13 Feb 2018 17:23:22
I know this was talked about a couple of years ago, but with the news that Manchester United are "losing" out on £26m per season by not renaming Old Trafford, what does everyone think of Celtic investigating this new revenue stream.
Yes I understand we will get nothing like the Manchester United figures but for talking sake, what about a 10 year deal at £5m per season. That extra money could be used for say, improving our academy.
I know we all love Celtic Park, Parkhead, Paradise but the fans will still call it by these names no matter what the new name is.
13 Feb 2018 18:21:16
Rename it for me as like you say it'll always be paradise to me.
13 Feb 2018 18:33:42
its Celtic Park, no need to take the capitalist coin to name it anything else.
13 Feb 2018 18:50:24
I have always called it Parkhead and always will, so don't really care what name the media want to call it, as long as we make decent cash on the deal.
13 Feb 2018 18:51:32
We're not exactly skint at the moment Tim! I've never liked the corporate sell out of Stadiums but saying that, it could be something we might need to do in the future to guarantee our revenue stream.
Sounds like something our trampy neighbours over the town would do. The WongaDome has a certain ring to it!
13 Feb 2018 18:57:13
A think your dreaming with the 5 million, not for me anyway.
13 Feb 2018 21:20:06
I’m all for selling the naming rights, what difference does it make to us fans, Paradise will always be paradise! And 5m isn’t a crazy number as it’s one of the most known stadiums in world football.
13 Feb 2018 23:47:35
From a fans stand point what's the point because it wouldn't get invested into the playing squad, instead int the money mens pockets.
{Ed007's Note - What money ends up in the money mens pockets that they aren't entitled to? Apart from dividends on their shares and contracted bonuses who's taking money they're not entitled to?}
14 Feb 2018 09:16:25
Does anybody know what they are actually entitled to? How are bonuses awarded to Peter? What is the criteria? I have never had a dividend on my shares. Why do they? Why do directors financially benefit from an increase in turnover when it was us who saved and secured the club?
The Bunnet put in £6m walked away with £40m of our money. If I had been given nearly seven times my investment in the club I would be happy. I haven’t seen one thin dime, to paraphrase Flatcap.
The Celtic support built the stadium through buying shares and buying season books. Tommy Burns made the same point when all the praise was healed on the Bunnet. My question is why are these men entitled to shares that have a monetary value, when the people who made us what we are now get sweet FA?
Anyone enlighten me as to what they are on, why they are on it and why do shares that provide cash their sole preserve?
14 Feb 2018 10:27:03
The bunnet didn't walk away with 40 million of our money. Most of his profit came when he sold his shares in the club to people like DD. He bought shares they went up in value and he sold them.
14 Feb 2018 14:53:10
You just need to look across the city at The rangers, and look at all the money their supporters have thrown away buying season tickets and paraphernalia, since the start of their "journey", and the state of them now, borrowing money of the close brothers, to realise it doesn't matter how generous and loyal the supporters are if the club is being badly run, or run only as a cashpot for the directors or a combination of both, .
McCann did a good job, and Lawell is doing a good, at running Celtic for the betterment of the club.
14 Feb 2018 14:57:42
Yes, but not the kind of shares we bought.