Jimboyjones1976 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Was wondering. I’m no fan of Dingwall and I feel sorry for the woman who he gets to mount once in a while, but saw his interview yesterday on Sky and wondered about his claim that Celtic spent £70m on our team last year. No fan of him at all, but he knows, as well as we all know that they didn’t spend anywhere near that much. So why did he say it. Was it a mistake? If it wasn’t then would he really risk his ‘reputation’ by going on national TV and talking shite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBeans Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 It is the wages plus transfers, but that wasn’t quite 70m and he ignored player sales. It is misleading in that sense but not alone in that, there is also the fact that a huge portion of those salary costs relate to European bonuses. Celtic’s wage bill went up from 36m to 52m in one year not because they brought in a substantially higher costing player, but because their players performed better and were entitled to a share of the spoils of success. If Rangers had managed to get by the might of Luxembourg and all the way to the Europa League their salaries would have gone up a few million this year regardless of squad. It is disingenuous putting it out there but it quite funny for all the patter about “Catholic accountants”, that Rangers fans now seem to get satisfaction from looking at Celtic’s financial statements and giving it the “haha look at how much money you’re making and can afford to spend on your players” line. It’s very small time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Wages and other associated costs..... The same thing has been happening to Sevco.... Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBeans Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 15 minutes ago, bennett said: Wages and other associated costs..... The same thing has been happening to Sevco.... Deal with it. What thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Our operating expenses are about 70 odd million given the cost of putting on games for 50 thousand per game plus our wage bill is nowehere near that. It was under 30 million under Deila and its not as if we have doubled our budget under Rodgers. Ps who the f*ck is Mark Dingwall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 The obsession from dodgy Dave has filtered down to his minions, it's all about Celtic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, bennett said: Wages and other associated costs..... The same thing has been happening to Sevco.... Deal with it. I've never in my life heard anyone quote entire running costs of a club when talking about how much a team cost.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, bennett said: Wages and other associated costs..... The same thing has been happening to Sevco.... Deal with it. The funniest thing about the fat mouthpieces party line is, **** on here pretending not to know who he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jdog said: I've never in my life heard anyone quote entire running costs of a club when talking about how much a team cost.. I have. In fact that very figure of £70m was thrown about in the press when talking about what Rangers spent in the first two seasons after the re-birth. It then basically referred to all the money Rangers had raised and somehow managed to burn through. It was therefore even broader than "running costs", but the implication then, was the same one evident now in the ramblings of this Dingwall pillock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 43 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I have. In fact that very figure of £70m was thrown about in the press when talking about what Rangers spent in the first two seasons after the re-birth. It then basically referred to all the money Rangers had raised and somehow managed to burn through. It was therefore even broader than "running costs", but the implication then, was the same one evident now in the ramblings of this Dingwall pillock. No , the implication was Celtic spent £70m on players to win the league last year. Remind we when "£70m" was "thrown about in the press" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jdog said: No , the implication was Celtic spent £70m on players to win the league last year. Remind we when "£70m" was "thrown about in the press" I told you when. Two years after the re-birth, I remember a tabloid splash about how Rangers had got through that sum in winning the bottom two divisions. The implications were in both cases very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 5 hours ago, Jimboyjones1976 said: I’m no fan of Dingwall and I feel sorry for the woman who he gets to mount once in a while Kind of you, but I don't think Dingwall is a fan of the ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR #1 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, gannonball said: Our operating expenses are about 70 odd million given the cost of putting on games for 50 thousand per game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 57 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I have. In fact that very figure of £70m was thrown about in the press when talking about what Rangers spent in the first two seasons after the re-birth. It then basically referred to all the money Rangers had raised and somehow managed to burn through. It was therefore even broader than "running costs", but the implication then, was the same one evident now in the ramblings of this Dingwall pillock. One was true and one was false i'm sure @Tartantony will tell you the accurate amount sevco spent going through the leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 4 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: One was true and one was false i'm sure @Tartantony will tell you the accurate amount sevco spent going through the leagues. Can't remember now but I posted it on here somewhere. I haven't seen the interview regarding Celtic spending £70m so no idea what he is referring to or what relevance it has. Celtic can afford to spend what they do in terms of transfer fees and wages. They have a net income of around £1m on transfers between 2012 and 2017 having received around £50m in transfer fees in that time. They can also afford to cover their wages so not sure what the whole point is. Rangers spent over £10m on transfer fees in their last accounts and made massive losses due to the overspending, I keep saying it but they really need to start worrying about Rangers and not what Celtic are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhamen Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Is this the same guy that had the programne shop in Glasgow yonks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 3 hours ago, Tartantony said: Can't remember now but I posted it on here somewhere. I haven't seen the interview regarding Celtic spending £70m so no idea what he is referring to or what relevance it has. Celtic can afford to spend what they do in terms of transfer fees and wages. They have a net income of around £1m on transfers between 2012 and 2017 having received around £50m in transfer fees in that time. They can also afford to cover their wages so not sure what the whole point is. Rangers spent over £10m on transfer fees in their last accounts and made massive losses due to the overspending, I keep saying it but they really need to start worrying about Rangers and not what Celtic are doing. All true I'd imagine, but not remotely relevant to Willy's typically mangled 'point'. In both this case and the Rangers one I referred to, the figure quoted was not spent on players in the way that was implied, thus challenging Jdog's even lamer 'point'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 10 hours ago, Jdog said: The funniest thing about the fat mouthpieces party line is, **** on here pretending not to know who he is part of a 'small minority' who let the image of the rangers support down...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 10 hours ago, Dundee Hibernian said: Kind of you, but I don't think Dingwall is a fan of the ladies. I think he knew that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 13 hours ago, RR #1 said: ?? Operating Expenses include players wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.