14 Jan 2024 12:29:04
I see a lot of people negative on here because the cost of a player and i get that to an extent but my biggest gripe is not the money we spend it's how we spend it. There is definitely flaws in our business model and it needs to evolve with the times because it worked 10 years ago doesn't mean it still going to work now and that goes for every aspect of the club. At the moment everything the club does always seems to be reactive and no forward thinking . Our strategy seems to be bring players in sell for a profit and just be happy to be ahead of the other lot and this is why we are stagnant and never going to do anything in Europe. As a club what is the strategy to take Celtic to the next level?

As for people who say they hate it when we refer to players as projects that's exactly what they are . We bring them in try and DEVELOP them, some work out and some don't these type of players in my eyes are projects.

Then we have players who are first team ready in my eyes this is players who are players who come in and straight away make the starting 11 stronger .

The biggest mistake we made is in the summer there was that we brought to many projects in and the so called first team ready players where not good enough and that lies with the board and our head of recruitment . Am I naive to think our business model doesn't hamper the type of player we go for no but until the model changes then we will always be a club in limbo going nowhere just happy to be the best in Scotland.

1.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 13:24:01
I agree with much you’ve said Mick.

The business ‘model’ if there is one has failed miserably for 20 years in Europe and good question about whether just staying one step of the Ragers is the benchmark for the Celtic board.

For many fans and some posters on here success is 11 titles in 12 years, 5 trebles etc. and the fact we didn’t die like the newest club in Glasgow so be happy with your lot. Is domestic success and being champions among the bums in Scotland the level of the club’s aspirations? If so at least be honest and tell us that. Bankier is on record as saying there was no point spending money to compete in Europe because we can’t. I don’t think the current board believe any different.

Any business being sold you’d want to see their Business Plan? Do Celtic have one? What are we trying to achieve here? It’s the CEOs job to dictate the general direction of travel. What is that? What’s the aims and objectives? He doesn’t even need to know how to get there he just needs to know where he’s going and that he’s got the right football and financial people around him that know how to get there. Does he and has he? Aims: are we aspiring to be a last 16 club although that’s no longer next year but is the aim to progress in Europe? Objectives: what’s the steps to be taken towards that objective? Are we going to buy 4 or 6 players with development potential and 2 or 4 seasoned professionals or bring 1 or 2 through the academy this year or whatever? What about next year? How long is it going to take to get to where we’re trying to go? What’s the plan? How are we going to measure our performance towards achieving these objectives so we know if we’re succeeding or failing? Who’s responsible for what aspect of the business? Basic stuff.

I just don’t see that level of foresight and ambition from the board. We’re a well run business but we’re not a well run football club. Even at that we’ve got £72 million in the bank because we put it there not because of anything special that Dermot Desmond, Peter or Mark Lawell or Michael Nicholson or Chris McKay have done. Rinse and repeat and recurring failure appears to be the plan. If I’m wrong where is the evidence to the contrary over the last 20 years?

2.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 13:38:56
We could buy 2nd class players that are at the peak of their ability for £8 or £10 m. and they would be ready to go straight into team and do a job and there would be no negatives from supporters . Thing is this. fully developed player whilst doing a job for us, is very unlikely to reach the standards of some of the players we buy earlier on in their development. I am thinking of M O’R, Hatate, Jota, Kyogo, Maeda, Bernardo Scales none of which were fully developed European players& maybe u can add more .
I am no saying buying established players at peak is better or worse than buying players still in development stage . It is probably more difficult to select the right player in development, but if we get it right the rewards are better . I think it is more than a bit harsh to go full on against M L as he can’t be expected to build a top team from developing players immediately. Give him a wee bit of time and encouragement as we all want the one thing. 20yrs without European Success is hardly ML ‘s. fault and him only in position 20 mths.

3.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 13:41:54
Few things I would like to point out.

When the club says they have 72 million in the bank, that does not mean we have 72 million to spend. In football the revenue is front loaded, with mostly money going out in the second part of the season, with little coming in. So that 72 million has to pay all our bills until we receive CL money and season ticket money at the end of the season.

I would also like to point out that it is stupidity from the board not to spend or invest the excess money, as we need to pay tax on profits.

With regards our business model, I have heard peter lawwell state on several occasions that our business model is based on domestic success and entry to group stage of Europa.

Therefore, my guess is the boards view and the fans view on Europe are different. Based on that I cannot see them spending large quantities on single transfers, as it is high risk that you won't make a profit or recoup the money. Very few players have been sold for 10 million or more and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

4.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 14:10:35
Celtic calling your off your rocker if you think M L can carry on the way he is at the moment. The recruitment has been a shambles since he came in.

5.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 14:41:58
Previously,
comments were described as opinions or debates but recently that’s changed to comments being called negative.
Why?

6.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 15:34:02
Mick87, I get what you're saying. The recruitment since Lawwell Jr came in has been terrible but it's a long-standing issue that stretches back years. Lee Congerton and Nick Hammond were deemed as hopeless as well so, for me, that points to an issue with the whole system. When you recommend Ivan Toney but the club bring in Albian Ajeti what chance have you got?

7.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 15:41:04
Buzz

I think it’s attributable to the new age positive thinking drum beaters no matter the objective evidence to the contrary that confuse realism with negativity.

I don’t hear the positivity I see here regarding the board many places.

Sometimes you’d swear it is nothing other than to be controversial or contrary.

Facts are facts and are neither possible or negative.

8.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 16:11:52
Kevbhoy,
I picked out a team of players, who were brought into our club between Hammond leaving and Mark Lawwell starting.
Hart
Juranovic, CCV, Starfelt, Hatate
Abada, O’Riley, Maeda, Jota
Giakoumakis, Kyogo.

A medal should be given the the person/ people who were responsible for bringing in those players.

9.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 16:32:17
There are some fantastic signings there and more that haven't made your XI but the money wasted on dross far outweighs that, unfortunately.

10.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 16:33:32
Buzz

That’s some statement of fact.

Who was or were responsible?

11.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 17:10:05
Sorry Buzz, I misread your post. We definitely had an excellent strike rate with Ange dictating a lot of the early recruitment. Although we were linked with Hart and CCV previously and I can't see him knowing too much about guys like Jota and O'Riley.

12.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 17:43:43
We are talking about M L as if he was at fault. for our failings in Europe for the last 20 yrs . Anyone who holds Head of Recruitment responsible after 20 mths in job when we don’t know what he was asked to look for in players and who was instructing him and what budget he was given . I have no notion of the names he had recommended and Nicholson wasn’t able to sign them up . To my mind there is so much we don’t know and probably will never know, we would be off your rocker, if u terminate ML employment with our complete lack of knowledge of his working conditions. We have found out M L is far from the tea boy that one of our well known posters described and I don’t think corrected when he learned different.

13.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 18:22:06
I still maintain Mark Lawwell was the Man City tea boy and he shouldn’t be anywhere near our head of recruitment position.
Loads of Celtic fans, maybe even the majority have the same opinion as myself.

I remember now where the recent negativity replaced opinions and debates. ?.

14.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 19:06:07
Celtic Calling

If the Celtic board and Mark Lawell under the direction of Michael Nicholson as CEO aren’t responsible for the shambles our recruitment was in the summer transfer window who is?

Second, who said Mark Lawell was responsible for 20 years of European failure? The only person I’ve seen making that bizarre connection is you. You have an unquestionable ability to misinterpret other posters comments.

The Celtic board are responsible for 20 years of abject failure in Europe during which time our current chairman was CEO for 18 years and for a business model that from the evidence will only perpetuate that failure.

15.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 20:37:27
I don’t think we will know how good a job ML has done for another 12/ 18 months. None of us know what constraints he is working under.

The Club improved our future in the summer window but did not improve the starting 11. The clubs business model is a very good one, Scouting the best up and coming talent and developing their potential. But that potential will need 12/ 18 months to develop into first team quality players.

Where the club fell asleep at the wheel was not bringing in another 3 players who were first team ready. Just hoping some of the new players will develop quickly.

With £72m in the bank we could have comfortably improved the first team by adding £4/ 5M to the yearly transfer out goings for the next 4 years.

16.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 20:54:26
SoSBhOy

There’s more than a few contradictions in that post.

The clubs business model is a very good one but where the club fell asleep at the wheel was not bringing in another 3 players who were first team ready?

Chic Murray.

Could you tell me why this ‘very good’ business model has resulted in 20 years of European failure?

17.) 14 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 21:00:18
The constraints that I can see that ML is under is that he is to find players that are around £3m price, upto age 24, will take anything below 15k in wages.

It is all very well bringing in players like me this if they are a successful, the problem is that most of them aren't and then we have a squad full of players that aren't good enough for the 1st team and definitely not good enough to play European football.

18.) 15 Jan 2024
14 Jan 2024 23:51:20
I think Ange introduced a new recruitment model when he came as manager . The 20 yrs failure in Europe has nothing to do with the recruitment model we are currently using . Our failure in Europe is down to us not developing consistency losing and changing managers too often and as soon as a player reaches the ability to play in Europe he has been sold, that isn’t the recruitment team’s fault but a fault elsewhere in club . I think we could have a good European season next season, if we hold on to our recruitment policy, recruitment team, manager and all our quality players . If for example M O’R and Hatate were allowed to go, we won’t replace them with as good and we will be unsuccessful in Europe .
I have to defend myself by saying we have had numerous posts about recruitment and our recruitment team and in these posts failure in Europe was bought up before I mentioned .
Buzz bomb, I am sorry to say despite overwhelming evidence still maintains M L was tea boy at Man City . I suppose nothing should surprise me as after team was released one Saturday he said “ great bench “ when we didn’t win on the same day he ridiculed the bench . Nothing beats factual posts.

19.) 15 Jan 2024
15 Jan 2024 02:50:20
Your writing Nonsense Celtic Trolling, I mean Calling.

It should be Twisted Old Man Chris. ?‍♂️

You come out with some kind of trolling between 11.30pm and midnight most nights.
It’s about time you got a grip.

20.) 15 Jan 2024
15 Jan 2024 10:33:31
JFP it’s not a contradiction. If you read the post it say that the club has invested in our future but not the starting 11. The club can do positive and negative things without them contradicting.

I personally think that we signed quite a few players who will be 1st team regulars in the next 18 months.

I would expect at least 3/ 4 ofNawrocki, Yang, Holm and Tilio to be big parts of team in 12/ 18 months time with Palma already being a 1st team regular. I also think expect Bernardo to join permanently in the summer.

Celtic landing Mark Lawwel was a massive coupe for the club. But we can’t really judge his recruitment until it has had a chance to settle and develop. This isn’t the same recruitment team that was in place for the last 20 years.

The club chose not to invest in starting calibre players in the summer with only one signing ready to start in Palma.

We all know we need a LB, RW, CF GK and dominant DM. And by not signing the quality to fill at least 3 of these positions the club fell asleep at the wheel.