Wages Day

[The_Judge 993]

A new study shows three Scottish sides in the top 50 highest wage paying clubs in Britain.

Aberdeen pay the least to players (less than teams like Rotherham and Barnsley) but still feature on the list in 50th position.

Rangers are second highest in terms of outlay in wages by a Scottish club and sit in 40th (paying more than Wigan but less than Ipswich Town).

Celtic fork out the greatest amount in Scotland and are Britain's 22nd biggest in that respect.  They are just below Aston Villa and Burnley but above EPL team Brighton and Hove Albion.

According to Kieran Maguire, lecturer in football finance at the University of Liverpool, Aberdeen fork out £7.8 million per year, while Rangers spend £17.6m.  Celtic splash out £59.3 million a year.

In a comprehensive study, Maguire has shown Celtic and Rangers are far bigger players in UK football once TV money is taken out of the equation.

England's broadcasting deal dwarves Scotland's and with this factor removed from the calculations, it proves Scotland's biggest clubs can financially compete with those south of the border.

Without TV, more Scottish sides feature in the British standings.  Hearts are 43rd with £8.4m in revenue, Hibernian are 46th with £5.7m.  Aberdeen are further up in 36th with an income of £12.4m, Rangers sit in 18th with an income of £25.6m and Celtic are up in 8th with an income of £50.3m (higher than Leicester, Newcastle and Everton).

The study also asserts that Celtic have the 24th most-expensively assembled squad at £45m.  Interestingly, Kilmarnock, who occupy a hugely-commendable second place in Scotland's top division, spent NOTHING in assembling their squad relying on loans and free transfers.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-rangers-aberdeen-rank-britains-13505684

[topcat(The most tip top) 7,112]

9 minutes ago, The_Judge said:

Once TV money is taken out of the equation.

This is one of those "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? " moments

[PauloPerth 3,470]

4 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

This is one of those "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? " moments

Chapeau!!

[Flybhoy 4,572]

One of Deacon Blue's best songs that.

[The_Judge 993]

18 minutes ago, Flybhoy said:

One of Deacon Blue's best songs that.

Definitely in their top 50 imo.

[Ylf 1,055]

Celtic’s wage bill £59 million. And the way they play in Europe. Waste of time. What’s the fukin point

 

[Swello 5,155]

2 minutes ago, Ylf said:

Celtic’s wage bill £59 million. And the way they pllay in Europe. Waste of time. What’s the fukin point

I guess the point is that player wages - even at the modest tier that Celtic occupy - are vastly inflated and even our diddy clubs suffer the knock-on from that...

[wastecoatwilly 578]

Guaranteed success off the park guarantees success on the park,when football becomes predictable i will be a millionaire.
If a team is beat before they take the field then it's time to shuck it.
Wages don't determine how good you play on a Saturday or any other day.  

[ONeils4Oyarder 160]

If thats the case, then why don't Celtic just keep some of their money rather than give it to the players?

[topcat(The most tip top) 7,112]

If thats the case, then why don't Celtic just keep some of their money rather than give it to the players?

If I were a shareholder, and I nearly was, that’s a question I’d be asking

[Andre Drazen 5,041]

14 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Guaranteed success off the park guarantees success on the park,when football becomes predictable i will be a millionaire.
If a team is beat before they take the field then it's time to shuck it.
Wages don't determine how good you play on a Saturday or any other day.  

Do you think that paying nearly 60m in wages, nearly treble to the nearest, has an impact on being able to win the league?

[Blootoon87 2,001]

Oh great, another thread where wastecoatwilly argues his point that money makes no difference. I'm out.

[PauloPerth 3,470]

5 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said:

Do you think that paying nearly 60m in wages, nearly treble to the nearest, has an impact on being able to win the league?

Please don't get him started on this.

He feels all the other clubs have to do is try harder and get more fans along and all would be equal.

[Andre Drazen 5,041]

Just now, PauloPerth said:

Please don't get him started on this.

He feels all the other clubs have to do is try harder and get more fans along and all would be equal.

I feel it's important to highlight how thick this c**t is at every oppertunity. Especially when he does his "I care about Scottish football" act constantly.

[RandomGuy. 16,404]

13 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said:

I feel it's important to highlight how thick this c**t is at every oppertunity. Especially when he does his "I care about Scottish football" act constantly.

You'll end going in circles as he'll never ever admit Celtics success is purely based on dwarfing other clubs financially.

[Ken Fitlike 2,303]

11 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

You'll end going in circles as he'll never ever admit Celtics success is purely based on Bi-Lateral Commercial Bigotry therefore  dwarfing other clubs financially.

FTFY

[Green Day 3,616]

45 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Guaranteed success off the park guarantees success on the park,when football becomes predictable i will be a millionaire.
If a team is beat before they take the field then it's time to shuck it.
Wages don't determine how good you play on a Saturday or any other day.  

Sport is an area where money invested usually has a pretty good correlation with success - your argument might hold a bit of water in a league where the top 4 or 5 are relatively close financially (England isnt that close, but the difference is less marked than up here).

In Scotland, outspending your rivals by the multiples that Celtic do is a pretty much nailed on method of guaranteeing success.

You would have to appoint an awful coaching team not to get to the cup finals and win the league - and Lawell is too interested in feathering his own nest (£1.16m in salary) to make those sort of mistakes.

Put another way, if Real Madrid paid Hibs level of wages they would have won all those European Cups?

 

[Crawford 1,412]

3 minutes ago, Green Day said:

Sport is an area where money invested usually has a pretty good correlation with success - your argument might hold a bit of water in a league where the top 4 or 5 are relatively close financially (England isnt that close, but the difference is less marked than up here).

In Scotland, outspending your rivals by the multiples that Celtic do is a pretty much nailed on method of guaranteeing success.

You would have to appoint an awful coaching team not to get to the cup finals and win the league - and Lawell is too interested in feathering his own nest (£1.16m in salary) to make those sort of mistakes.

Put another way, if Real Madrid paid Hibs level of wages they would have won all those European Cups?

 

I get entirely what you are saying but I think he is poking at cost to reward. On their day a club paying a third of celtics fees could do the same job but they don't play 2/3rds worth better than everyone else.

[Aim Here 3,840]

2 hours ago, Crawford said:

I get entirely what you are saying but I think he is poking at cost to reward. On their day a club paying a third of celtics fees could do the same job but they don't play 2/3rds worth better than everyone else.

That doesn't matter. Paying ten times the wages doesn't get players that play ten times better. What it gets you is players that might be , say, twice as good at playing football (by some handwaved, rough, pulled-out-of-my-arse metric), but that's enough to get them ten times as much money in prize money, TV money and access to elite competitions.

Celtic's players are worth ten times as much as the other Scottish teams - not because they really are ten times better at playing football, but they're good enough to beat the teams they need to beat to get access to ten times the revenue. It's a runaway positive feedback loop, caused by spending more on slightly better players being the most reliable way to buy wins at football.

I blame that Jimmy Hill for this state of affairs.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Aim Here

[topcat(The most tip top) 7,112]

2 hours ago, Green Day said:

Sport is an area where money invested usually has a pretty good correlation with success - your argument might hold a bit of water in a league where the top 4 or 5 are relatively close financially (England isnt that close, but the difference is less marked than up here).

 

The sheer scale of the TV money in England has actually produced a levelling of the playing field. The relatively even distribution of TV Cash evens out the massive differences in commercial and matchday income. 

In England with a cunning manager and a bit of luck you could theoretically operate a top flight team with no supporters at all. Wigan practically did this for a few years

Leicester's 2016 "Giant Killing" Premiership win was impressive given that they had a wage bill of 34% of the league's biggest payers (Man United £232M)

But Rangers are the second richest team in this league and would need another 3 million to even get to 34% of Celtic's expenditure

Even the lowest spenders that season (Watford) were able to spend a quarter of United's bill. Nobody outside of Rangers is within 25% of what Celtic spend