Why We Need to Change

Avatar By

And they will suddenly miraculously become profitable in the premiership …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by Smugas.

And they will suddenly miraculously become profitable in the premiership because….

Smugas Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
Oh thank goodness TR. I thought it was just me!

Why We Need to Change
But isn’t that the nub Homunculus?

Presumably you wouldn’t have to buy better players if the standard stays the same (essentially the position a financially safe Celtic finds itself in just now)? You would only have to buy better players if your standard has stalled and a competitor’s has improved. Thus your standard and the standard of at least one other competitor has improved.

But then does it then simply help create a two tier league where (for sake of argument) Aberdeen, Dundee, Hearts, Inverness etc get slightly better at the expense of the occasional successes now rendered impossible of (again for arguments sake) Ross Co, Utd, Hibs and Kilmarnock. I would argue that this is what has happened in Engerland, for better or worse, obviously then drastically distorted by the tv rights .

The more I think of it the more it smacks of the 3 * 6 phenomenon that called itself a proposed restructure and was chucked out last year. I obviously retain my own thoughts on that one. Suffice to say I didn’t feel they paid much attention to the top six (or bottom six for that matter).


Its a waste of time when the liquidate and repeat option remains a viable alternative, obviously!

Why We Need to Change
Joking apart (who said anyone was joking!) and with apologies BP for reducing it to club level which I see Tayred is keen to keep his point away from which I understand , do the celtic contingent think there would be room for any further distribution – and lets be blunt here I’m talking about siphoning off some of the European revenue that qualification gets the bigger club?

From my bystander position Celtic have sensibly not gone ‘CL or bust’ a la the Arsenals of this world but instead seem to have taken the safe middle ground of reinvesting only a portion of the proceeds apparently into players with potential who then bear their own fruit such as with Van Dyke(sp?). So, a genuinely serious question – do you think there would be any slack for some kind of further distribution, with a view to improving competition generally, and thus their own preparation for the money earning trophies or do you feel it would be more a case of simply being unfairly and more importantly unsustainably handicapped?

Just wondering.

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author