Guest Jum Spence Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell welcomes an increase in turnover to �£46m but sees a dip in profits in the club's interim results. More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Looks worryingly like stron figures again. Or will BD or one of the other who understand finances better tell me different? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Just the difference in the level of debt alone gives them a significant financial advantage. With their debt at 1 million and ours at, say, 20 million (cant be bothered looking at the numbers this early on a Saturday morning) not only does the size of the debt play a part but just the interest plays a significant part. At a 5% interest rate (which is conservative I would imagine) they would be paying 50k a year in interest whilst we would be paying 1 million. 950k is either an additional player to the playing pool (if you accumulate the interest over 3 yrs it is a 3 mill player) or a decent contribution to wages. On the face of it (and I dont have a great desire to review their finances just now) it looks like very decent results for them. 10% rise in turnover is good and a reduction in debt to negligible levels is also good. It shows that they dont seem to be relying on external financing the same way we are and, given the credit markets, that is a good position to be in. It looks like they are better prepared for any recession than we are as they, no doubt, will have unused credit facilities in place whilst we seem to have exhausted the lines of credit we have available to us. It is hard to compare without looking at both club's financial statements but just on those numbers in that report it would appear that they are in much better financial shape than we are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It may be difficult to answer conclusively, but does that merely highlight the importance of winning the league and CL football or is there more to it than that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It may be difficult to answer conclusively, but does that merely highlight the importance of winning the league and CL football or is there more to it than that? IMO there is more to it than that BUT you cannot discount the benefit of the cash from the CL. I dont know how much clubs get for the CL but I would imagine that Celtic would have profitted to the tune of perhaps 5-10 million for their CL appearances so even at the most conservative level it would appear that they would have done not much more than break even had they not had the CL. Dependent on their cash position they also may have seen higher debt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I'm far from a financial expert, but one more season of Celtic in the CL and us missing out will surely see us entering dangerous territory. Not so much in terms of the club's survival but the long-term gulf between us and them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The thing that keeps happening is that they often get the full Scottish pot of TV money, while we have to share it with them when we qualify. That's worth another 3M a year. 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.