BlueMazza 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Is it not something to do with a parent/child company, where the child company is effectively insolvent, but the parent company is solvent therefore they seem sound? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,283 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 They haven't received any substantial sum from Europe and IMHO desperately hope to sell one of their superstars Traitor O'Gheady-like for a large sum. Had we managed to retain the title this season and they wouldn't have survived the next CL qualifiers, their alarm bells would have been ringing big time, IMHO. Just look at the size of their squad these last three to four season, 30odd players. If you average them at 5k a week they would shell out 600k alone for those players a month. But honestly, I do not care about their welfare in the slightest. (Of course, 5 years ago I would have minded about them going bust or whatnot. But these days, I would not like to be asked what my opinion of a Celtic administration would be ... ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So what is their real financial situation? From their accounts it seems they made a small profit while reducing their debt from 9M to 7M - all despite having a much larger playing squad than us... Bluedell posted the following last week - Following last week's posts about Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd, I have done a little more investigation and have come up with the following: There are 3 main companies in this discussion: 1. Celtic plc - this company was formed in 1897 and was previously known as "The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited". Its name changed in 1994 to Celtic plc. It was the football club until a restructuring on 15/2/02 when "aspects of (its) trade" were transferred to Celtic F.C Limited . It continues to own the players (ie pays the transfer fees), Celtic Park and the 1/12 share in the SPL. However its accounts also states that "Celtic F.C. Limited has the main activity of which is the operation of a professional football club." It admits that the football club IS Celtic F.C Limited. 2. Celtic F.C. Limited - this company was formed in 2001 and was previously HMS (402) Ltd. as mentioned above, it is a professional football club. It receives all the gate money, employs and pays all the wages of the players and other staff. It receives the TV income. It is the company that competes in Europe. It is also insolvent to the tune of £23 million. 3. The Celtic Football And Athletic Company Limited - This was set up in 1994 and was previously Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd. It is not the football club despite its name. Not much goes through it. It had £80K of turnover in 2010. It was probably set up just to preserve and maintain the old name. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?39968-So-which-Celtic-company-do-we-play-against 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The financial position of one company within their group is not that relevant, as I mention in the last post on that thread. They are doing about OK financially. Many people have been forecasting major problems for them for a few years but it doesn't happen, partly because they have ensured a sound financial footing at the cost of 3IAR!!! They have some sellable assets and could always get rid of the LB or the Israeli boy or even Hooper, particuarly as we may not be in a position to challenge. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The financial position of one company within their group is not that relevant, as I mention in the last post on that thread. They are doing about OK financially. Many people have been forecasting major problems for them for a few years but it doesn't happen, partly because they have ensured a sound financial footing at the cost of 3IAR!!! It seems to me that if it wasn't for the EBT case and the mess Whyte's created pushing is into administration, they wouldn't technically be much better off than us. A bit maybe, but much? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think that's a fair assessment, Z. We had brought the debt under control to an extent. We still struggle a bit due to the lower capacity but it's not so marked these days due to their lower crowds. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think they would be better off than us in a few ways but not by much. By my calculations they make about £2M more a year in gate receipts due to larger attendances. They had a small run in Europe which probably brought them a few million more than our damp squib. They will be paying about half a million less in interest. That's already about 5.5M. When you consider our players' wage bill of something like £18M a year, that could give them a significant amount to spend on their squad. Ironically is seems that without the tax cases and Whyte's running/ruining of the club, we were looking at an annual loss in that region. So I feel to compete with them we need to clear our debts - especially the tax case and manage with a smaller squad. For the long term, we need to downsize to break even in the scenario that we have no Europe, no cup runs and not winning the league - and factor in the lower attendances that would result. Then any surplus from Europe, cup runs, wining the league etc could basically become our transfer kitty for the following season once capital spends have been subtracted. However, without some fiscal prudence agreement with Celtic, it would allow them to be more successful by throwing our parsimony in our face and speculating to accumulate. That is the biggest problem in the EPL for clubs who try to live within their means - they can't compete with those who don't and then suffer financially as a result while the luckier of the spend-thrifts reap the dividends and keep themselves afloat - eg Stoke, Sunderland. The unlucky ones sink like a stone and are not seen for a while - eg Middlesburgh, Portsmouth, Southampton. For me, I'd like to see an (unrealistic,) ideal future where all clubs are owned by the fans and are not allowed to compete unless they are pretty much run debt free (and without external money) with ticket prices capped and ring fenced for wages with gate money being the maximum that can be spent on players' wages. It would never take off... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think that's a fair assessment, Z. We had brought the debt under control to an extent. We still struggle a bit due to the lower capacity but it's not so marked these days due to their lower crowds. I think the problem is that our crowds have dropped too - although by about half as much from five years ago. The disappointing thing is that their average is less than our capacity so it's not the size of the ground that matters at the moment (although they are slightly skewed by the OF games which will work out about 1K a game average). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.