Celtic Banter Archive December 16 2012

16 Dec 2012 23:35:18
Typical scottish media, not a jot mentioned about the 3/4 penalty claims?? And is steven craigans dad gordon smith ?that wretch craigan talks as if he was beckenbauer,.,.kbarry

Wretch Craigan?
I quite like him!

Joeshmo1888

Most ever own goals! The guy was licking McCulloch's ring in an interview before the Montrose game yesterday. And i quote "So Lee, today will be your 250th game for Rangers!" "Aye im pleased with that, i hadn't realised it was 250 today, it would be nice to score. How many games did you play Steven?" "Yeah it was around about 250 at Motherwell...BUT YOURS ARE FOR RANGERS chortle, chortle"

SERIOUSLY? Get yourself to f*ck Craigan!

At murray park surrounded by your heroes and forgot Motherwell were the club who paid your wages and f*cking put up with you scoring OG's every week ya geriatric pr*ck!

If i was a Motherwell fan i would have been raging at that, and i don't think i'm being overly sensitive saying that either. {Ed007's Note - No I don't think you sound overly anything there mate.}

Craigan is just like the rest.Get a media gig in Scotland and you can show your true colours.When you actually go through them all it's amazing how many there are.Even fat derek,who has not uttered anything remotely interesting about football, ever, managed it......green jhedi

If Steven Craigan, a guy who i have never heard say a bad word about Celtic gets people upset, you all need to have a hard look at yourselves. A guy who recently said he would have loved to play for Celtic but didnt think he was good enough. Seems an honest enough guy to me and on ESPN i will take him over Hately and Burley any day of the week.

Joeshmo1888

17 Dec 2012 10:46:27
Video replays here:

http://m.stv.tv/sport/206172-debatable-decisions-could-celtic-have-been-awarded-penalties-you-decide/

And when referees decisions in Scotland are questioned, the SFA system jumps on you whilst taking the officials side as the last word.

16 Dec 2012 22:45:23
The EPL are to me are the biggest culprits with the help of Sly . Billionaire chairmen use teams like playthings and pay disgusting wages to over hyped and mediocre players . Man City and Chelsea the main offenders . Ballotelli , Nasri , Ya Ya Toure , Terry , Cole I could go on all night about over paid and over rated players ..........DH

Errr that was supposed to be a reply to earlier post from Mrs E . One pint too many .......DH {Ed007's Note - Just make sure you are up for school in the morning. I hated going to school with a hangover!}

Not to mention chelsea paid an agent 6 mil just to sign hazard. That's celtic budget for 3 years

DH, its a massive bug bear of mine. The teams that do it are all found out though...eventually. Look at Chelsea this season & Man City just can't buy a decent result in the CL.

PSG will be next, hopefully !

Rangers, well say no more ~ Mrs E

Wouldn't mind getting PSG in CL draw . The only thing is there is another transfer window so more cash for them to spend . I also see Schalke sacked their manager ..........DH

Would everybody complain and stop supporting celtic if dd started throwing his billions about? deep river bhoy {Ed007's Note - The taxman might....}

@DH PSG would take Celtic to pieces... best chance would be Malaga and even then...

BigBear

16 Dec 2012 21:04:57
Hi Ed, great site mate keep it up. I see you talking about the fair play rulings could you tell me what they are about? {Ed007's Note - Well the short version is that clubs can only spend the money they have earned. It is very complicated but if you want a more in depth answer let me know, and cheers.}

I hate the way money is corrupting the game. Match fixing aside we have indecent transfers of £80m Ronaldo to Real Madrid or £50m Torres to Chelsea. The EPL wages last season was £1.6 billion !

I cannot stand watching a player being developed at a Club, talent being nurtured only for another Club with a mega rich owner looking for a quick fix to offer obscene wages are off they go. The players and their agents play a part too, no doubt about it.

Who would have though one of the biggest clubs in Scotland would have gone into administration never mind liquidation. This is a club that in 2011 had the 14th highest matchday revenue in Europe and without a doubt, in comparision to some EPL clubs, a big support.

We all watched as they paid £12m (Flo) for a player whilst the most Celtic would pay is £6m (Sutton)...and I know which player I would prefer in my team.

These Regulations have been a long time coming and hopefully will in some way stop all this but I have my doubts ~ Mrs E

So what's the long answer ed if you don't mind? {Ed007's Note - Are you sure......

The Demystification of the Financial Fair Play Rules (FFPR)

Introduction

I will try and simplify and summarise the FFPR and give examples where I can.

Putting aside all of the "mother country" fluff, the fundamental purpose of the FFPR is to:
(1) Ensure that clubs are operating within their means with transparent financial reporting. Example: Arsenal has debt which they can manage from the money they make as a club (good). Anzhi has a very low turnover given the amount of money they spend on players through donations from wealthy owners (bad).
(2) Protect creditors. Example: When Portsmouth went bust they owed money for players (the extreme case being Glen Johnson who had moved to Liverpool but Portsmouth still owed Chelsea for), money to local businesses (tradesmen who had worked at the ground, newsagents etc.), utility companies, the police et al (bad).
(3) Encourage responsible spending. Example: Liverpool under Hicks and Gillett borrowed money against the value of the club in order to buy players (bad).
(4) Protect the long-term viability of European club football. Example: They want to avoid the scenario of clubs entering administration or going out of business.

The FFPR apply to all UEFA club competitions and will actively come in to force from the end of June 2014 taking account of the financial monitoring period (the season just finished) and the two prior reporting periods (the two seasons before that). So when they first start, the FFPR will look at the 2013/2014 returns, and they will give consideration to the 2011/12 and 2012/13 figures.

I should make clear that it is not the full accounts of a club that are being considered, but just the "relevant" income and the "relevant" expenses. "Excluded" expenses are critical to the FFPR calculations. To this end, all clubs will need to effectively produce two sets of accounts. An audited set which are provided to Companies House and the relevant revenue organisations, and a second audited return laying out the "relevant" income and the "relevant" expenses for the purpose of the FFPR.

Relevant Income

(1) Match day gate receipts. Example: The money made by the club from paying fans attending games. This includes income from cup games when played away from home – where a proportion of the gate money goes to the away side.
(2) Broadcasting rights. Example: Television income for games, money provided for radio broadcasting.
(3) Income from commercial activities. Example: Sales of bobble hats and rattles, club shop income, licensed income (e.g. DVD sales). In the future you can expect to see income from other media (e.g. streaming of games on a pay-per-view basis to the web and phones) increase.
(4) Prize money. Example: income from the Premier League, Champions League etc..
(5) Sponsorship. Example: Shirt sponsors (Standard Chartered, Samsung etc.), shirt manufactures (Adidas, Warrior etc.).
(6) Advertising. Example: Companies who buy time on video screens during games or hoardings at the stadium.
(7) Other operating income. Example: Payments made to a club for playing friendly matches in the Far East.
(8) Income from transfers: Example: All income from the sale of a player regardless of payment being due to previous clubs, the player himself etc. as they are allowable expenses which will later be deducted.
(9) Excess proceeds on the sale of tangible fixed assets. Example: The money Arsenal from converting part of Highbury in to apartments and selling them.
(10) Other income: Example: Interest on investments.

Relevant Expenses

(1) The costs of running the business (confusingly referred to as "the cost of sales" by accountants etc.). Example: Wages, ground maintenance, lighting, telephones, IT equipment, travel costs, policing costs etc..
(2) Employee related benefits and associated costs. Example: Costs of providing insurance, dental care, medical, employer NI contribution, housing, loyalty bonuses etc..
(3) Other operating expenses. Example: Payments for advertising, legal fees, agent fees, accounting fees, payments to players in relation to transfers, payments to player's previous clubs, etc..
(4) Amortisation or transfer costs. Example: The total amount of money paid to another club to transfer a player or, if a club decides to do so, the amortised cost for that year (where a club is spreading the cost of the transfer out over the length of his contract for accounting purposes).
(5) Finance costs. Example: Bank charges, interest on loans etc..
(6) Dividends. Example: The owners may take a dividend from the profits a club makes as income.

Excluded Expenses

(1) Depreciation of tangible fixed assets. Example: The loss, if any, in value of the stadium, cars, IT equipment etc..
(2) Costs associated with the intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations). Example: goodwill, franchises, trademarks, copyrights etc..
(3) Expenditure on youth development activities. Example: All youth development expenses (housing, schooling, travel, medical etc.) are excluded from the calculations.
(4) Community development activities. Example: Outreach programmes, donations to the local community and charities, provision of equipment etc..
(5) Tax expenses. Example: Monies paid to the Inland Revenue, VAT etc..
(6) Finance costs related to construction of tangible fixed assets. Example: The interest on the £300M loan to build a new stadium.
(7) Interest payments on old loans (pre June 1, 2011). Example: Any interest due on a loan taken out for whatever purpose before June 1, 2011 is excluded from the calculations.
(8) Certain expenses from non-football operations. Example: This does not really apply to British clubs, but in other European countries clubs are often "sporting clubs" and have basketball, football, hockey team etc. all under one business.

The Calculation

FFPR calculates from a club's "relevant" income and the "relevant" expenses whether the club is running at a surplus (profit) or deficit (loss) within a Monitoring Period (e.g. 2013/14). From this the FFPR decides if a club has met the "break even" requirement or not. This is not met if the "relevant" expenses exceed the "relevant" income by more than 5M euros (an acceptable deviation).

If the club exceeds this acceptable deviation, the owners of a club may contribute toward correcting it to a maximum of 45M euro over a rolling three year period (30M euro from 2015/16 on). Example: If Club X made a loss of 50M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 45M euro and there would not be an issue. However, for the two years following, there would be no allowable owner contribution as the full allocation had been used. If Club Y made a loss of 30M euro in 2013/14 due to the purchase of players, the calculation will ignore the first 5M euro and assume an owner contribution of 25M euro and there would not be an issue. But in this case, for the two years following, there would still be 20M euro allowable as owner contribution to cover further losses.

The Punishment

The Threat: If a club has been determined to have violated the "break even" requirement for a season it may be excluded from the next season's UEFA competitions.

Likely Situation: If a club can show it has been moving in the right direction and doing what it can to overcome financial issues, perhaps brought on by a recession (e.g. in Spain) then I would expect a strongly worded letter as a warning. Perhaps by then end of the 2016/2017 season, If a club has been determined to have violated the "break even" requirement for several seasons then it may be excluded from the next season's UEFA competitions.

UEFA are willing to make some exceptions to the rule and have already said they will consider:

(1) The quantum and trend of the break even result. Example: Chelsea has spent a lot this summer rebuilding an aging squad, so even with considerable additional income from winning the Champions League it could violate the "break even" requirement. However, spending less next season will show the club moving in the right direction. Expect a strongly worded letter in a couple of years time.
(2) Debt situation. Example: A possible "get out" for Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United should they have a bad season and need to violate the "break even" requirement. Consideration will be given to the existing debt and the ability of the clubs to service that debt. The trend of the debt reducing and an excuse of "one bad season" and "need to rebuild the team" would likely result in a slapped wrist.
(3) Fluctuating exchange rates. Example: All non eurozone countries need to report the FFPR figures in euros which could fluctuate due to the exchange rate, whereas a number of the UEFA figures are fixed amounts (e.g. the 5M euro acceptable deviation).
(4) Projected figures. Example: UEFA will allow clubs to show that they are moving in the right direction if they provide projected figures showing that the "break even" requirement will be met in the following season.
(5) Force majeure. Example: Any extraordinary events or situation arising that is beyond the club's control will be taken in to account.
(6) Until then end of 2014/15 only - Ongoing reductions in wage costs. UEFA will be flexible over the "break even" requirement if a club can show that their wage bill has been reducing and with the exclusion of wages of players signed before June 1, 2010 they would have met the "break even" requirement. Example: An escape route for the likes of Chelsea prior to this season with Drogba, Anelka, Bosingwa, Kalou, Cech, Terry, Lampard etc. wages excluded from the calculations. A possible future escape route for the likes of Barcelona.

The Issues

There are a number of matters that UEFA still need to figure out and a number of concerns that certain clubs and certain national associations have. Off the top of my head:
(1) Loopholes: Whilst UEFA has done what it can to block any potential "loopholes" it is well aware that exclusion of wages for players signed before June 2010 is one it has introduced itself, and one that will be popular with the higher paying clubs as a short term escape route through to the summer of 2015. The matters of excessive sponsorship will be addressed via a cap to thwart the concerns over the likes of Manchester City abusing the rules. The cap has yet to be finalised but will require ratification.
(2) Soft Sponsorship: UEFA are concerned at the aggressive approach to obtaining sponsorship some clubs are taking. Questions are being asked about the ethics in clubs having airline travel partners, photocopier partners etc.. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(3) National Sponsorship Variations: As we have seen tobacco sponsorship leave Formula 1 UEFA would like to see alcohol sponsorship out of football. We already have a situation where sponsorship by alcohol related businesses are forbidden in certain countries. Wealthy breweries are now focussing their sponsorship in other countries thereby creating a perceived imbalance in what income clubs are able to obtain in sponsorship. The French and Russian clubs have raised this as a concern.
(4) National Financial Distribution Variations: Concerns exist in countries where different models are used for distributing prize money, contributing to the grassroots game and distributing income from television and other media broadcasting. This led to an original request (rejected) from a number of clubs to restrict the FFPR to only the wealthiest of clubs, those with a turnover in excess of xM euros.
(5) National Taxation Variations: There is a considerable difference across UEFA nations in taxation, and this is seen to be reflected in the wages paid to players. The Spanish clubs have raised this as a concern.
(6) Third Party Ownership: Countries that allow third party ownership of players are seen to have a distinct advantage in being able to keep the costs of transfer fees low as they are only paying for a proportion of a player. The English clubs have raised this as a concern.

The Great Fear

Without going in to too much detail: (a) A number of clubs take the opportunity a once or twice a year to discuss various issues including changes in rules, television rights, the power of UEFA, exploitation issues for new technology streams, etc.. These discussions, the last of which were in late August, also always turn to the possibility and structure of a breakaway pan European league. Several are ex-G14 clubs, several are not, and some clubs decline involvement in such discussions. (b) The plan is that at some point a number of clubs would break away from their national leagues and UEFA. They accept that they would be banned from all existing club competition and the players would initially be banned from all FIFA competitions as well, but know that FIFA would be looking to negotiate in any case. It would be the end of UEFA in all probability and UEFA are very aware of this. It would also result in a restructuring of many of the national leagues. (c) The clubs would renegotiate their television rights, rights of distribution via other streams etc.. (d) It remains the greatest fear of UEFA and all major national authorities that one day this will happen.

Ed im not reading that ill just take your word on it :)

lenny

18 Dec 2012 02:36:54
Ed I just read that. Think it sounds pretty good to be honest. Bound to be teething problems, but I think it'll work

16 Dec 2012 19:46:48
paul clark of duff and phelps statement on 31/10/12 "As of today following the liquidation of rangers football club both Fifa and Uefa both recognise The Rangers Football Club as a new member club once all relevant criteria is met in norder to join both organisations,"

You can bet your life he will be boycotted by all blue noses............green jhedi

16 Dec 2012 16:30:25
am sittin in the montrose royal infirmary edo keepin a wee eye oan chico n sum ae hiz mates who wur tragically injured in the crush it yisturdays gem tryin tae get oot wen a local shoutit,
" watchh oot sevco thurs a taxman chasin ye doon!
oor thots go oot tae the taxman it this terrible time,
fk me ed if thur wiz suppost tae be only 3/4 thoosand it the gem how come every hoaspitul in scotlund is fully booked,
god bless me tae
saint pat fae posso
patrin saint ae the needy

Aff yer nut.

You bettur beleev it tonto

16 Dec 2012 00:57:08
Have you see what ally said today? After bringing up Celtic yesterday saying because they won 1-0 that it shows just how hard it is to win in div3, now he is taking credit for young players playing in celtics squad. Are you kidding me! Did he not have to face Forrest last year and did he not see how twardizk and mcgrough were playing last year not to mention others? Since Lennon Celtic have used thier youth players and now because ally can't sign old guys for big bucks they don't have he is taking credit because he has only young players, he is talking like he is a genius and saying that it's a good thing rangers cheated for all those years and had to be liq so now young players could play first team. Your behind the times ally for Celtic and other spl teams have been using young players for awhile now while you signed old expensive players. Guess if you keep telling yourself something its true and you could actually try and take credit for something that was already being used, get with the times ally Celtic had the youngest club while you were still a thought in football.

Have not read it but McCoists credibility has been rapidly evaporating since his "who are these people" nonsense.Let's not forget he got off very lightly regarding that.Then after gaining some shares(bought by him or gifted by by Green?) he hitched his wagon to Greens comedy quote road show..........green jhedi

Why does every interview coming from the newest club in scotland have to use the name celtic at some point.
its supposed to be us thats obessed. .H.

16 Dec 2012 15:37:24
Green Jhedi how times change, it was not that long ago that Sally and Glinty were not speaking and there was war in the board room, now both are the best of pals. Just like the cardigan who was "sceptical" of Green now he too is best buddies.
hypocrites the lot of them. Timalloy

@Timalloy; Bang on mate.it's amazing what some freebie shares does to change a mind.I was thinking the other day Sir Cardigan has been quiet of late,wonder why.............green jhedi