Celtic in a league of their own when it comes to reaping UEFA rewards

[amms 0]

well i agree a sugar daddy not putting any money in is a bad thing. but then he's not a sugar daddy is he?

 

Of course he was, he brought you gifts and you put out for him, that's what it is. You never asked him to show you the receipts. In the end you got all the things from the sweetie shop you wanted, you gorged yourself on Wham bars and Red Kola, as far as you were concerned someone else was paying for it so why worry. The fact they were congealing round your heart and would kill you a few years later was neither here nor there.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

He bought them with my money. If I have money I dont need a sugar daddy. Perhaps its dishonest sugar daddys wecdont need.

[amms 0]

He bought them with my money. If I have money I dont need a sugar daddy. Perhaps its dishonest sugar daddys wecdont need.

 

That's the problem with sugar daddies though, they've brought you a lovely necklace and a BMW and you've let them shag you all ways. By the time you've asked how they could afford it they've ran off with some new young thing you're being repossessed. Nobody questioned Murray's money at the time, we all bent over and let him pleasure himself.

Rangers don't need bankrolled, they just need to be run well. That's how all football clubs should be run.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

having a share issue to put money in is sustainable though.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Andy Steel

 

BRAHIM HEMDANI STOP READING HERE

 

Thank you for your consideration and for modifying your language somewhat.

[Guest Dummiesoot]

Up until wee dick came sdm had rangers running at a profit most years. Once we never backed the post-wee dick rights issue he washed his hands of rangers. He never realised that the fans did not want to back something that kept sdm in complete control.

[Guest Dummiesoot]

Mr grant is ignoring the fact that sellik need cl football to break even

They have to sell to make a profit.

[amms 0]

having a share issue to put money in is sustainable though.

 

Didn't SDM have a share issue? It's only sustainable if we don't end up with one person owning us. Share issues, particularly in this economic climate are not the answer, we've no control over who we attract and so who owns us. Look at our board just now, that's the danger.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Leaving aside who is or isn't a sugar daddy, there is a serious debate to be had here.

 

It's a poor article in my view and Mr Grant would have done well to have read the earlier debate on here.

 

Last season:

 

The 32 clubs featuring in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m – and the team that goes on to win the trophy next spring could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share.

 

Each of the 32 sides involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase.

 

The teams competing in the round of 16 can also expect to pick up €3.5m each, the quarter-finalists €3.9m and the semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will receive €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m.

 

On that basis Celtic would have picked up €15.6m in the group stage plus whatever for the qualifying games, say another €0.4m to around €16.0m or about £14.0m. So it's clear they didn't get £20m from UEFA but that might have been the total if you take in gate receipts and TV money. However, this misses the point that Celtic are in debt and have a wage bill commensurate with playing at that level, averaging £1m per player; we don't have European money but we don't have any debt either and we are only paying around 20% -25% of the wages.

 

I am given to understand that a few of last year's signings, Wallace and McCulloch apart, the average wage at Ibrox now is around £4,000 per week. That still allows us to bring in players like Bell, Daly and Law, on double or more what they were earning before and guys like Peralta and Mohsni also seem to find it quite acceptable.

 

The big problem up to now for Ally trying to sign players has not been the wages; it is playing in the third or fourth tier. This situation can only improve. Next year we will be in the "Championship" and even by connotation with England it sounds a lot better; but what is more important is that it is only one season away from the "Premiership". Then it will be a much easier sell, when Ally can say Come here and help us get back to the top flight in Scottish Football and in two years you could be playing in Europe.

 

I think you can see where I'm going with this. That first season back in Europe (2016/17) will be tough, realistically most likely starting in Q1 or Q2 at best in the Europa League but IT IS EUROPE and that willl be an attraction.

 

In two year's time we should be back in the SPFLP when the story becomes much more interesting: Join is for our first season back in the top flight, play against Celtic and other known teams and help us get into Europe, possibly the CL but at least the EL.

 

I don't want a sugar daddy running our Club, I want prudent but adventurous management that will see us gradually build a squad capable of taking us back where we belong at the same time as bringing through the best of our young talent like Gallagher, McLoed, Crawford McAusland and Mackay; AND STAYING DEBT FREE.

 

That way when we get back to the top, we will be able to stay there and Celtic won't be in a league of their own.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Mr grant is ignoring the fact that sellik need cl football to break even

They have to sell to make a profit.

 

My point exactly.

 

SDM used to like to say that he budgeted to go out of every cup in the first round, but we know now that wasn't true, at least not for Europe.