Frankie 8,150 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I wonder what caused that... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Bassa. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ernest Worthing Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Sorry it's not been sooner. Have been unable to type properly for the last few days due to wee visit to the hospital. These STDs can be a bummer. Apparently. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I wasn't aware that treatment for them stopped you from typing though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You have a few replies on the main site article mate... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 5,829 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I wasn't aware that treatment for them stopped you from typing though. One can only assume that you contracted said STD from the toilet seat, lifting it with your fingers? Given your inoperate state on the keyboard, how does that effect the bean counter? Black street Loyal RSC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Bluedell "Let’s look at Celtic now. The 2008 figures are quoted above and the 2007 comparatives show turnover of Ã?£18.4m generating profit of Ã?£6.6m. But hang on a minute. Let’s look back at their 2007 accounts. They show 2007 Merchandising turnover as Ã?£13.4m, but don’t show any profit figures. They have taken Ã?£5m out of Multimedia and Communications and put it into Merchandising. If we look at their wording carefully they have added in that Merchandising includes income from “retail partners”. I don’t know for sure what this means but appears that they have reallocated some income, perhaps sponsorship income into Merchandising to make it appear that they are earning more than Rangers. It can only be presumed that Celtic made nothing like Ã?£4.8m from Merchandising if looking at like for like comparison with Rangers." Possible explanation as follows? 2007 2007 gross figures are 13.4 million and the 5 million added as you say. I can only presume it is the net payment from Nike of 5 million .. The net profit split would then be 1.6 million from sales of 13.4 million and the Nike monies giving a total of 6.6 million. 2008 If the figure of 16.92 million is made up the same way it would indicate retail sales of 11.92 million, the balance as above with the Nike money. That leaves a net profit split of a trading loss on their retail of 200k with the Nike payment turning it into an overall profit. This may be the case as I was told (pre-credit crunch obviously) that Celtic were in discussion with JJB for a Rangers type deal as they are struggling to grow retail as these figures suggest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 One can only assume that you contracted said STD from the toilet seat, lifting it with your fingers? Given your inoperate state on the keyboard, how does that effect the bean counter? Black street Loyal RSC. I might have known that you would be the one who would come up with an explanation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Possible explanation as follows?[/i] 2007 2007 gross figures are 13.4 million and the 5 million added as you say. I can only presume it is the net payment from Nike of 5 million .. The net profit split would then be 1.6 million from sales of 13.4 million and the Nike monies giving a total of 6.6 million. 2008 If the figure of 16.92 million is made up the same way it would indicate retail sales of 11.92 million, the balance as above with the Nike money. That leaves a net profit split of a trading loss on their retail of 200k with the Nike payment turning it into an overall profit. This may be the case as I was told (pre-credit crunch obviously) that Celtic were in discussion with JJB for a Rangers type deal as they are struggling to grow retail as these figures suggest. It's certainly possible, mate, although I can't see their retail side being in such bad shape as that. I would have given them credit for a profit of around �£2m, but your explanation means that they made a loss last year. It would be nice to think that was the case. I was thinking of a much more convoluted explanation. IFAIK Rangers still get cash from Umbro on top of the JJB deal. Can anyone confirm this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Umbro deal (expires at the end of the season) http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0007237380/GBP/PLUS-exn&NewsID=20804 JJB Deal http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0007237380/GBP/PLUS-exn&NewsID=22458 Not sure if or how this impinges on the Umbro deal as obviously �£3million (plus any cut of the initial �£18million) doesn't really match the �£6.5million per year Umbro estimate. 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.