Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15 Mod Warning post #6011

Dempsey · 12-12-2013 04:03PM

Beefy78 wrote: »

As an outsider who watched most of Celtic's CL games this season, whilst the focus has been on who was up front it seemed that most of Celtic's major issues were at the other end of the pitch.

Three goals in six games won't ever get you through, obviously, but the defending was shambolic at times - and not just last night.

Goals change games and in the other games, we had good chances to take the lead before the opposition did. Often they'd score minutes after us giving them a 'scare'.

Ambrose was woeful last night. Makes the loss of Kelvin Wilson stand out for all to see tbh. Starting an unfit Matthews at LB last night was one of Lennon's worst decisions of his managerial career.

Lennonist · 12-12-2013 04:08PM

Beefy78 wrote: »

As an outsider who watched most of Celtic's CL games this season, whilst the focus has been on who was up front it seemed that most of Celtic's major issues were at the other end of the pitch.

Three goals in six games won't ever get you through, obviously, but the defending was shambolic at times - and not just last night.

Actually up 'til the last two games the defending was ok, although last night's performance was a write off, we had nothing to play for last night. The defending at set pieces v Milan at home was very disappointing. The issue with no cutting edge was there throughout from start to finish this season, bar the win at home to Ajax when we scored twice, the goal last night was merely a consolation goal in a 6-1 defeat. Like I said if we had a decent striker we would have finished 3rd.

rosskind · 12-12-2013 04:46PM

I don't mean buying from EPL clubs, I mean EPL clubs (even relegation candidates) have more money and appeal than us. Look at Fer, for example; he'd rather go to a club who may get relegated but nevertheless give him the opporttunity to show off his ability and realise his potential. He has since made his debut for the national team while VvD, who has been great since signing, hasn't gotten a call-up. So you can't question his decision. Hull and Cardiff too, having just come up, can spend big and attract top talent.

Even in perfect hindsight, I can't think of too many that were available in the summer that would have made us considerably stronger. Yes, we struggled in the CL, but looking back to last year we know this squad is capable. We're minus Hooper (who didn't play at home to Barca and yet we still managed to take our chances that night, sure Miku played!) and Wanyama but VvD is an improvement on Wilson and everyone else is still here.

We just had some awful performances, I think we need to look at that. Why were we so poor in the last three games? Last night was understandable, if not excusable. Milan turned on a silly set piece mistake and missing a sitter. Last year we got the winner from a Xavi mistake, this time Forrest drew a great save from Valdes moments before their winner iirc. The smallest margins decide games at this level. Let's not forget, 5 points from the first 3 games wouldn't have been an unrealistic or impossible tally, if only we'd hung on for the first two (75 and 82 mins when the openers were scored). That would have left us top with Barca at the half way mark. I'm not excusing the bad performances, just saying this squad has done it before and wasn't a million miles away this time.

You're right we could have done with a striker. We took a shot with Pukki, who I believe is showing signs of improvement, but he hasn't/hadn't settled enough to make a telling impact. I think the real failure was not this summer but last; not getting a player in and settled before Hooper inevitably left but leaving it til he'd gone. But again was there value for money out there? Do we overpay for someone just so we're not left with no one? I also think at the time they were hoping we'd keep our key players, whereas we're now beginning to accept that we're a 'selling club'.

Can I ask who you think we could have signed this summer that would have helped us perform better?

rosskind · 12-12-2013 04:58PM

With regards defending, as a few have said, the first three games were good, if not great. Taking into account the lack of cutting edge up front and almost constant pressure on us, it was bordering on heroic at times.

We were awful at Ajax away in midfield and attack. Commons, our only real creative outlet, was very poor and we were without Brown and Ledley. This meant (again) wave after wave of pressure. I thought Forster, Van Dijk and Lustig were actually pretty good. It was only 1-0 afterall against a team who are/will be great when they're in form.

Milan was awful, yes. As Dempsey says, the first goal was a killer although we only have ourselves to blame. Perhaps the only game VvD hasn't been absolutely unreal (yes he was horrible) but everyone has off days. Last night was understandable for reasons I've mentioned before. I think the poor defence was a result of the missing quality up front, Ledley not fit and Brown suspended meaning we were under pressure most of the time. When that's the case, it's very hard to hold out at this level. Neymar, Fabregas, Kaka, Balotelli will (and did) eventually break you down under such circumstances.

Antifa161 · 12-12-2013 05:07PM

Dempsey wrote: »

World Class fans? Are you still dining out on that fifa fair play award? Seems the issue with the GB and the neds in our support is more important to you than the actual football. Im sure youll continue to bleat about the injustice of it all when uefa & spfl hands out their punishments and the police arrest neds

Embarrassed for you that you weren't able to pick up on the bleedingly obvious sarcasm of my post. Not surprised though.

Lennonist · 12-12-2013 05:17PM

rosskind wrote: »

I don't mean buying from EPL clubs, I mean EPL clubs (even relegation candidates) have more money and appeal than us. Look at Fer, for example; he'd rather go to a club who may get relegated but nevertheless give him the opporttunity to show off his ability and realise his potential. He has since made his debut for the national team while VvD, who has been great since signing, hasn't gotten a call-up. So you can't question his decision. Hull and Cardiff too, having just come up, can spend big and attract top talent.

Even in perfect hindsight, I can't think of too many that were available in the summer that would have made us considerably stronger. Yes, we struggled in the CL, but looking back to last year we know this squad is capable. We're minus Hooper (who didn't play at home to Barca and yet we still managed to take our chances that night, sure Miku played!) and Wanyama but VvD is an improvement on Wilson and everyone else is still here.

We just had some awful performances, I think we need to look at that. Why were we so poor in the last three games? Last night was understandable, if not excusable. Milan turned on a silly set piece mistake and missing a sitter. Last year we got the winner from a Xavi mistake, this time Forrest drew a great save from Valdes moments before their winner iirc. The smallest margins decide games at this level. Let's not forget, 5 points from the first 3 games wouldn't have been an unrealistic or impossible tally, if only we'd hung on for the first two (75 and 82 mins when the openers were scored). That would have left us top with Barca at the half way mark. I'm not excusing the bad performances, just saying this squad has done it before and wasn't a million miles away this time.

You're right we could have done with a striker. We took a shot with Pukki, who I believe is showing signs of improvement, but he hasn't/hadn't settled enough to make a telling impact. I think the real failure was not this summer but last; not getting a player in and settled before Hooper inevitably left but leaving it til he'd gone. But again was there value for money out there? Do we overpay for someone just so we're not left with no one? I also think at the time they were hoping we'd keep our key players, whereas we're now beginning to accept that we're a 'selling club'.

Can I ask who you think we could have signed this summer that would have helped us perform better?

Lennon wanted Finnbogason. There were a couple of other strikers they made enquiries about as well I believe. Lennon made a comment earlier in the season in September - after we had qualified for the CL - that he was concerned about not having the cutting edge necessary for the CL Group Stages.

I'm not a scout or a financial planner for Celtic, there are people well paid, some of them very well paid to do that job. I'm saying they failed in that job last summer when they came up woefully short when not securing decent striker options for the team. A decent striker would have made a huge difference to the teams performance in the CL this season, because even the team played well in the opening games, they couldn't score and ended up losing games they could have won or drawn in.

rosskind · 12-12-2013 05:54PM

I do agree with your post, but it's possible that they just didn't believe there was anyone available that was good enough and/or the ones that were good enough didn't want to join. When you look at the evidence, it seems just as likely that's the case, rather than them being bad at their job.

Take the Premiership's summer striker signings in that range:
Kozak (7m), Cornelius (7.5), Gayle (6), Kone (6), Aspas (9), van Wolfswinkel (8.5), Altidore (6.5), Anichebe (6), Osvaldo (15), Sessegnong (6)

Any I would take for that money? A few, yeah, of course.
That much better than our current strike force given the fee? A few, yeah.
That would have helped us qualify? Quite possibly.
That would be interested in joining us given the interest from an EPL club? No chance for any except Cornelius (still doubtful). That's a big risk for the money. Given the way he's settled at Cardiff I don't think signing him would have been the difference between qualifying for either European cup and the 4th place we ended up with. Somewhat of an assumption here having never seen him play but valid nonetheless I think.

Dempsey · 12-12-2013 09:25PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Embarrassed for you that you weren't able to pick up on the bleedingly obvious sarcasm of my post. Not surprised though.

I got the sarcasm but you still wanted to shoehorn the GB and the neds into the conversation about a poor performance. I'm surprised you didnt blame the poor performance on the suspension of fans and the disbanding of the GB!

Antifa161 · 12-12-2013 09:38PM

If you got the sarcasm your immediate response would not have been to take the post literally, which you did.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 10:12AM

rosskind wrote: »

I do agree with your post, but it's possible that they just didn't believe there was anyone available that was good enough and/or the ones that were good enough didn't want to join. When you look at the evidence, it seems just as likely that's the case, rather than them being bad at their job.

Take the Premiership's summer striker signings in that range:
Kozak (7m), Cornelius (7.5), Gayle (6), Kone (6), Aspas (9), van Wolfswinkel (8.5), Altidore (6.5), Anichebe (6), Osvaldo (15), Sessegnong (6)

Any I would take for that money? A few, yeah, of course.
That much better than our current strike force given the fee? A few, yeah.
That would have helped us qualify? Quite possibly.
That would be interested in joining us given the interest from an EPL club? No chance for any except Cornelius (still doubtful). That's a big risk for the money. Given the way he's settled at Cardiff I don't think signing him would have been the difference between qualifying for either European cup and the 4th place we ended up with. Somewhat of an assumption here having never seen him play but valid nonetheless I think.

I don't buy into that, it sounds like an excuse. I don't want them to spend money for the sake of it, but I want them to spend more of what they have available to them and spend it better. If they identify a player and the price is 6 million, they should go for it if the player is important and needed. There is no excuse for going into a CL campaign with no strike force - that's a daft thing to do and it cost Celtic in terms of revenue this season and it could have been even more costly if we failed to qualify.

Of course spending 5 to 6 million on one or two prime targets as opposed to 2 to 3 million on 4 or 5 players who aren't good enough can backfire also. The players in question could get injured, lose form or whatever. The club could be unlucky. The point is if that happened at least the board will have tried to provide adequately for the team within reasonable financial restraints. There were various factors that contributed to the poor campaign this season where Celtic finished bottom of their Group, but I hold the board chiefly responsible for the failure of the team in the CL Group Stage this season. They better get the finger out and do better next time, because it will hit the club financially and in terms of overall progress if they don't get some quality signings in in vital areas on the field like up front - no more excuses.

rosskind · 13-12-2013 11:30AM

Is there a striker out there that's a) of proven last 16 standard, b) affordable and c) would join us. Any player of that quality would have other options. Look at the other teams that didn't make it; Shakhtar, Sociedad, Juventus, Benfica, Napoli, Marseille, Porto. Why wouldn't most of them be looking at a player of that quality? Then you can throw in most EPL clubs and all European-challengers from major leagues and you have a host of teams that can offer more money, greater competition and exposure and a better lifestyle. Note; to me, Hooper's 30 goals in the Championship is 'proven', Finnbogason's 28 last year in the Eredivisie is 'proven'.

So we have to scout around, look for hidden gems with great potential and helped them improve (while still convincing that we're the right choice). If we go back to Finnbogason; we looked at him the before last summer when he was at Helsingborg (Lennon said as much before we played them). We liked the look of him so we tried to sign him but he'd already agreed to go to Heerenveen (another example of the strength of world scouting, how quick you have to be). We kept our eye of him and deemed him good enough to bid 4.5m this summer but they weren't entertaining any offers.

We only have so many scouts and so many 'top targets'. He'd been scouted for over a year, looked at carefully. You can't just turn around and bid for someone else unless you've had a good look at him too. It's not like FM and Fifa where you can just enter some details into a search engine. If we're buying an unproven striker, for enough money to make an almost immediate impact, he has to have been meticulously scouted for at least a few months. If they're not available, then you have to go back and scout another. You could scout a player for months, only for him to join someone else (and the better you think they are, the more likely that becomes).

The heart of the debate is that I don't think there's a proven striker out there that would join us. The fact you can't name one only strengthens my belief.

keeponhurling · 13-12-2013 12:23PM

Trying to take positives,
it was a very difficult group, probably as difficult as we could possibly ever get.

We were good and won v Ajax home
As poor as we were v Ajax away, we probably still deserved a draw
Probably deserved a draw away in Milan
What-ifs, but still. An in-form striker would have made a big difference.
Lennon is a good manager.

Ballotelli of Milan alone cost more than the Celtic squad.

I wouldn't sell Samaras just yet, unless we get a better striker in first. given financial resources, limited wages, that's no sure thing.

The issue with the fans is not helping, a sort of civil war going on. I can see both sides of it though, fans are entitled to express opinions.

keeponhurling · 13-12-2013 12:23PM

Any chance they'd break the budget for Shane Long?

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 12:40PM

keeponhurling wrote: »

Any chance they'd break the budget for Shane Long?

Long is nearing the end of his contract. I think he'd be looking for 40k a week, we haven't paid anyone that sort of wages since Henrik Larsson was here. If Long was willing to accept what Brown is on and be equal to him as top earner, I'd offer him that.

Probably more chance of trying to sign someone like Finnbogason. I think think the boat has sailed on him, but there must be players like him out there this season who would be willing to come to Celtic with a view to moving on to the EPL after a couple of seasons playing CL football for Celtic like Wanyama and Hooper have done. The key point for me is if they identify a couple of players, the club should recognise the changing circumstances with Celtic now having played in the CL for the last two seasons and they should be willing to offer 5 to 6 million if necessary for the right player now and offer him wages equal to top earners.

They can afford it, there is an element of gamble involved of course, but there is reward for that gamble in terms of CL revenue. It's time for a change and a tweaking of the financial model, time to move on.

Dempsey · 13-12-2013 02:57PM

Lennonist wrote: »

Long is nearing the end of his contract. I think he'd be looking for 40k a week, we haven't paid anyone that sort of wages since Henrik Larsson was here. If Long was willing to accept what Brown is on and be equal to him as top earner, I'd offer him that.

Probably more chance of trying to sign someone like Finnbogason. I think think the boat has sailed on him, but there must be players like him out there this season who would be willing to come to Celtic with a view to moving on to the EPL after a couple of seasons playing CL football for Celtic like Wanyama and Hooper have done. The key point for me is if they identify a couple of players, the club should recognise the changing circumstances with Celtic now having played in the CL for the last two seasons and they should be willing to offer 5 to 6 million if necessary for the right player now and offer him wages equal to top earners.

They can afford it, there is an element of gamble involved of course, but there is reward for that gamble in terms of CL revenue. It's time for a change and a tweaking of the financial model, time to move on.

We are getting to the UCL with the current level of player investment. I think there is a better way of improving the first team without than throwing more money at wages & transfer fees tbh. The increased risk doesnt equal enough reward tbh

premierstone · 13-12-2013 03:04PM

keeponhurling wrote: »

Trying to take positives,
it was a very difficult group, probably as difficult as we could possibly ever get.

It wasn't really to be fair, look at the group Marseille got. Milan are as fading force which we saw in our away game where with a bit more belief and positive attitude we could have actually won.

keeponhurling wrote: »

Any chance they'd break the budget for Shane Long?

Apparently he wouldn't be an improvement on our current striking options

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:08PM

I think Lennon's view on the campaign is quite reasonable. Last year we did overachieve big time and only got through by the skin of our teeth, this year we have a weaker squad in a much harder group so there was nothing to indicate success would be on the cards.

When you look at the performances - we were better than Milan in Italy and could have taken something against Barca had Brown not been an idiot and Neymar not a cheat. Milan at home was the only real disappointment for me. The Barca game this week meant nothing and I think it's hard to summon the extra energy needed to compete with them given that.

We were seeded 4th. No 4th seed team qualified this year and only two finished third. We were expected to finish 4th and that's before you look at the other 3 teams in our group.

Scoring 3 goals in 6 games is pretty unacceptable though, and that's what really gets me because at the end of the day you want things to cheer and memories to look back on. We're never going to win the competition but that doesn't stop you from having good moments and this year they were few and far between, especially since Sammi's goal the other night would have got little more than a sarcastic cheer!

I saw some Ferrer guy (who?) saying it's because Rangers died which I think is debatable. IMO several of the SPL teams are stronger now than they were 4-5 years ago. Hearts are obviously down the shítter and Butcher has a job to do rescuing Hibs but your Caleys, Utds, Aberdeens, Motherwells etc are doing relatively well and some promoted teams like County and Saints have had good spells too.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 03:09PM

Dempsey wrote: »

We are getting to the UCL with the current level of investment. I think there is a better way of improving the first team without than throwing more money at wages & transfer fees tbh.

We need to do better when we get there and need to make sure we keep getting there, that means we need to progress. We don't need to throw money at it as you put it, that's not what I'm saying. We need to identify signings, and if it's the case that they will add to what we have then we need to be prepared to spend a bit more than we have been lately in order to secure those signings. We need to make some changes to our financial model.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/12/celtic-barcelona-champions-league-neil-lennon

Here's an article by Ewan Murray making the points I would agree with. To me it's a no-brainer. We are at a crossroads, time to make some changes to the way we operate financially and be prepared to push the boat out on one or two prime targets.

Making these modifications will not put the club in debt, it will make us better at CL level and will pay for itself with the funds we will get from continuing to qualify for the CL and perform better picking up more points when we get there.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:11PM

Dempsey is right though. I keep seeing people seemingly neglect the fact that we qualified for the CL. I hear them say "this squad isn't good enough" but it obviously is because it got there. Even without any new signings we're not really in danger of not qualifying. Look at the state of Elfsborg and even Karagandy ffs.

The trouble is the board probably see that as the limit. As Lennon also said, Shakhtar Donetsk spent about £160m and didn't get out of their group. The amount needed to go from a group team to a regular L16 team is immense and more than we have, stable finances or not. You have teams like Arsenal in massive debt, still spending £40m on a player because they know even if they finish rock f'n bottom of their league they'll get about a £100m handout from Sky. Our board are not going to "speculate to accumulate" because it's still a huge waste of money. We'd need a good £50m to become a L16 team, and I'm not even sure if the prize money from being there covers that.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 03:16PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Dempsey is right though. I keep seeing people seemingly neglect the fact that we qualified for the CL. I hear them say "this squad isn't good enough" but it obviously is because it got there. Even without any new signings we're not really in danger of not qualifying. Look at the state of Elfsborg and even Karagandy ffs.

If the club stagnates it will go backways and could end up failing to qualify. Celtic very nearly didn't qualify this season, it should never be allowed to get to that point. We have resources to make changes to the way we operate financially. Make changes now.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:22PM

To be fair that was a bit of a freak result in one of the most remote teams we could possibly have been drawn against. It said a lot that 2-0 down going into the second leg I was still fairly confident we'd do it. Elfsborg we could have hammered both legs if Lennon wasn't constantly negative in Europe.

I didn't mean we shouldn't sign anyone btw - just saying we're a fair way off not being able to qualify for the CL.

premierstone · 13-12-2013 03:28PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

You have teams like Arsenal in massive debt, still spending £40m on a player because they know even if they finish rock f'n bottom of their league they'll get about a £100m handout from Sky.

Arsenal are not in massive debt and are nowhere near it, you could have named 10 other EPL clubs and your point would have far more credence, Arsenal are infact one of the best finance models in the top tier of football.

Dempsey · 13-12-2013 03:28PM

Lennonist wrote: »

We need to do better when we get there and need to make sure we keep getting there, that means we need to progress. We don't need to throw money at it as you put it, that's not what I'm saying. We need to identify signings, and if it's the case that they will add to what we have then we need to be prepared to spend a bit more than we have been lately in order to secure those signings. We need to make some changes to our financial model.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/12/celtic-barcelona-champions-league-neil-lennon

Here's an article by Ewan Murray making the points I would agree with. To me it's a no-brainer. We are at a crossroads, time to make some changes to the way we operate financially and be prepared to push the boat out on one or two prime targets.

Semantics, I wasnt suggesting reckless spending but increasing the wage bill and the spend on transfers represents an increased risk when your guaranteed income isnt increasing. What is reckless spending is budgeting for income that hasnt been earned or guaranteed. To do what you're suggesting will involve abit of that and when it doesnt 1st succeed, you'll say that we didnt spend enough when we did take the risk. Its a slippery slope back to increasing debt to cover the losses.

Quite simply, the board failed to sign a striker that settled and is scoring regularly and we suffered for it in the UCL & SPL. Thats the inherent instability when you implement this model at a football club. Increasing the spend doesn't negate or minimise the risks involved at all.

From that article, the glaringly obvious is highlighted. Our coaching staff lacks someone that played in an attacking role, ever. Mjallby, Lennon, McGrain & Parker can talk to players about the defensive side of the game but they know diddly about strikers and attacking play in and around the penalty area. Where are the biggest inconsistencies over the last few years? Strikers and wingers. We've not excelled tbh and I rather see money invested in improving these aspects of the club and getting more from what we have than have a high turnover of strikers/wingers. They are failing because of fundamental problems moreso than anything else imo

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:29PM

premierstone wrote: »

Arsenal are not in massive debt and are nowhere near it, you could have named 10 other EPL clubs and your point would have far more credence, Arsenal are infact one of the best finance models in the top tier of football.

Do they not owe around £500m for the stadium, paid back at something like £25m per year?

Dempsey wrote: »

Quite simply, the board failed to sign a striker that settled and is scoring regularly and we suffered for it in the UCL & SPL.

It's worse than that though. It's not that they didn't settle, it's that they're crap. £1.5m for a striker from a mid-table Portuguese team who has never scored double figures. £2.5m for a Finnish striker who scored 8 goals in about 40 games previously. £2.2m for a striker/winger who was constantly injured and has been ever since we signed him. At least this Fridj guy is reasonable value.

What strikers have we signed since MON who actually had a good scoring record? McDonald, Stokes, Hooper. Says it all.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 03:30PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

To be fair that was a bit of a freak result in one of the most remote teams we could possibly have been drawn against. It said a lot that 2-0 down going into the second leg I was still fairly confident we'd do it. Elfsborg we could have hammered both legs if Lennon wasn't constantly negative in Europe.

Do you not recognise that Celtic are at a crossroads, that they need to make some changes to the way they have been operating financially in recent years? Do you not recognise that Celtic are in a different place than they were 3 seasons ago since they qualified for the CL and got good money from sales of players?

I'm not saying they should spend 50 million, I'm saying they should be prepared to spend 5 or 6 million each if needs be on a couple of target players, instead of signing 4 players for roughly 2 million each that aren't good enough for the CL. There will be higher wages that comes with signing slightly more expensive players, that will be factored in also and will be paid for with continuing to qualify and picking up points in the CL. If we had a striker that we may have got for 5 or 6 million this season, it would have made a huge difference to the campaign over all.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:36PM

Lennonist wrote: »

Do you not recognise that Celtic are at a crossroads, that they need to make some changes to the way they have been operating financially in recent years? Do you not recognise that Celtic are in a different place than they were 3 seasons ago since they qualified for the CL and got good money from sales of players?

I'm not saying they should spend 50 million, I'm saying they should be prepared to spend 5 or 6 million each if needs be on a couple of target players, instead of signing 4 players for roughly 2 million each that aren't good enough for the CL. There will be higher wages that comes with signing slightly more expensive players, that will be factored in also and will be paid for with continuing to qualify and picking up points in the CL. If we had a striker that we may have got for 5 or 6 million this season, it would have made a huge difference to the campaign over all.

I agree with everything you've said here, none of it is in conflict with what I posted...

premierstone · 13-12-2013 03:42PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Do they not owe around £500m for the stadium, paid back at something like £25m per year?

£19m a year but their income far exceeds their expenditure every year, their sponsership deal with the emeriates alone is worth £30m a year. And quoting Ozil's signing is being very selective and disingenious when every other year their transfer dealings has left them up money. If you had said Chelsea, City, Man Utd etc you would of course have had a very valid point but Arsenal don't fall into that bracket at all.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:44PM

Fair enough, I just used to hear a few Arsenal fans moaning about the stadium debt and stuff all the time. Pedantic CSC

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 03:45PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

I agree with everything you've said here, none of it is in conflict with what I posted...

Good, I'm glad someone agrees. That post maybe should be aimed at others here, who don't seem to grasp that Celtic need to think about offering 5 to 6 million for the right players now, instead of continuing with never offering more than 1.5 to 3 million as they have been doing. They can do this in tandem with developing youth players and improving coaching, it's not an either or type thing and they can do this without taking unnecessary risks. There will be some risk involved, but the alternative is to go backways.

Celtic need to be a bit more flexible with their budgets now, otherwise there will be no progress and the team will end up going backways and losing revenue in the process. I'm hopeful with the comments that Lennon and others are making recently that there will be some changes in the way we operate financially, there has to be.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 03:53PM

What I am saying though is that the board probably do not see it that way because all they see is dollar signs. I know we have a lot of happy clappers on here who back them to the hilt but I'm not even being critical of them here. As fans, a £6m striker would be great. Even if it won't push us on to be a regular L16 team it will at least provide goals to cheer and make us more competitive. For Lawwell & Co however, being 'more competitive' is no good. As long as you're in the group stage you're in the money - yes you get bonuses for winning games but it wouldn't cover the outlay. These figures aren't accurate but it's essentially a case of we get the same amount of financial return whether we spend £3m or £13m.

Celtic FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15 Mod Warning post #6011

Comments