take a transfer rumour off my deed nan at this point never mind Radio Clyde