Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Celtic – If You Know The History


Another nail was hammered into the coffin of Scottish football last week when all three of their remaining entrants failed to qualify for the Europa League, leaving only Rangers to fly the flag. Nowhere was the disappointment more keenly felt than among Celtic supporters, who saw their beloved Hoops unceremoniously dumped out 4-0 by mid-ranking Dutch side Utrecht, after squandering a 2-0 lead from the home leg. This followed Celtic’s elimination from the qualifying stages of the Champions League by Portuguese side Braga, and meant that another European adventure was cut short almost before it had started. Manager Neil Lennon probably spoke for all fans when he complained, “I’m fed up with coming back from Europe with my backside being smacked.”

How the mighty have fallen, for these are very much the History Bhoys. Not only have Celtic won 42 Scottish league titles, including nine in a row between 1966 and 1974, but they were memorably the first British team to win the European Cup in 1967, when they beat Inter Milan 2-1. Under the leadership of the incomparable Jock Stein, the Lisbon Lions achieved this feat with a team of players all born within 30 miles of Glasgow. No wonder that Bill Shankly, who knew a thing or two about great managers, told his friend, “John, you’re immortal now.” Stein’s magnificent team almost repeated the feat in 1970, narrowly losing the final 2-1 to Feyenoord.

"A genuine legend"

More recently, Gordon Strachan recalled those glory days, when he became the first Celtic manager since Stein to guide his team to winning three league titles in a row in the 2007/08 season. While not quite attaining the same heights in Europe, at least Celtic twice reached the last 16 of the Champions League during his tenure, only falling to the giants of AC Milan and Barcelona. Despite losing every time they travelled away, they compensated by winning all their home games at fortress Parkhead, understandably nicknamed “Paradise” by Celtic fans.

That was then, but this is now. And these days it’s not just about the prestige on the pitch. No, progress in the Champions League is also critical to Celtic’s success off the pitch. For example, last year’s failure to reach the group stages was the major factor in the club’s turnover slumping by 15% to £62 million, the lowest it has been since their last absence from the tournament in 2005/06, following the disastrous elimination by Artmedia Bratislava.

Indeed, if we look at Celtic’s revenue over the last seven years, we can see just how important Champions League money is to their financials, as their revenue is virtually flat without it. The impact can be clearly shown in 2007, when total revenue increased by an astonishing 31% from £57 million to £75 million, almost entirely off the back of the solid European campaign.

The other side of the coin came in 2010, when Celtic earned just £1.6 million from the Europa League. In the same period, their great rivals Rangers earned £14.3 million from the Champions League, even though they finished bottom of their group, thus highlighting the vast gap in prize money between the two competitions. This difference was exacerbated by Rangers being Scotland’s sole representative in the Champions League, as Scotland’s share of the TV revenue is distributed equally to all clubs that qualify, meaning that Rangers received the full amount, instead of having to divide it with Celtic.

The Champions League revenue distribution depends upon a number of factors, but based on last year’s figures it is worth around £14 million – even if you lose all six group games. Each team is guaranteed £6 million for participation plus around £8 million from the TV (market) pool. There are also bonuses of £0.7 million for each win and £0.3 million for each draw in the group stage plus other performance bonuses for each further stage reached. This is serious money for a team like Celtic – and it does not include the additional gate receipts.

"Reid all about it"

Celtic chairman, John Reid, has attempted to downplay the significance of missing out on the Champions League, “It’s not as bad as some people make out. The differential is roughly equivalent to £7 million.” However, his predecessor, Brian Quinn had estimated the net contribution to profit as being “of the order of £11-12 million” after taking into consideration additional costs such as bonus payments.

Chief executive, Peter Lawwell, went one better as he managed to contradict himself when talking about the Champions League, initially claiming, “It’s a fantastic revenue stream, but we don’t have to necessarily depend on it. We’ve got a structure in place that allows us to operate comfortably without it.” Great stuff, but recently he modified his stance, “Clearly European progress remains key in enabling the club to achieve its financial objectives.”

That much is abundantly clear if you look at the profit trend over the last five years, which features profits between 2007 and 2009, but losses in 2006 and 2010. Guess which years Celtic did not qualify for the Champions League. Well done.

The reality is that from a financial perspective qualification for the Champions League is an imperative for Celtic, as it is for all teams from “smaller” leagues, i.e. those outside England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France.

Actually, the 2010 loss of £2.1 million is pretty good in the circumstances, coming in a season when Celtic competed in the Europa League rather than the Champions League, did not win a trophy and did not even reach a cup final.

In fairness, it was their first loss after three years of profits, though the club did report consistent losses for a number of years before that. The relatively small deficit was down to careful stewardship of their finances, which allowed them to largely absorb these financial blows, including a substantial payout to former manager Tony Mowbray and his coaching team. In fact, much of the blame for the poor results (both on and off the pitch) was attributed to the unfortunate Mowbray, who was sacked after only nine months.

The figures were also greatly helped by the £6 million profit from player sales, including five players snapped up by former manager Strachan at Middlesbrough. This is another key driver for Celtic’s financials, as was evidenced in 2007 when Celtic reported a record profit of £15 million, which was enormously influenced by the £9 million profit made from player trading, mainly due to the sales of Stilian Petrov and Shaun Maloney to Aston Villa.

"You are my Larsson"

One reason why Champions League revenue is so crucial is the incredibly small amount of television money received for the Scottish Premier League rights, which works out at around £2 million a year for Celtic. In fact, the entire annual payment to all SPL clubs is only £13 million. To place that into context, it is less than a third of the £40 million that the team finishing bottom of the English Premier League can expect to receive this season. An even more amazing statistic is that the total SPL payment is worth just 1% of the EPL rights. Peter Lawwell summed up the problem, “The fact of the matter is that in a Scottish nation of five million people, the media values are very low.” Actually the real problem is that this makes it almost impossible for clubs like Celtic to compete.

The situation was not helped by the collapse of Setanta last year. The upstart Irish channel was replaced by a combination of Sky and ESPN, but there was a harsh price to pay, as the new deal was worth only £65 million over five years, compared to the previous £125 million over four years. Celtic had been against the Setanta deal, and (with some justification) John Reid did not hesitate to put the boot in, “No-one should under-estimate the blow that has been inflicted on this club and Scottish football by the way in which the whole affair has been handled. Today the SPL accepted a bid that is less than half the value of that offered by Sky last year. To Celtic it means a potential loss of up to £12 million over four years.”

This is why Celtic and Rangers showed interest in securing the Scottish TV rights package themselves, as they could hardly have done worse than the SPL. The Old Firm believe that they could significantly increase their broadcasting revenue by negotiating and selling their own TV rights, but SPL head honcho, Neil Doncaster, has firmly rejected this idea.

Many top European clubs are over-reliant on TV revenue, but that cannot be said for Celtic, as broadcasting accounts for only 17% of their turnover, which is lower than any of the top 20 clubs in the Deloitte Money League – much lower in most cases. Celtic have featured on this list in the past, but have slipped out in recent years, as the TV revenue has multiplied in other countries. As an example of its significance (the power of the media, if you will), Celtic’s revenue would be well over £100 million if they received the same TV revenue as clubs in the Premier League, which would comfortably get them back into the higher echelons.

In stark contrast, Celtic’s match day revenue is a much higher proportion of total revenue than other leading clubs at 58%. The 2009 accounts stated, “These results have been achieved … in reliance upon the tremendous contribution of the Celtic support.” You can say that again. Celtic have consistently enjoyed average attendances of around 57,000, which is higher than all but two clubs in the Premier League (Manchester United and Arsenal). Welcome to the Jungle, indeed.

It is clear that Celtic have a huge supporter base, but even here there are some warning signs, as the average attendance fell by more than 10% last year with the number of season tickets sold falling from 54,000 to 48,000, though in fairness the previous year had been a record. Whether the decrease is due to the economic recession or the poor displays on the field is open to conjecture, but Celtic have already reacted by freezing prices and offering other cheap concessions. Reid cautioned that season ticket sales might fall again, which would place Celtic’s business model under even more strain.

"Another Greek tragedy?"

Just as well that Celtic’s “sponsor programme remains one of the most successful in British football”, at least according to John Reid, who knows a little about spin from his time in Tony Blair’s government. It’s not entirely straightforward to see what Celtic’s commercial revenue is worth, as only merchandising (£15.5 million) is separated with the rest bundled in with multimedia, but in total it must be around £22 million. So, in reality, Celtic’s commercial revenue is comparable to a team like Newcastle United (£19 million), but way behind the Big Four in England, e.g. Manchester United £70 million.

Merchandising is by far the largest element, but this is dependent on the timing and number of kit launches. The “bumble bee” away kit may be hideous, but apparently this is one of Celtic’s best selling strips ever. A new shirt sponsor was announced earlier this year with Tennent’s replacing Carling (notice a theme here?) in a three-year deal that Lawwell said would generate “important revenue” for the club. However, it is believed to be worth only £1.5m a season, compared to the £20 million that Liverpool get from Standard Chartered. Incidentally, Tennent’s sponsor both Celtic and Rangers, as they cannot risk alienating supporters of the other Glasgow club. A new five-year deal was also signed with kit supplier Nike, extending the partnership to ten years, with annual royalties expected to be around £5 million.

Celtic’s response to their limited revenue has been the old-fashioned idea to control their costs. Not only has there been no cost growth, but costs have actually been reduced by nearly 10% since 2004. A good example of Celtic’s ability to manage a budget came last year when operating expenses were cut by £4 million in order to mitigate the £11 million revenue reduction. Not enough to break-even, but you get the idea. Avoiding any temptation to refer to national stereotypes, there’s clearly a thrifty side to Celtic’s style. Although this is a breath of fresh air compared to the profligacy of most other clubs, it has not helped their ambitions on the football side.

The key to Celtic’s cost containment is their ability to keep wages down. Unlike most football clubs, the wage bill has essentially remained flat over the last few years. In point of fact, it’s dropped slightly from £37.4 million in 2004 to £36.5 million in 2010. The wages to turnover ratio has been held in a pretty good range between 50-60%. Although it rose from 53% to 59% last season, this was entirely due to the decline in revenue, as wages actually fell.

If we compare this trend with Premier League clubs, we see a big difference. Back in 2004, Blackburn (£31 million) and Fulham (£34 million) both had lower wage bills than Celtic (£37 million), but while the Scots have cut their salaries, both English clubs now spend much more at around £46 million. Peter Lawwell drily noted, “The affluence of other major leagues – particularly the English Premier League – is an inflationary factor, pushing up wages throughout Europe.” Given that Celtic’s wage bill has stayed at the same level, the logical conclusion is that the quality of their players must have become worse.

However, there is always an exception to the rule and directors’ pay has been steadily rising at Celtic, especially the chief executive, Peter Lawwell, whose total remuneration has increased from under £300,000 four years ago to a staggering £739,000 last year. His salary is fixed at £455,000 until 2011, but he also has a 60% bonus plus hefty pension contributions and benefits in kind. Oh, and let’s not forget the loyalty bonus payable in 2011, which is partly dependent on the company’s earnings per share. Not bad, considering the feeble on-field performances in the last couple of seasons and the declining share price (down 15% in five years). All I can say is that Mr. Lawwell must be an amazingly good negotiator, especially as he was once quoted as saying, “"I'm just doing my job. I'm only part of an all-round team effort.”

"Blame it all on Mowbray"

The 2009/10 accounts also include exceptional items of £3.1 million, but these are effectively also staff costs, as they “mainly relate to costs associated with the early termination of certain employment contracts” (Mowbray’s management team), though they also cover some impairment in player values. These costs are relatively immaterial, but Reid was keen to tell people that “if it weren’t for these costs, we would have equalled last year’s figures.” However, that’s a little misleading, as last year also included £2.8 million of exceptional items. In fact, we see such costs booked every year, so they’re arguably just a normal part of Celtic’s modus operandi.

Reid is also the man who told fans, “Tony has the right to expect our loyalty and moral support while he faces this huge challenge”, only to fire him a few weeks later, directly causing the “exceptional” item. Following the recent results, Reid warned, “the performance of our football management team and players will be placed under even more scrutiny than normal.” Given that Neil Lennon only has a one-year contract, he probably shouldn’t spend too long choosing new decorations for his office.

The club’s net debt increased in 2010 for the first time in five years, but it is still only £6 million, a level that the club believes is “sustainable” and “not out of control”. That seems fair enough, as the debt has come down a great deal from around £30 million ten years ago with a sizeable decrease in 2006 following a £15 million share issue. Current debt represents a £12 million loan from the Co-operative Bank, which bears interest at LIBOR plus 1.125% (floating rate), less £6 million of cash, though these figures exclude the £4 million debt element of the Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares.

Reid said that the debt had gone up, because the club had “pushed the boat out last summer” with a “hefty investment” of £13.6 million in football personnel, but the big question is whether the club should further increase debt in order to strengthen the squad. Reid commented, “there has been a myth that the board are against borrowing”, but “we are prepared to spend money and get into debt if it doesn’t put the club into danger.” That sounds promising, but the bottom line for many fans is whether the board will make enough cash available to bring in some top quality players.

In years gone by, the club managed to find enough money to buy players of the calibre of Henrik Larsson, John Hartson and Chris Sutton – maybe not world-beaters (with the exception of "Henke"), but a class above the present crop. Reid boasted, “We can still invest in the team more than any club in Scotland”, noting that “Last year we signed or took on loan 13 new players. Already, under our new management in the new financial year, we have brought in seven new faces.” The problem is that very few of those acquisitions are likely to make a massive difference – Daryl Murphy from Sunderland and Gary Hooper from Scunthorpe are not exactly going to set the world alight.

The problem is that Celtic have to do their shopping in the bargain basement, which was effectively admitted by Reid, “We will continue to scour Europe for players at big clubs who cannot command a first-team place there, but who may prosper with us in Scotland.” That has lead to some opportunistic signings like Thomas Gravesen, Craig Bellamy and Robbie Keane (the latter two on loan). The Keane deal was actually a rare example of the club extending itself in a gamble to win the SPL and secure Champions League riches, as they had to pay around £1.3 million in wages during the loan period.

"It went this far wide"

As the song goes, it’s a grand old team to play for, but this summer the likes of Sol Campbell, David James, Jimmy Bullard and that man Bellamy have all rebuffed Celtic’s advances, presumably because of the low wages on offer. That explains why Lennon had to admit, “There are players out there, if you shop around, at reasonable fees and wages.”

Peter Lawwell has also explained that spreading the Celtic brand worldwide has become a major concern in the club’s transfer policy, leading to the purchase of players from countries like Japan and Poland. He said, “Obviously they must be able to play, but to find players in the markets where we think there is growth is also important.” Unbelievable. Here’s an idea: buy some good players, start winning things and the bloody brand will take care of itself.

Every cloud has a silver lining and the flip side of the other leagues’ booming TV earnings is that clubs like Celtic can make good money by selling players into those markets. Indeed, Celtic have already raised over £15 million this summer, mainly from the sales of Aiden McGeady to Spartak Moscow and Marc-Antoine Fortune to West Brom. The board has pledged to reinvest the proceeds into the squad, but this might actually be a pointer to Celtic’s future as a selling club. Although it would be unappealing to supporters, it could be a good financial strategy to make use of the new Lennoxtown football academy to develop young players that could be sold later for healthy gains.

"To Russia with Love"

Celtic’s challenge is magnified by the generic problems facing Scottish football as a whole. Indeed, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Financial Review of Scottish Premier League Football” said that action was required to remedy the poor financial state of the SPL or Scottish football would fall into a “downward spiral”, concluding, “In a nutshell, the SPL cannot compete financially.” John Reid went further, warning that much of Scottish football was “edging the narrow line of insolvency.” It al looked very different ten years ago, when Celtic were managed by Martin O’Neill and Rangers had Dick Advocaat, with both clubs spending big money for the times.

The Old Firm can now be considered as big fish in a small pond or an “unattractive league in comparison to Europe’s major championships” according to Lawwell. Their dominance is such that no other team has won the SPL since its formation in 1998 and there has only been one season when both clubs failed to occupy first and second positions. So, Celtic have a great chance of winning trophies and securing regular access to European competitions, but the gulf in quality in the SPL means that they are ill-prepared to compete in the Champions League.

Even the formality of Champions League qualification is now endangered, due to the recent lack of success. Scotland’s two places depend on the country’s ranking in UEFA’s table of coefficients. At the moment, they sit in 15th position, but if they drop just one more spot, they will lose a valuable Champions League place. As the coefficients are based on the previous five years, there could well be trouble ahead when the successful 2006/07 and 2007/08 seasons fall out of the calculation. Celtic reached the last 16 of the Champions League both those seasons, while Rangers were finalists in the 2008 UEFA Cup, but nothing comparable has been achieved since then.

"Against the odds"

Although Celtic and Rangers attract crowds around the 50,000 mark, the club with the next highest attendance in Scotland averages less than 15,000. It may be time for (yet) another change in the SPL structure, expanding the league to 14 teams to add more variety and adding play-offs to ensure that Sky could still show four Old Firm derbies every season. That last point might seem ridiculous, but money talks and Sky are the “only show in town” at the moment.

All of this is why Celtic (and Rangers) have cast their eyes elsewhere. They would clearly love to join the Premier League, viewing this as an escape route from their financial difficulties. In fact, they are so keen to make the move that Peter Lawwell was apparently even prepared for Celtic start at the bottom, i.e. the second tier of a revamped Premier League. However, although this idea has been discussed for many years, it looks like it won’t fly, as the English Premier League firmly rejected the proposal last November. The official statement was unambiguous: “The clubs were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable.” As if that weren’t plain enough, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore made it crystal clear, “No means never.”

At first glance, Celtic and Rangers would bring some financial gains, but the Premier League sees its future earnings expansion mainly coming from overseas TV rights and sponsorship, to which it was felt the Scottish clubs would not greatly contribute. Some have also mentioned safety as being a cause for concern with the Glaswegians’ vast away support, but the main issue is probably the lesser English clubs worrying that they would be risking their own place in the lucrative Premier League. After all, turkeys very rarely vote for Christmas.

"Do the huddle"

However, things can change and we probably shouldn’t definitively rule this idea out. If the TV money ever shows signs of drying up, the plan might be re-visited, though not in the near future. Having said that, at that stage football might be run along franchise lines in any case (like the NFL). Glasgow Bravehearts vs. London Cockneys, anyone?

There has also been talk of an Atlantic League, comprising teams from less important countries (in financial terms) like Scotland, Portugal and Holland, but that initiative is again unlikely to get past first base. It would resemble a poor man’s Champions League and TV companies would almost certainly not pay much for such limited fare. Given that the only rationale for doing this would be financial, there would seem to be little point in going ahead, as it would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

"Hail, hail, the Celts are here"

Where does this leave Celtic? Unfortunately, they find themselves in a vicious circle. If they can’t get the money to buy better players, they will struggle to reach the group stages of the Champions League, but if they don’t qualify for the Champions League, then it’s difficult to see where they will get the money to buy those players.

The Celtic board are clearly aware of this dilemma, as they say in the latest accounts, “Revenues generated by progress in European competitions remain of major significance and provide greater flexibility when considering player investment.” More pithily, the old bruiser, John Reid, explained that “football and commercial success go hand in hand.”

So they’re going to start investing in better players then? Unlikely, if you listen to Reid, “If you start getting into a position where you are running up debts that you cannot afford, spending money you don’t have, it is the road not to success, but to ruin.” Celtic’s chairman had already taken aim at Rangers and their strategy of “borrowing endless amounts of money”, but that does beg a rather uncomfortable thought for Celtic fans: if Rangers can dominate Scottish football when their finances are so shaky, what will happen if they sort themselves out?

"Derby day"

As we have seen, there is no easy answer. Celtic are clearly not broke, but they do not have the financial resources to get to the next level. In theory, their ambition should be scaled back in line with their relatively modest income, but the fans are hungry for success. Anyone that has experienced European nights at Celtic Park will understand that this is a special club and would surely want them to be part of the Champions League experience.

It is difficult to criticise a club for adopting a “careful and business-like approach”, but the challenge for the board is to deliver success on the pitch as well as financial sustainability. Bhoys don’t cry, but they must have been just as upset as Reid, when he described last season as “simply not good enough.” You said it, big man. The question is: what can he do about it?

46 comments:

  1. Nice read, well researched.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good piece. I see you've already corrected your earlier error about the number of teams in the SPL, so that you now suggest expansion to 14 rather than to 12 -- which is of course the present number. There are, however, already four 'Old Firm' derbies per season under the present structure, unless (unthinkably) one of the Glasgow clubs is outside the top six after 33 games.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Swiss,

    could you drop me a mail to

    etims.contact AT gmail.com

    Thanks,

    Monty

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anonymous (2:05),

    Yes, corrected that typo ;-)

    My point was that any revised SPL structure would almost certainly have to include 4 Old Firm derbies (like the present league), as that is what Sky would insist on having, but you could do that with play-offs. Like you, I am assuming that the Glasgow clubs would always qualify for those play-offs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a Celtic supporter, can I say that is a very well researched, well balanced article. Depressingly accurate

    ReplyDelete
  6. As mentioned above that's a very good article

    There are pretty much all the issues with Finance and Celtic covered. Never heard the 1% statistic before - that is a real eye-opener, so alarming for SPL yet totally justified.

    Detail is good and clearly you've spent a vast amount of time researching.

    Very good reading if you're a general fan of Celtic or Scottish football.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Firstly thanks for your analysis - we Celtic fans often tie ourselves in knots debating the thorny issue of where the club should go next and what it should do. In the end up it has very little to do with us as Dermot Desmond the principle shareholder has his heart set on EPL repatriation.
    However I'd disagree with what you wrote regarding the 'Atlantic League' model:
    "It would resemble a poor man’s Champions League"
    In much the same way as the Europa league does now? Despite our showing this year, this is our level, where we are able to compete.

    "TV companies would almost certainly not pay much for such limited fare."

    Really? I think you do a disservice to the fans in Holland, Belgium, Portugal or Scandinavia, who maybe don't warrant the same level of attention as the English, Spanish, Italian or German leagues on their own. Together, in a Atlantic league would challenge the top dog's dominance. The viewing figures alone should perk up advertiser's ears. Perhaps!

    "Given that the only rationale for doing this would be financial, there would seem to be little point in going ahead, as it would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire."
    If a domestic team from the Atlantic countries could win promotion to an Atlantic league (a new tier between Champions League and their domestic top division) then you could argue you increasing competition. If UEFA were to allow teams from the Atlantic league to be involved in the CL (an important point) then you could argue that with additional revenue behind them, these teams would be more than able to compete against the 'big boys'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good stuff Swiss, nice piece.

    As a fan of the League of Ireland, it's quite depressing to see how far the SPL has fallen, because the LOI is still so far adrift of the SPL.

    I've written a piece today (http://www.joe.ie/football/league-of-ireland/holy-grail-of-europe-is-more-attainable-than-ever-004856-1) about the new attainability of group stage Champions or Europa League football, and how much even the guaranteed €1.2m for participating in the Europa would mean to an Irish club. And yet the same money is nowhere near enough to keep Celtic competitive, at least not in the same way as they've been accustomed to.

    The new Uefa regulations are supposed to be spreading the wealth, but it doesn't look like it, so long as so much of the pie is allotted on the basis of TV market share...

    All the best,

    S.

    ReplyDelete
  9. An excellent, clear concise article - thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Apart from turkey's not voting for Christmas, why would all the major English towns and cities want hordes of buckfast-swilling morons causing mayhem in their midst every other week?

    Many of us non old firm fans would happily see them take their Sectarian nonsense to England but unfortunately I think we are stuck with them :(

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another point against the Old Firm's entry into the English Premier League is that it would be unfair on other clubs. By taking up two valuable spots in the Premier League you are denying those spots to teams coming up from the Championship, who have worked (in some cases) for years to get into the top league.

    Look at teams such as AFC Wimbledon, Chester FC or FC United - they don't get a bye into the league - instead they have to start from the bottom tier of the English pyramid system and work their way up. It is possible to reach the promised land, if you look how the original Wimbledon managed in the 70s and 80s, or look at Fulham and Blackpool, who have journeyed through all four divisions to reach the Premiership.

    As a fan of an upper-middle club in the English Championship, I would hate one year to finish in the promotion places... only to see us usurped by the two Scottish clubs - clubs who nowadays aren't even necessarily better than a lot of teams in the Championship.

    I'm not against Scottish clubs joining the English league system (there are a number of Welsh clubs enriching the sport here already), but they should be made to start at the bottom and work their way up, like everybody else has to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Unfortunately, "sectarian nonsense" is not restricted to old firm fans, many supporters of of the minor teams in Scotland are bigots, not to mention, quite a few English team followers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. yes, zicoinexile, because no sets of fans in scotland (or england, for that matter) apart from celtic and rangers ever engage in naked racism or bad behaviour, and scottish football would somehow magically become trouble-free and experience a drastical improvement in quality if they left. dear god . . .

    great article. the relentless downsizing is what has celtic where they are today. from petrov to scott brown, from sutton to samaras, from valgaeren to loovens. it's a huge chasm in quality, and results like the utrecht disaster will make it very hard for them to attract good signings.

    dermot desmond has a huge amount to answer for. if all he cares about is getting celtic into england, and it can't happen, then he should pack up and leave now, and sell his shares to someone who's actually interested in the club on its own terms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Keep your knickers oan son, its only a game. Nothing more nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jmpob, relentless downsizing? Did you actually read the article and look at the figures? Yes, the board have made errors of judgement over the past two years or so, and we are currently paying the price. However, spending levels haven't fallen significantly, and the board can't be blamed for the huge increases in english tv revenue which have inflated wages and transfer fees.

    As for Dermot Desmond, who do you think cleared our debt in the first place? I don't see anyone queueing up to buy his shares.

    Obviously we are all gutted about the way things have gone over the past couple of seasons, but we need to be realistic about our financial position, and we need to accept that external factors have played a much larger part than errors at boardroom level.

    Great article by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. THERE SHOULD BE NO QUALIFIERS TO EUROPE

    or reduce the amount of qualifiers so lower coefficient teams play each other and the likes of celtic or tottenham - if they lost their champions league qualifier - they drop straight into the Europa League

    the teams who qualify through their home league should have automatic entry into the group stages of 1 of the tournaments

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Ollamh,

    Some interesting points about a possible Atlantic League. It may be that I was overly dismissive of the concept, but I think we agree on one point, namely that this would only work from a financial perspective if UEFA allowed teams from the Atlantic League to also be involved in the Champions League, as that is where the big money will remain.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Shane,

    Interesting article on similar issues from the viewpoint of the League of Ireland. Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The SPL should look to Portugal. Develop talent and sell it to the richer league, in between you can actually develop a decent league with teams that advance to the later rounds in Europe. Too bad Scotland doesn't set its own immigration policy or else they could import cheap young talent from South America, Africa and Eastern Europe and turn them into big stars and then sell them to the Premier League when they can qualify for a work permit and the other big leagues. As it stands now being restricted by the most strict immigration rules for footballers in Western Europe turns the SPL into a broke version of the EPL where they are buying experienced trash instead of young potential.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You hit the nail on the head:

    "If Rangers can dominate Scottish football when their finances are so shaky, what will happen if they sort themselves out?"

    ;)

    GIRFUY Timmy

    Geomac1

    ReplyDelete
  21. What a refreshingly honest, well-researched and balanced article. I have a big collection of Celtic books and there's a huge gap needing filled around the whole subject of how the club failed to invest after 2003 and has been declining since.

    For me, DD and PL have a lot to answer for but it's true what the old adage says - measures drive behaviours. If PL is making a pile while presiding over this, it seems clear to me that this downsizing is exactly what he has been tasked to do and that will be his sole focus. He might just be taking "we don't care if we win, lose or draw just a little too literally.

    As for the intelligent comment from George, well, as Buzz Lightyear once said "you are a sad, strange little man and I pity you."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Excellent article.

    Pretty much sums up my own feelings towards the current state of Celtic, and Scottish football more generally. Having had to endure the last few seasons in a league where the quality is ever-diminishing, I feel the only hope left for us is to get out of the SPL.

    Unfortunately, as you quite rightly state, this doesn't look like happening any time soon. The English Premier League is probably the most likely option - while not seeming likely at all - and is pretty much what I'm quietly clinging to in my mind out of nothing but wishful thinking.

    I was slightly encouraged the other day to hear our majority shareholder Dermott Desmond express his view that Celtic and Rangers will end up in England at some point. If it's ever to happen it will be down to the money-men (isn't everything?) and Desmond is certainly one of them. But then I recalled similar kind of talk from him and other Celtic board members from around 2000 - who felt it would happen in the next ten years.

    So the feeling I've got right now is exactly what you finish your article with - what can we do? I'm afraid the answer may be what we've had to do over the past few years already, and watch the team fade into a pale mediocrity from the same seat we watched the likes of Larsson take on the SPL and Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I fear we're heading for anothe 9IAR and it ain't from Celtic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It would be a good bit of information if it was true. Celtic have not given former manager Tony Mowbray a pay-off as quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Anonymous (10:45),

    The 2009/10 annual accounts include £3.1m of exceptional items, which are analysed in Note 3 as £1.7m compromise payments on contract termination and £1.4m impairment of intangible assets (i.e. players).

    On 17 August, The Scotsman wrote, "Exceptional costs of £3.14 million, incurred mostly by early termination of the contracts of Mowbray and his assistants Mark Venus and Peter Grant in March, contributed to the turnaround from profit to loss according to Celtic chairman John Reid."

    On the same day, the Daily Telegraph wrote, "Under the heading of ‘exceptional expenses’ is the sum of £3.4 million in unidentified costs.
    'You have to draw your own conclusions but it’s public knowledge that in hiring a new management team and parting with the new management team there are costs involved,' said Dr John Reid, the Celtic chairman."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Great article SR.

    Any change you might do a piece on MLS? It will be unlike any football league you will ever research.

    The league is all about enforced parity (any team can win the league, you could be the best one year and the worst the next). Each team gets $2.55 mil salary cap to spend.

    Each team can have 3 DP (Marquee player) who each cost 13.14% of the salary cap. So, 3 DPs will take up almost 40% of the salary cap.

    According to MLS executive, the DP Rule is also designed to be competitive neutral so not to give any team an advantage.

    Salaries:

    http://grant-wahl-soccer.si.com/2010/08/20/mls-player-salaries-crunching-the-numbers/?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

    1. New York: $15,666,639
    2. Los Angeles: $10,978,593
    3. Chicago: $5,559,103
    4. Toronto: $5,214,381
    5. Seattle: $3,118,103
    6. New England: $2,983,032
    7. Dallas: $2,924,318
    8. Kansas City: $2,905,107
    9. Philadelphia: $2,886,399
    10. D.C. United: $2,881,530
    11. Columbus: $2,808,203
    12. Colorado: $2,710,113
    13. Salt Lake: $2,645,721
    14. Houston: $2,565,875
    15. San Jose: $2,518,590
    16. Chivas USA: $2,477,548

    Here are individual player amounts http://www.mlsplayers.org/salary_info.html

    Top 3 look like something like this:

    Beckham 6.5 mil
    Thiery Henry 6.2 mil
    Marquez 6.2 mil


    MLS also just signed a $200 mil ($25 mil a year) deal with adidas over the next 8 years.

    It has a TV contract (about $20 mil a year).

    Enforced parity means that successful teams are handicapped from growing. For example, Seattle is averaging 36,000 fans a game and projected to make $40 mil + in revenue, yet its payroll is $3.1 mil. Its profits probably higher than $15 mil. Because it can't translate successful off the field into success on the field under enforced parity.

    MLS also share revenue: 100% of national tv, 100% of national sponsorship, 30% of each team gate receipts, 33% of transfer fee paid.

    MLS shirt sponsorship:

    ReplyDelete
  27. Forgot to add expansion fee:

    $30 mil for Seattle (15th team)
    $30 mil for Philly (16th team)
    $35 mil for Portland and Vancouver (17th and 18th team in 2011)
    $40 mil for Montreal (19th team in 2012)

    Shirt sponsorship:

    MLS Shirt sponsorship

    Toronto FC $4M-$5M per year
    Los Angeles Galaxy $4M-$5M per year
    Seattle Sounders FC $4M per year
    Vancouver Whitecaps FC $4M per year
    San Jose Earthquakes $2–$3M per year
    D.C. United $2.8M per year
    Chicago Fire $2.5M per year
    Houston Dynamo $1.9M per year
    Columbus Crew $1M per year
    Real Salt Lake $900K per year

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't accept the analysis that Celtic and Rangers would not bring (a)revenue (b)competition to the EPL, i am sure that the SKY madmen are absolutely salivating at all those creative selling adverts containing references to age old rivalries such as the Scots vs English and of course the great Glasgow derby, offering the prospect of ferocious conflicts on the pitch would generate more sky dishes around the world and SKY know it as for being competitive in the EPL, once both Glasgow giants found their feet in the EPL there ability to generate huge sums along with TV revenues would soon see them up in the top 6 of the league, having attracted the quality of player to allow them to do so.

    The reason both Glasgow giants are not in the EPL is "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" however i believe SKY will cut through this to sign the Glasgow giants.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Excellent article SR, some good stats and reasonable opinions, sadly I was hoping that you had a solution to the current problem ;-)

    Maybe Celtic should sit tight and wait until the big TV money bubble bursts down south, however I don't see that happening in the near future

    And so it seems that we are back at the same old question of whether to Twist or Stick!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks for this, Swiss. However, regarding the EPL possibility...although "turkeys very rarely vote for Christmas", when the farmer comes round to take a couple for the dinner table, it's the stronger ones who'll push the weakest ones to the front. 18 EPL teams will benefit financially by admitting the Old Firm and two will be bumped down a level. If I was one of those 18, it would seem like an easy choice to me. Gobble gobble.

    Is the problem here that the this vote requires unanimity on the part of the current group of 20 turkeys? If not, why aren't the top 11 (the safest ones) pushing the little skinny birds to the door?

    ReplyDelete
  31. @CelticGaffer,

    I don't know whether it would require a unanimous vote, but according to the Times, when the idea was last debated in November 2009, "the clubs voted heavily against the proposal and for it to be dropped as a longstanding agenda item."

    I think the problem is twofold: (a) the EPL clubs do not actually believe that there would be a big commercial benefit from admitting Celtic and Rangers; (b) although only two clubs would potentially lose out, it is not clear who those clubs would be, so many would rather not take the risk that it could be them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Excellent article mr Rambler. Only one sticking point for me -

    "but the Premier League sees its future earnings expansion mainly coming from overseas TV rights and sponsorship, to which it was felt the Scottish clubs would not greatly contribute"

    Celtic has a vastly greater overseas TV appeal than clubs such as Blackpool, West Brom and even Newcastle who were promoted from the Championship last season. In fact, outwith the top four or five clubs in the Premiership the main "attraction" of clubs such as Wigan and Fulham to overseas TV audiences is simply their participation in the most hyped league in the world. Take them out of the league and this "attraction" disappears. I'd be interested in hearing the case Cardiff City are a more attractive proposition in terms of overseas TV audiences than Celtic.

    However, you hit the nail on the head with the point that turkeys won't vote for Xmas. I find it difficult as a Celtic supporter to come up with a moral argument to convince the chap who expressed displeasure at Celtic and Rangers leapfrogging other English championship teams. Yes, Glasgow Celtic are bigger than each and every one of them, but that is not a moral argument. If the league was based on the biggest clubs being in the top leagues then Leeds, Nottm Forest, Derby Co and Sheff Wed would all be in the Premiership now. But football is better for the competitive element that leads to unpredictability.

    Another argument that is often banded about, by Dermot Desmond himself no less, to assure us that Celtic and our Glasgow rivals will be admitted to the Premiership one day is "TV will make it happen".

    Well, standing aside from the obvious self-interest in such a scenatio, something that football fans of any club are not good at, I for one would not be happy with TV companies dictating which league specific clubs play in.

    I can easily envisage who Murdoch's Empire would rather see win a Leeds Utd v Colchester championship play-off final. We have already seen the thin end of the wedge in international football, where FIFA & UEFA have seeded the play-off stages of the European qualification groups, ostensibly to ease the passage of the nations with the biggest TV markets. Last year Slovenia to their eternal credit put a spanner in that particular works by knocking out Russia.

    Anyway, all in all a very insightful and lucid article Mr Rambler, the likes of which is rarely seen among the gaggle of pro-Rangers mouthpieces which passes as a football media in Scotland

    ReplyDelete
  33. My understanding was that Tony Mowbray and his team were on gardening leave...i.e. continuing to be paid their salaries but this would stop if they took up alternative employment...I may be mistaken though

    ReplyDelete
  34. your comments regarding european football and what jr, bq and pl said are misleading. you are confusing european football with champions league football. john reid's comments concerned the difference between cl and el football, peter lawwell didnt contradict himself, the budget will not include form cl group stage football, but will include some income from european football.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Swiss,

    Please get in touch with

    gerry@ntvcelticfanzine.com

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Excellent article. As a Celtic supporter since the 1960s, I have to say that while I would enjoy seeing Celtic back amongst the top teams in Europe, at the same time there is something truly obscene about the huge fortunes that are collected in wages by today's players.
    I for one have no appetite for being part of Murdoch's circus and if the price to be paid for that is exclusion from the hyper-reality of the highly suspect adjunct to the bookmaking business which professional football now seems to be, then so be it.
    I seriously doubt the integrity of the most lucrative competitions and the further a decent supporter stays away from them, the healthier he or she will be.
    God forbid that Celtic ever sinks to the depths of 7-time European Champions AC Milan who seem to get punished every decade for match-fixing but obviously deem it to be a worthwhile exercise since that doesn't stop them from raking in over £100 million a year in TV and other commercial revenue.
    It would be a naive board of directors who genuinely believed that they could compete against that degree of corruption on a level playing field simply by paying out millions on higher wages for footballers when many of the most significant and influential events clearly take place well away from the field of play.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This blog is excellent

    ReplyDelete
  38. Interesting article, there seems no way out without spending more than Rangers have.

    In that respect I wasa wondering if you have an equivalent wages to revenue chart for Rangers over the same period or could point to where I can gather the info?

    The figures quoted are for the full staff cost of around 500 not just the football operations. I was working on a 15/85 split of non footbal to football. Does that sound about right at both clubs?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Swiss, I enjoyed reading your blogs

    I know this is an older topic but with the Old Firm playing this sunday I wanted to get your opinion on something important to this article and Celtic and Rangers future

    Ok, I can't see the old firm getting into the EPL any time soon. Celtic have behaved prudently and the hope was that if during this recession, big teams started to fail across Europe that were over burdened in debt, Celtic along with a side like Arsenal would come to the fore. However it looks unlikely and the smaller leagues seem at a constant disadvantage that cannot be bridged without a European super league


    My point is regarding the here and now in TV rights. Celtci v Rangers is on Sunday at 12:45 on Sky Sports 4( a channel people without Sky or Virgin cannot recievce) while Man Utd v SToke is on Sky Sports one at same time. Celtic played Dundee utd yesterday on same channel while the Merseyside Derby was on SKy Sports One. Celtic also played Inverness on Sky Sports one while Man city played Spurs at same time at the start of season

    All in all, Celtic are being shown on a side channel and going against big EPL teams for Tv audiences and all for a paltry £2 million a season.

    Would Celtic not be better kicking this TV deal into touch and even just showing highlights on BBC Scotland and getting the sell out games shown(like NFL does with TV rights). They can control their own schedule better and also have a better chance of maximising revenue through aqcuirng new fans, who are been lost to the lustre of the EPL.

    If they continue with present arrrangement, I cannot see much growth in their fanbase, as football fans will be reluctant to follow the big team in Scotland playing is small grounds with pitches that sometimes have limited amounts of grass on show while Man Utd/ Liverppol are on another channel at the same time

    Regards
    Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Swiss,

    what would be the implications of one of the old firm actually applying to enter the English football league at League 2 level. Obviously finances would be stretched but given their loyal support which is the basis of most of their revenue, could this not be an option with a 5 year plan to get into the Premiership. Would certainly get most neutrals respect and could fill some lower division grounds along the way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Kevin Breslin,

    I think you have a point. The current SPL deal is worth such a small amount that there must be scope for improvement and there's no doubt that the Old Firm games are the jewel in the crwon.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Jeff B,

    Your proposal would certainly gain the clubs respect, but the financial issues might be prohibitive, especially as such a move would presumably mean that neither Celtic or Rangers would benefit from the Champions League.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The only way fair way that the Old Firm could join the Premier League would be to move their reserves to bottom of the English set up, working their way up the while continuing in the SPL. Once they have inevitably progressed to the top, then disband their Scottish entity or turn that into a reserve side.
    As for the Atlantic league, I don't think it would be like the Europa league because the clubs chosen would have such a large fan base. Benfica, Porto, Sporting, Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Standard, Club Brugge, Anderlect. I'm pretty sure all those clubs have European honour to their name or at least reached a final.
    Its a big difference from Legia Warsaw vs. NAC Breda.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Interesting reading SR.

    I take it the reason that you've not chosen to analyse Rangers' accounts, is that they are so byzantine in their complexity, intertwined as they are with those of the club's owners Murray Internatioal Group, as to be baffling beyond comprehension?

    If you did carry out such an investigation, I'd be interested on your thoughts concerning the role of the club's bankers, Lloyds TSB, which in defiance of all business sense, is determined to hamstring Rangers manager Walter Smith's attempts to improve his limited (in numbers) squad, despite the obvious fact that the only way it can retrieve it's loans, is for the club to again retain the championship, thus qualifying for the opportunity to gain entry to the riches of the Champions League.

    Perhaps this is the most baffling aspect of Rangers' finances, made even more puzzling by the Scottish media's (sport & financial) reluctance to ask the obvious searching questions of Lloyds TSB's debt recovery strategy towards the club.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...