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

Eirebear · 13-12-2013 03:58PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Even without any new signings we're not really in danger of not qualifying. Look at the state of Elfsborg and even Karagandy ffs.

I think memory may be failing you buddy - didn't it take a last gasp wondergoal to get you through against Karagandy?

premierstone · 13-12-2013 03:59PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

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

Arsenal fans by their very nature are moaners, I would know I am one aswell as a bhoy

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:06PM

Eirebear wrote: »

I think memory may be failing you buddy - didn't it take a last gasp wondergoal to get you through against Karagandy?

You must have low standards down in the third tier - it was just a tap in

premierstone wrote: »

Arsenal fans by their very nature are moaners, I would know I am one aswell as a bhoy

I'd never have guessed

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 04:07PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

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.

I don't agree with that. I think that if you are willing to spend 6 million on a striker as opposed to 2 or 3 million on a striker, it's not always the case, but generally you've got a better chance of signing a better striker that could be the difference between qualifying or not, or could be the difference in winning a few more points and adding to more revenue if the team does qualify. I think it does make a difference and I'm hopeful given recent comments that there is recognition of this and that we'll see the club being prepared to spend a bit more to secure signings that they need.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:11PM

Lennonist wrote: »

I don't agree with that. I think that if you are willing to spend 6 million on a striker as opposed to 2 or 3 million on a striker, it's not always the case, but generally you've got a better chance of signing a better striker that could be the difference between qualifying or not, or could be the difference in winning a few more points and adding to more revenue if the team does qualify. I think it does make a difference and I'm hopeful given recent comments that there is recognition of this and that we'll see the club being prepared to spend a bit more to secure signings that they need.

You could be right, I dunno. Say we'd bought a striker instead of our other signings this year, having no van Dijk would have made things tougher. The rest of the players haven't exactly lit up the place but consider the fact we struggled to even put together a first team because of injuries, we would have had no cover out wide with Boerrigter, no Biton in the middle, Lustig would be covering the centre and right defensive positions etc

I think one of the reasons we signs lots of cheap players instead of one big one is because the board want to cover positions, not because of injury but because they have a view to sell the previous squad. Next summer we'll be signing a centre back so we can sell Van Dijk, we'll sign a couple of keepers to punt Forster and probably sign a right back so we can sell Lustig and move Matthews to midfield.

PauloMN · 13-12-2013 04:17PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

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.

I'm sure Peter Lawwell couldn't care less if we get one striker for £6m or three strikers for £2m each. It's been alluded to already, but the wages such a player would command and the fact that players of that level do not want to ply their trade in the SPL are the main stumbling blocks. It's too easy to always revert to having a dig at the board, and personally I'd rather not end up like Rangers did by throwing money about the place.

The real job is holding onto quality players that we find and develop. Hooper had the potential to become the next Larsson if he had stayed around. Whatever about attracting players, we need to hold on to the gems we find for a bit longer.

As for £6m strikers, well I'm all for that if we can afford the wages. Just don't think it's going to happen though. The wages involved there would mean completely ditching our wage caps, and that then puts us at risk of getting back into debt. All for what, maybe one extra CL game after Christmas?

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:20PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I'm sure Peter Lawwell couldn't care less if we get one striker for £6m or three strikers for £2m each. It's been alluded to already, but the wages such a player would command and the fact that players of that level do not want to ply their trade in the SPL are the main stumbling blocks.

I think it's me who alluded to it! But I disagree with the first part, I think the board would rather sign 3x£2m strikers as they probably command less wages in total, offer more cover and might be sold for a greater combined profit - since even top players are going to leave Scotland at a discount price (Hooper and Wanyama for example).

It's too easy to always revert to having a dig at the board

They are the people sanctioning the transfers and controlling the purse strings, so yes. Everyone is gushing with praise for them when they are turning over a profit making big bonuses for themselves or banning our fans. They can't be free from criticism either.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 04:22PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

You could be right, I dunno. Say we'd bought a striker instead of our other signings this year, having no van Dijk would have made things tougher. The rest of the players haven't exactly lit up the place but consider the fact we struggled to even put together a first team because of injuries, we would have had no cover out wide with Boerrigter, no Biton in the middle, Lustig would be covering the centre and right defensive positions etc

I think one of the reasons we signs lots of cheap players instead of one big one is because the board want to cover positions, not because of injury but because they have a view to sell the previous squad. Next summer we'll be signing a centre back so we can sell Van Dijk, we'll sign a couple of keepers to punt Forster and probably sign a right back so we can sell Lustig and move Matthews to midfield.

Instead of signing Pukki and Balde, we should have added 2 or 3 million to that outlay and signed one striker in the 5 to 7million bracket. The financial returns suggest we could have afforded to do this and to pay that striker a top wage as well. Boerrigter hasn't added anything to the campaign, I think he cost nearer 3 million.

Develop younger players as back up and squad players and spend a little more on target signings, instead of the 2 to 3 million a pop signings that haven't been good enough. We can still pick up the odd bargain in that 2 to 3 million price range, but we should be prepared to spend more on particular signings when the need arises.

PauloMN · 13-12-2013 04:24PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

They are the people sanctioning the transfers and controlling the purse strings, so yes. Everyone is gushing with praise for them when they are turning over a profit making big bonuses for themselves or banning our fans. They can't be free from criticism either.

Let it go man... :pac:

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:26PM

We'll need to do up a list of what we can and cannot talk about here. Beginning to feel a bit like Parkhead :P

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 04:34PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I'm sure Peter Lawwell couldn't care less if we get one striker for £6m or three strikers for £2m each. It's been alluded to already, but the wages such a player would command and the fact that players of that level do not want to ply their trade in the SPL are the main stumbling blocks. It's too easy to always revert to having a dig at the board, and personally I'd rather not end up like Rangers did by throwing money about the place.

The real job is holding onto quality players that we find and develop. Hooper had the potential to become the next Larsson if he had stayed around. Whatever about attracting players, we need to hold on to the gems we find for a bit longer.

As for £6m strikers, well I'm all for that if we can afford the wages. Just don't think it's going to happen though. The wages involved there would mean completely ditching our wage caps, and that then puts us at risk of getting back into debt. All for what, maybe one extra CL game after Christmas?

No-one is suggesting that we throw money about the place. I'm saying Celtic are in a different place now than they were 3 years ago and can afford to spend 5 to 6 million on particular signings and pay the wages. There may some risk involved, but continued CL action will pay for that. We are in the Champions route in the play offs for the CL, with decent players we should qualify.

Celtic could end up selling these players for twice what they buy them for after playing with Celtic in the CL for a couple of seasons. I'm saying Celtic need to gear upwards. If they don't the momentum of the last couple of seasons where the club have done well financially will be lost. Celtic have to move onwards, they can't afford not to.

I think changes of this nature is in the offing. This years campaign wasn't good enough, we should have been able to beat that inexperienced Ajax side to 3rd place at the very least. With a striker we would have.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:38PM

We're not exactly an experienced side ourselves.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 04:40PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

We're not exactly an experienced side ourselves.

Yes we are, we have lots of players who have played at CL Group Stage level for two seasons. We lack quality up front we would have beat Ajax to 3rd place if we had any.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:43PM

Lennonist wrote: »

Yes we are, we have lots of players who have played at CL Group Stage level for two seasons..

Who's that then?

Lustig played with Rosenborg before I think, that's it.

We've been fined £42k for that disgusting display of Irish politics btw. Apparently more offensive than one saying "Fenian Bastards"

That's our transfer budget gone anyway!

Dempsey · 13-12-2013 04:48PM

Send the bill to the GB

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:49PM

Dempsey wrote: »

Send the bill to the GB

You forgot to call them neds this time!

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 04:51PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Who's that then?

Lustig played with Rosenborg before I think, that's it.

Celtic have been playing in the CL Group Stages for 2 seasons. They nearly all had experience of CL action before they kicked a ball in the Group Stages this season.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 04:56PM

Lennonist wrote: »

Celtic have been playing in the CL Group Stages for 2 seasons. They nearly all had experience of CL action before they kicked a ball in the Group Stages this season.

Well you're moving the goalposts there, going into this campaign they hadn't 2 seasons under their belt and besides, one season in the CL hardly amounts to an experienced squad especially given the age of most of them.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 05:00PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

Well you're moving the goalposts there, going into this campaign they hadn't 2 seasons under their belt and besides, one season in the CL hardly amounts to an experienced squad especially given the age of most of them.

They were more experienced than that Ajax team they played is the point, and would have beat or at the very least drawn against them in Amsterdam if they had a cutting edge up front.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 05:04PM

I thought Ajax were comprehensively better than us in Amsterdam. We'd have got hammered if not for Forster. They outplayed us at Parkhead too.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 05:09PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

I thought Ajax were comprehensively better than us in Amsterdam. We'd have got hammered if not for Forster. They outplayed us at Parkhead too.

They were there for the taking on both occasions, if we had anything up front at all we would have done them in both games not just the one. When they went ahead in Amsterdam, they immediately began filing back to protect the lead, if we had any kind of a cutting edge we would have equalised and maybe ended up winning the game. They played some pretty football at times but they were a wet behind the ears inexperienced outfit that we should have beaten to 3rd place.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 05:14PM

One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is our approach to these games. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't set up defensively against some of these sides but you have to bear in mind our regular approach to games. In the SPL we play against sides who sit back and kick us around the place. We have loads of possession and spend most of it in their half, passing the ball left to right, right to left ad nauseam, or until we do get a breakthrough. At time it's a lot more entertaining but the jist of it is we're on the front foot all the time.

In Europe we try and do the opposite, we invite pressure onto us and hope to soak it up but we're not used to it. You can't just play defensively 5 or 6 times a season and expect it to work. Someone like Mourinho is able to do it because he has his sides playing like that all season, even against much weaker teams. As good as some of our defenders are, and they are, as a team we are not used to playing negatively and we never have been. I'd rather see us make a go of it, especially at home where the crowd will have most opponents shaken up as it is.

PauloMN · 13-12-2013 05:31PM

Lennonist wrote: »

No-one is suggesting that we throw money about the place. I'm saying Celtic are in a different place now than they were 3 years ago and can afford to spend 5 to 6 million on particular signings and pay the wages. There may some risk involved, but continued CL action will pay for that. We are in the Champions route in the play offs for the CL, with decent players we should qualify.

Celtic could end up selling these players for twice what they buy them for after playing with Celtic in the CL for a couple of seasons. I'm saying Celtic need to gear upwards. If they don't the momentum of the last couple of seasons where the club have done well financially will be lost. Celtic have to move onwards, they can't afford not to.

I think changes of this nature is in the offing. This years campaign wasn't good enough, we should have been able to beat that inexperienced Ajax side to 3rd place at the very least. With a striker we would have.

Signing fees are not the issue though. How do you pay the wages of a £5/6m player? It means that the guys who have been around for a while will also be bumped up, and every other player will have increased expectations. Very quickly it can get out of control. You're talking about a massive increase to our weekly wage budget to get a couple of £5/6m signings on board.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd love to see some real quality come in next summer as much as any Celtic fan. I just think it's a really fine line. Three rounds of qualifiers so early in the season is a nightmare, no matter who you are up against. Karagandy could have gone very badly wrong... what would be do then? Players costing us a fortune just to win an already guaranteed SPL title, and maybe a domestic cup? Europa League would provide some games, but nothing that would make any of the investment back.

I'm sure people are sick of me saying this, but Rangers being back in the top tier will definitely help our situation. Last season was a novelty, this season in Europe we've seen the result of players not being tested to the max. I've not problem with us looking for better players, but the complacency among some needs to be stamped out before we start chucking more money at the problem. At least with domestic competition, the boards' hand is forced to by enough talent to ensure league success - something they do not have to worry about at the moment.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 05:33PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I'm sure people are sick of me saying this, but Rangers being back in the top tier will definitely help our situation. Last season was a novelty, this season in Europe we've seen the result of players not being tested to the max.

What makes you think a Rangers team operating above board doing honest business, signing players they can afford to sign would "test us to the max"? The previous decade does not suggest it would be the case.

Do you think the rest of the SPL teams have deteriorated in terms of quality these past 2 years?

Dempsey · 13-12-2013 05:39PM

PauloMN wrote: »

I'm sure people are sick of me saying this, but Rangers being back in the top tier will definitely help our situation. Last season was a novelty, this season in Europe we've seen the result of players not being tested to the max. I've not problem with us looking for better players, but the complacency among some needs to be stamped out before we start chucking more money at the problem. At least with domestic competition, the boards' hand is forced to by enough talent to ensure league success - something they do not have to worry about at the moment.

A red herring imo. The only major differences between Celtic this season and last season is a quality goalscorer and the lack of Brown & Ledley in the group stages of the UCL.

It will help in terms of sponsorship/broadcasting potential but the majority of it is about the standards the clubs enforces on the players and the level of coaching/player development given etc.

RoryMac · 13-12-2013 05:41PM

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 don't think we're at a crossroads at all, I think we're walking a fine line at the moment in trying to increase the quality of the squad without over-stretching ourselves.

I think the boards current transfer policy is or at least meant to be that we buy guys like Hooper & Wanyama for £1m - £2m and sell them for £5 plus. It then allows us to replace them with players of around £3m which should in turn increase the quality.

If you look out the money we spent in the summer it was a decent chunk of money by our standards.

On the wage issue, which IMO is the real sticking point there is just no way we are going to start paying guys 30k any time soon. Say for example Finborgson(sp) came in on 30k, you would have Forster, Lustig, Izzy, Brown, Ledley, Commons, Samaras and probably a few more camped outside Lawwells office looking for a new contract. And by putting all of our eggs in the one basket we leave ourselves open to him getting injured and the money blown or getting a sh!te draw in the qualifiers and ending up with 5 - 6 players now on 30k with a decrease in our income.

I think we are trying to make progress on the quality of players we sign but we are working in a very tough markey in relation to wages, attracting players to the SPL etc.

It's going to be babysteps forward I think rather than a change in policy. Although I wouldn't write off the possibility of a decent fee being paid for a striker in Jan or the summer but I really don't see much movement on the wages anytime soon.

PauloMN · 13-12-2013 05:42PM

Antifa161 wrote: »

What makes you think a Rangers team operating above board doing honest business, signing players they can afford to sign would "test us to the max"? The previous decade does not suggest it would be the case.

It would be more of a test than we currently have in the league. It will take them a while to get back to strength, but I've no doubt they will eventually.

If you've little to play for in a league, of course it will affect the players. Some of our earlier league form is testament to that fact.

Antifa161 wrote: »

Do you think the rest of the SPL teams have deteriorated in terms of quality these past 2 years?

I think both Hibs and Hearts have also deteriorated in terms of quality, for definite.

Antifa161 · 13-12-2013 05:47PM

PauloMN wrote: »

It would be more of a test than we currently have in the league. It will take them a while to get back to strength

Back to the strength they had when they were shaving millions off their tax bill and buying/paying players well outside their reach? How do you work that one out? Other than having a large support within Scotland what do they have going for them? The domestic market is very limited.

If you've little to play for in a league, of course it will affect the players. Some of our earlier league form is testament to that fact.

We're unbeaten and won 11 of 14 games this year, it's some of the best form we've had in a long long time, Rangers or no.

I think both Hibs and Hearts have also deteriorated in terms of quality, for definite.

I did mention this earlier in the thread. Hearts' situation has been a long time coming anyway. Butcher might yet rescue Hibs but there are 5 or 6 other teams who are definitely stronger than a few seasons ago.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 05:57PM

RoryMac wrote: »

I don't think we're at a crossroads at all, I think we're walking a fine line at the moment in trying to increase the quality of the squad without over-stretching ourselves.

I think the boards current transfer policy is or at least meant to be that we buy guys like Hooper & Wanyama for £1m - £2m and sell them for £5 plus. It then allows us to replace them with players of around £3m which should in turn increase the quality.

If you look out the money we spent in the summer it was a decent chunk of money by our standards.

On the wage issue, which IMO is the real sticking point there is just no way we are going to start paying guys 30k any time soon. Say for example Finborgson(sp) came in on 30k, you would have Forster, Lustig, Izzy, Brown, Ledley, Commons, Samaras and probably a few more camped outside Lawwells office looking for a new contract. And by putting all of our eggs in the one basket we leave ourselves open to him getting injured and the money blown or getting a sh!te draw in the qualifiers and ending up with 5 - 6 players now on 30k with a decrease in our income.

I think we are trying to make progress on the quality of players we sign but we are working in a very tough markey in relation to wages, attracting players to the SPL etc.

It's going to be babysteps forward I think rather than a change in policy. Although I wouldn't write off the possibility of a decent fee being paid for a striker in Jan or the summer but I really don't see much movement on the wages anytime soon.

If there is no movement we will end up going backways. I don't think we have a choice in the matter, we have to gear upwards to some extent. One or two 6 million pound signings and wages of 30k can be done with an element of risk attached and would make all the difference if they get it right. If we gamble and lose trying to gear upwards then it's better than losing not even trying to make the necessary changes to the financial model, which is what will happen. We have no choice in the matter but to modify the financial model.

Everything changes at sometime, that time is now for Celtic if they are serious about maintaining a presence in the CL Group Stages and getting some better results than this season while they are at it. Being overly conservative is not the answer, there has to be some risk involved and they are long enough around the game at CL level now to get it right. They are also well pad enough to get it right, the guys running the financial side of things I mean. Time for them to up their game.

Lennonist · 13-12-2013 06:02PM

PauloMN wrote: »

Signing fees are not the issue though. How do you pay the wages of a £5/6m player? It means that the guys who have been around for a while will also be bumped up, and every other player will have increased expectations. Very quickly it can get out of control. You're talking about a massive increase to our weekly wage budget to get a couple of £5/6m signings on board.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd love to see some real quality come in next summer as much as any Celtic fan. I just think it's a really fine line. Three rounds of qualifiers so early in the season is a nightmare, no matter who you are up against. Karagandy could have gone very badly wrong... what would be do then? Players costing us a fortune just to win an already guaranteed SPL title, and maybe a domestic cup? Europa League would provide some games, but nothing that would make any of the investment back.

I'm sure people are sick of me saying this, but Rangers being back in the top tier will definitely help our situation. Last season was a novelty, this season in Europe we've seen the result of players not being tested to the max. I've not problem with us looking for better players, but the complacency among some needs to be stamped out before we start chucking more money at the problem. At least with domestic competition, the boards' hand is forced to by enough talent to ensure league success - something they do not have to worry about at the moment.

You're right people are sick of you saying that because it's incorrect. It makes no difference to Celtic and what they need to do to maintain a presence at CL level whether Rangers are around or not. When they are in the top tier in a few years it may make things a bit more competitive at domestic level, it will not alter things at CL level - different ball game.

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

Comments