BBC Report

This report into the financial state of the SPL suggests that only Hamilton and St Johnstone were operating debt free. Mabye I have missed something but I assumed we were also free of debt? Can anyone shed some light on this?

Interesting indeed. The season in Divi 1 obviously cost us but this should have been softened by the parachute payment. The social club has seemingly been sold for over ?200k so our expenses must be out of sinc with our income. Considering we have no assets to speak of, we must have a very considerate bank.

This report is for season 2009/10, when we weren't in the SPL. I don't think it covers us.

Hamilton SPL.... eh?

would we not have lost a lot of money covering niculae and then the multiple case hearings? it could be a small part?

This report is for season 2009/10, when we weren't in the SPL. I don't think it covers us.

Correct.

would we not have lost a lot of money covering niculae and then the multiple case hearings? it could be a small part?

A believe Niculae's wages were paid by someone outwith the club, we would have made money on the transfer and the European Cup appearance fees. The legal fees for his court proceedings while substantial would not be bank breaking (I may be wrong on this)

would we not have lost a lot of money covering niculae and then the multiple case hearings? it could be a small part?

A believe Niculae's wages were paid by someone outwith the club, we would have made money on the transfer and the European Cup appearance fees. The legal fees for his court proceedings while substantial would not be bank breaking (I may be wrong on this)

I'm pretty sure he was told to cover all court costs including ours. Not 100% but pretty sure thats the case.

I believe we did make a loss the year we were relegated. That is to be expected though.

As i recall the loser of the case was supposed to cover all legal costs.

Edited August 10, 201114 yr by ajsict92

As has already been said, it won't cover us as we weren't in the SPL for the period being reported.

What also makes me laugh is the blatant misuse or misunderstanding of the figures on the part of the reporter.....

600,000 Fans have stopped attending games!!! Really???

Capacity of all SPL Stadia is in the region of 260,000....only half of them are used every week, so say an average of 130,000 max could attend every week...which the obviously don't.

When you drill down into the figures, the OF account for something link 65 to 70% of the drop, Motherwell and Aberdeen are the other who's attendances have nose dived. For the rest, they are about the same or seeing increases. Take from all that what you will, for me it just serves to dispel the myth that certain teams are propping up the league. In fact, it could be argued that these teams are actually dragging us down.

As has already been said, it won't cover us as we weren't in the SPL for the period being reported.

And that is the answer to the actual question in the first post !!!!!! No weird theories or conspiracies required !

I thought the original post was worthwhile and suitably answered by ictchris. I really don't see where you get the "weird theories or conspiracies" from!

I thought the original post was worthwhile and suitably answered by ictchris. I really don't see where you get the "weird theories or conspiracies" from!

I think the point being made by Scotty is that Inverness were NOT in the SPL during the period referred to in the report yet some posters, including yourself, are looking at reason why we are somehow percieved to be in debt.

We were not part of the report. We were not in debt at the time of the report and, as far as I am aware, and based on the most recent report from the club, we are not in debt now. With all that in mind mention of Niculae payments and social club sales is irrelevant to the content of the report and, as such, may come across to some as 'wierd theories or conspiracies'.

As has already been said, it won't cover us as we weren't in the SPL for the period being reported.

What also makes me laugh is the blatant misuse or misunderstanding of the figures on the part of the reporter.....

600,000 Fans have stopped attending games!!! Really???

Capacity of all SPL Stadia is in the region of 260,000....only half of them are used every week, so say an average of 130,000 max could attend every week...which the obviously don't.

When you drill down into the figures, the OF account for something link 65 to 70% of the drop, Motherwell and Aberdeen are the other who's attendances have nose dived. For the rest, they are about the same or seeing increases. Take from all that what you will, for me it just serves to dispel the myth that certain teams are propping up the league. In fact, it could be argued that these teams are actually dragging us down.

I think this forum is moving into a new golden era when I find myself serially and seriously agreeing with Don!

The terminology used

Attendance figures show that almost 600,000 fans have stopped attending SPL games in the past five years.

is ambiguous and clearly can't mean, as Don states, that 600,000 fewer individuals are now attending games. But what is really meant is also a bit unclear. The best I can make of it is that it is meant to mean that the total number of attendances at SPL matches in 2009-10 was 600,000 less than it was in 2004-05.

There are 228 (6 x 38) SPL games in a season, so that's an average of around 2630 fewer fans per match, or around 15800 fewer fans per six game card. However when you are talking about the SPL, average is a totally irrelevant concept since you have two clubs which are so much bigger than the rest.

In a newspaper - well not quite, it was the Daily Mail - I saw it stated that Celtic's attendances are 21% down. That's something of the order of 11,000 per home game which is almost two thirds of the 15800 for the whole card when Celtic are at home.

Aberdeen's are down 19%. What will that be? Maybe a couple of thousand plus off their gates. I don't know the situation for Rangers but I suspect that a large chunk of the fall referred to is attributed to the drop at Celtic Park.

I also suspect that some of the lesser lights may have dropped as well but maybe only by a few out of the 3000-4000 the likes of St J, ICT, Kille etc typically get. I couldn't guess what these percentages would be.

The most meaningless statistic I have seen in relation to all of this is that the average SPL attendance is 13,926. Given that this comprises two clubs at around 50,000 and the rest nowhere near these levels, this is a totally useless piece of information.

In summary - how much of this problem is a Celtic problem?

Edited August 10, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman

bingo !

In summary - how much of this problem is a Celtic problem?

Before I launch into a minor update, two brief related comments. Firstly, for a thread which turned out to be a red herring on here since the report didn't refer to ICT, it's become quite interesting. Secondly, I note that a number of media have been reporting this in terms of "600,000 fans" so this may well be the way it's stated in the original report.

But anyway... I have since established that the 600,000 drop IS as I thought it was, and it represents a fall from 3.7M to 3.1M total season attendances at SPL matches over five seasons. That's a drop for the entire SPL of 16%, but as an average it is - as I said before - rather meaningless.

Now if we take Celtic's attendance at the start of the period as an average of about 55,000 per game, then that gives them about 1.05M for the season. That's about 27% of the total for the SPL. It has also been stated that Celtic's attendances have gone down by 21%.

Combining these figures tells us that Celtic's contribution to the drop is about 5 of that 16%. So the rest of the SPL, INCLUDING THE MAJOR UNKNOWN VARIABLE OF RANGERS has dropped on average 11%. The Dons' 19% fall will pull that slightly lower again for the other SPL clubs but the indications are that Celtic look like a significant although not overwhelming factor in this decline.

In other words - Celtic down 21%, Aberdeen down 19%. The rest of the clubs outwith these two down something between 10 and 11% on average.

Final question - why do these football economic studies always surface so long after the period to which they refer? This "latest" one is about the season before last!

Edited August 10, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman

Ranges made a minor profit because of the champions league money imagine what that minor profit would do for us

Ranges made a minor profit because of the champions league money imagine what that minor profit would do for us

No!!! Rangers made a minor profit cos they never paid the taxman..................................................and today he sent the sheriff officers in with a demand for 1.4 million.

I have always been very sceptical of these reports, the main reason being why do we have to wait so long for them to be published, also as said above there is such a large gulf between the old firm and the rest of the clubs plus it doesn't take a genius to work out that attendences are down and Celtic contribute a massive chunk to that, you only had to watch the games and highlights to figure that out. They reported everygame that they had 45000+ crowds but I am sure we all saw that the top tier of the ground was empty half the time.

Greatest fans in the world? I ask you, really?

I can see why CaleyD has raised that point that are these teams really dragging us down, in footballing terms they have been for years with their total domination of the game on the pitch and in the league but then in monetary terms have they really? Would the league without them have attracted the money that it has in tv money and sponsorship which ultimately relies on tv exposure? Would the other teams have had as high an overall attendence without them visting for away games?

For me the report only serves to show how the old firm have been the ones to struggle massively in this period especially Celtic with their lack of Champions League football and their 'faithful Seville like' following due to the huge chunk of percentages that they take up. Does this drag us down? No as we are not part of the reporting period but for the SPL in reporting terms yes as the game is looked at on a whole but individually for the other ten SPL clubs I am not sure without examining every clubs reports for the period taken in the report.

I do think that it as a very interesting topic and will no doubt throw up many arguments and ideas on our game but it isn't reflective of our club during the period.

**edit: couldn't spell 'clubs'

Edited August 10, 201114 yr by MrCaleyjag

Who or what the feck is/was Marius Niculae ?

Before I answer the question on my theory that the OF are dragging us down, I've done a bit more looking at the figures....working from the raw attendance data for the last 10 years and not trying to understand what figures someone else has got and how they arrived at them.<br><br>

This table is only for teams who have been a constant presence in the league for all 10 seasons covered...and is probably as honest a representation as you can provide for attendances over the period. Years shown are season end.<br><br>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1">

<tr>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td><strong>2002</strong></td>

<td><strong>2003</strong></td>

<td><strong>2004</strong></td>

<td><strong>2005</strong></td>

<td><strong>2006</strong></td>

<td><strong>2007</strong></td>

<td><strong>2008</strong></td>

<td><strong>2009</strong></td>

<td><strong>2010</strong></td>

<td><strong>2011</strong></td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td><strong>Difference</strong></td>

<td><strong>% of overall drop</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Aberdeen </strong></td>

<td>266666</td>

<td>223721</td>

<td>197391</td>

<td>244382</td>

<td>254553</td>

<td>237024</td>

<td>239877</td>

<td>245650</td>

<td>209228</td>

<td>173460</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>93206</td>

<td>28.54133174</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Celtic </strong></td>

<td>1111723</td>

<td>1093919</td>

<td>1095489</td>

<td>1100913</td>

<td>1104841</td>

<td>1100623</td>

<td>1067449</td>

<td>1095740</td>

<td>866061</td>

<td>930395</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>181328</td>

<td>55.52585243</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Dundee Utd </strong></td>

<td>152134</td>

<td>145649</td>

<td>148789</td>

<td>156007</td>

<td>155753</td>

<td>135787</td>

<td>157532</td>

<td>164432</td>

<td>149412</td>

<td>140391</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>11743</td>

<td>3.595915055</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Hearts </strong></td>

<td>229523</td>

<td>229096</td>

<td>226997</td>

<td>233176</td>

<td>318569</td>

<td>321799</td>

<td>270815</td>

<td>273554</td>

<td>275197</td>

<td>269506</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>-39983</td>

<td>-12.24350436</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Hibernian </strong></td>

<td>220163</td>

<td>192986</td>

<td>167111</td>

<td>238244</td>

<td>262540</td>

<td>277146</td>

<td>266069</td>

<td>240997</td>

<td>231119</td>

<td>223360</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>-3197</td>

<td>-0.978978151</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Kilmarnock </strong></td>

<td>144800</td>

<td>140749</td>

<td>132357</td>

<td>112672</td>

<td>134348</td>

<td>136149</td>

<td>117442</td>

<td>108808</td>

<td>112461</td>

<td>122106</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>22694</td>

<td>6.949305651</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Motherwell </strong></td>

<td>111694</td>

<td>115618</td>

<td>118278</td>

<td>132244</td>

<td>118757</td>

<td>111658</td>

<td>125377</td>

<td>104915</td>

<td>95528</td>

<td>99838</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>11856</td>

<td>3.630517661</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><strong>Rangers </strong></td>

<td>909711</td>

<td>927475</td>

<td>930853</td>

<td>924848</td>

<td>935659</td>

<td>949143</td>

<td>913723</td>

<td>941137</td>

<td>903723</td>

<td>860793</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>48918</td>

<td>14.97955997</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>3146414</td>

<td>3069213</td>

<td>3017265</td>

<td>3142486</td>

<td>3285020</td>

<td>3269329</td>

<td>3158284</td>

<td>3175233</td>

<td>2842729</td>

<td>2819849</td>

<td>&nbsp;</td>

<td>326565</td>

<td>10.3789584</td>

</tr>

</table>

<br><br>

From that we can see that there's been a 326565 drop in bums on seats over the 10 season period (10.38% drop)<br><br>

Of that, Celtic are responsible for the lions share at 55.53% followed by Aberdeen at 28.54% and Rangers at 14.98%<br><br>

Hearts are up on 10 seasons previous, but you will notice that they are currently on a downward trend. Hibs are the same.<br><br>

Kilmarnock and Motherwell are both down, but seems to be signs they are on an upward trend.<br><br>

Dundee Utd are probably as stable as you could/would expect allowing for natural fluctuation.<br><br>

FWIW, despite a drop during our season leading up to relegation, ICT have shown an increase year on year and last seasons attendance was higher than 2004/05.<br><br>

---

<br><br>

On to my comment about "dragging us down".<br><br>

There seems to be this mentality among those who move in the upper echelons of the game that Rangers and Celtic are the driving force. Whilst I appreciate the arguments that without them we wouldn't be the draw that we are, that's not the point to be argued. The point to be argued is that the erse is falling out of the game and the largest contributors are the OF (and Aberdeen). Before anyone hits me with the argument that the bigger teams are obviously going to have the biggest impact on the overall picture, look at the figures....whilst most clubs are down 5% to 15% of their own attendances, Celtic are down a whopping 35%...so even when measured against themselves they are the biggest disaster zone in the league....by a country mile!!!<br><br>

For years they have commanded a lions share of revenue and it was hard to argue they were due some recognition. Now that things aren't so good, they have to take equal responsibility for the decline and, IMO, are no longer entitled to command the privileged "lions share" they have for too long now. If the smaller clubs have been able to avoid the levels of decline that Celtic have on very meagre budgets, image what they might be able to do if they received an extra ?200k or ?300K as season. An amount that would likely go unnoticed for the OF...and let's face it, the evidence doesn't show they've been using it very well for the "good of the game as a whole".<br><br>That is why I think they are dragging us down.

Tbh I didn't think about it that way when I posted my initial thoughts and in no way was I trying to suggest that you were wrong with what you were saying, I guess I looked at it from a different angle. I can see and understand your argument and you are right that the OF have been hidding behind the facad that they are perceived as the driving force.

It is up to the other clubs to back each other and force the issues that you have thrown up and actually stand up a bit more to the OF.

Talking about the attendence drops though I do think that the decline especially at the OFs and in particular Celtic is hugely down to the ridiculous over inflated prices that they charge and in a way you can't blame people from staying away but then for years both have been known to have a core that always go and the rest is made up of people who go when the going is good.

I thought the original post was worthwhile and suitably answered by ictchris. I really don't see where you get the "weird theories or conspiracies" from!

I think the point being made by Scotty is that Inverness were NOT in the SPL during the period referred to in the report yet some posters, including yourself, are looking at reason why we are somehow percieved to be in debt.

We were not part of the report. We were not in debt at the time of the report and, as far as I am aware, and based on the most recent report from the club, we are not in debt now. With all that in mind mention of Niculae payments and social club sales is irrelevant to the content of the report and, as such, may come across to some as 'wierd theories or conspiracies'.

You are totally wrong to suggest that I am "looking at a reason why we are somehow perceived to be in debt". The confirmation from ICTCHRIS that the report did not include us was acknowledged by me - FULL STOP!

Don... these are extremely revealing figures. I don't suppose you have stats for ICT for the six of the 10 years covered that they were in the SPL?

So the picture is becoming much clearer, although slightly different stats based on slightly different periods give slightly different numbers indicating the same thing. This IS very largely a Celtic problem, with Aberdeen and Rangers also struggling, while the rest of the clubs seem to have held up quite well in a challenging environment.

Let's take Aberdeen out of the equation and also acknowledge that this is a long enough period to see old football fans die out and new ones come on tap - during which the OF have taken a pasting and the others have held up reaonably well against that challenging underlying trend. That being the case, is there the remotest chance that a small part of this trend may indicate a modest drift on the part of the Scottish population away from the OF and towards the other clubs??

And what of the Dons? Is that bubble which is the Gothenburg Myth slowly deflating as Aberdeen fans begin at last to come to terms that 1983 and all that was a one off as opposed to a permanent condition?

A better headline? "SPL CLUBS HOLD FIRM AS CELTS LEAD DONS AND GERS IN MASS FANS EXODUS"

DON.... DO YOU HAVE AN INTERNET ADDRESS FOR THE 10 YEAR STATS YOU QUOTED?

Edited August 11, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman

DO YOU HAVE AN INTERNET ADDRESS FOR THE 10 YEAR STATS YOU QUOTED?

celticgloryhuntersdesertindroves.com