Financial state of club?

[Gabby]

[CaleyD]

Not an error or oversight at all.

The point I'm making is that Celtic have reaped the benefits of having a lions share of the income from the league for years. When things were on the up they were happy enough to pedal the line that they were doing most for the "good of the game". Now that things are on the decline, they want to continue in that privileged position, even though they are the ones contributing most to the erse falling out of the game....both in hard number and % terms.

The question is...Why, when they continue to receive a disproportionately high % of the finances are they doing least to prevent the decline? Would it not make more sense to divert at least some of those resources towards clubs where the decline is much slower...after all, they are making best use of the little they currently get.

Even 3%, which is representative of the drop in Celtics share of the overall attendances for the period, divided up amongst the smaller clubs would give them all an extra couple of hundred thousand. Imagine what someone like ICT, who have actually grown attendances by 7% since getting in to the SPL, could do with that. The impact on Celtic? I doubt they'd notice it, and if they did then tough, they should have been thinking more about putting their success/income/privileged position to better use over the years to prevent/slow the decline they have witnessed.

[dougal]

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

I agree this would have been a far more accurate headline but lets face it journalists are good at twisting headlines

From what I hear you weren't too bad at it yourself specifically at the time of the merger

dougal

[Charles Bannerman]

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

I agree this would have been a far more accurate headline but lets face it journalists are good at twisting headlines

From what I hear you weren't too bad at it yourself specifically at the time of the merger

dougal

Are you SURE you're not Buenos in disguise?

As it happens the newspaper as opposed to broadcast coverage I did of the merger was relatively limited and in any case, not being a sub editor whose job it is to write headlines, I've never written one for real in my life!

[Gabby]

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.

We are are talking about 2 completely seperate income streams here. The money distributed to Clubs by the SPL is largely generated from broadcast contracts. Like it or not (and I don't) Broadcasters will only get a return on their investment by showing Rangers and Celtic games. As a result, these clubs have been able to successfully argue that since they are responsible for generating the income, they should receive the lion share of it. This is a completley different issue to bums on seats at venues. This is a Club issue, as shown by the ability for the Clubs to charge different prices for admission. If attendance was centrally controlled then tickets would be the same price for each club. As a result it is a folly for anyone to suggest that money should be distributed to Clubs on the basis of rising/falling attendances. It would result in Clubs fiddling attendance figure such as Ross County ALLEGEDLY does for Cup ties.

In saying that, it would be nice if Rangers and Celtic saw the ethical argument of helping the league is helping themselves but at the end of the day all Clubs are businesses competing against each other for trophies and revenue

[Murchison]

Gabby, I was just going to make a similar point. I'm not one to stick up for the OF in any way, and don't necessarily agree with the distribution of TV money, but Rangers and Celtic get more TV money as they have most games on TV. They are on every 2nd week, every time they are playing away. Other teams just don't feature unless playing the old firm.

Also, it could be argues that as increased TV coverage always gets part of the blame for reduced attendances, it would be obvious that Celtic and Rangers would have the biggest decline. Their fans see most of the rest of the league as diddy teams, so why pay to see the team at home every 2 weeks, when you can pay Mr Murdoch less to see the same thing, and also find out whats on your favourite players voicemail!! (Sorry, couldn't resist).

[CaleyD]

So it's ok for Celtic to allow attendances to plummet so long as their fans are watching on TV, and they can do that without expecting to take responsibility for the games decline???.....give me a break. It's apologist, defeatist excuses like that which allow them to ride roughshod all over the rest of the league.

In regards TV viewing/income, the SPL gets ?13 Million a year from Sky/ESPN deal. Viewing figures for last season were 9.7 Million. That's ?1.34 per person per game viewed. So, in effect 1 fan in attendance is worth about 15 viewers.

Celtic attendances are down 181,328, so unless they've added 2,719,920 to TV viewing figures in the last 10 years, their overall contribution is still very much a negative one.

No matter how you want to try and split hairs, there's no basis in fact (or figures) to justify them continuing to command the share of income that they do...regardless of it's source.

I'm not suggesting they don't get a proportionate share of income, I'm saying that the proportions have changed and that needs to be reflected in how cash is divided.

[starchief]

TV viewing is also obviously not overly dependant on how good clubs are. It's difficult to see how much worse it could get for the OF (and others) in Europe. So, a more equitable payment would see a more exciting league with possibly more reasons for tuning in.

The current line-up? As, was it Walter Smith? (I could be wrong, might have been Martin Bain or someone), said, Rangers (and Celtic) need the money to carry the flag in Europe. If we look at the evidence, there's either not enough money for the OF, or some other problem (like competitiveness). Either way, that money isn't improving our European results. So, the question is: should the SPL be structured to ensure one of the twins wins every year?

Well, we did better in Europe and it was more exciting when the league was more competitive...

[Tormod]

Am I right in saying that at the beginning of this period there were only 36 games in the league season whereas now there are 38? If so, this makes things worse as attendances have dropped sepite playing more matches.

[caleyboy]

We can voice our opinions and present facts until the cows come home but sadly the supporter's opinion will have absolutely no effect on the happy handshake brigade.

[12th Man]

Useless statistics really, you can alter any figures to make them look better.

600,000 over 5 years?? What a scoop, should make the front page. 125,000 a year- 38 games x 6 fixtures

So 125,000 fans less pa over 228 games = 549 a match or 3289 less over a set of weekend fixtures.

People dont have as much cash, throw into the mix a lot of midweek evening fixtures from postponements and planed mid week fixtures, 6pm KOs, Monday night football, etc. then 549 isnt a lot thats not taking into account that the Dons and Hibs are pants and their fans are staying away.

Taking the above into consideration, then I would say that the head count is far better than to be expected with all of the obstacles put in front of the fans.

If Scottish income was divided by attendance money, then you would say that a greater amount of available income as a percentage is being spent on Scottish football. by comparing recent figures with 5 years ago.

It wasnt really worth a story.

When I mention pretty useless statistics I was referring to the news article and not fans input

Edited August 12, 2011 by 12th Man

[CaleyD]

Useless statistics really, you can alter any figures to make them look better.

600,000 over 5 years?? What a scoop, should make the front page. 125,000 a year- 38 games x 6 fixtures

So 125,000 fans less pa over 228 games = 549 a match or 3289 less over a set of weekend fixtures.

People dont have as much cash, throw into the mix a lot of midweek evening fixtures from postponements and planed mid week fixtures, 6pm KOs, Monday night football, etc. then 549 isnt a lot thats not taking into account that the Dons and Hibs are pants and their fans are staying away.

Taking the above into consideration, then I would say that the head count is far better than to be expected with all of the obstacles put in front of the fans.

If Scottish income was divided by attendance money, then you would say that a greater amount of available income as a percentage is being spent on Scottish football. by comparing recent figures with 5 years ago.

It wasnt really worth a story.

Actually, it's 600,000 less per annum...so about 16,000 a week (give or take).

The decline was already happening before the latest recession hit. It's doubtless had an impact, but it's certainly not the main cause.

[lukemackay]

i blame berti vogts for sucking the life outa scottish fitbaw

[12th Man]

Useless statistics really, you can alter any figures to make them look better.

600,000 over 5 years?? What a scoop, should make the front page. 125,000 a year- 38 games x 6 fixtures

So 125,000 fans less pa over 228 games = 549 a match or 3289 less over a set of weekend fixtures.

People dont have as much cash, throw into the mix a lot of midweek evening fixtures from postponements and planed mid week fixtures, 6pm KOs, Monday night football, etc. then 549 isnt a lot thats not taking into account that the Dons and Hibs are pants and their fans are staying away.

Taking the above into consideration, then I would say that the head count is far better than to be expected with all of the obstacles put in front of the fans.

If Scottish income was divided by attendance money, then you would say that a greater amount of available income as a percentage is being spent on Scottish football. by comparing recent figures with 5 years ago.

It wasnt really worth a story.

Actually, it's 600,000 less per annum...so about 16,000 a week (give or take).

The decline was already happening before the latest recession hit. It's doubtless had an impact, but it's certainly not the main cause.

Must have misread the BBC link, I read it as 600,000 over 5 years.

[Alex MacLeod]

Attendance figures show that almost 600,000 fans have stopped attending SPL

games in the past five years.

I also read it as quoted from the article. 600,000 fans have stopped attending in the past five years. To me that says 600,000 less clicks of the turnstiles over the 1140 matches played in that period. I make that down by 526.3 per match. Pretty meagre amount really considering standards have dropped so much in the period.

[12th Man]

Attendance figures show that almost 600,000 fans have stopped attending SPL

games in the past five years.

I also read it as quoted from the article. 600,000 fans have stopped attending in the past five years. To me that says 600,000 less clicks of the turnstiles over the 1140 matches played in that period. I make that down by 526.3 per match. Pretty meagre amount really considering standards have dropped so much in the period.

I noticed that the sum I did in my head 600,000 / 5yrs =125,000 was a bit out? how did I manage to get a band 1 at school a million years ago. So the real figure you have quoted is even lower than mine.

[CaleyD]

Attendance figures show that almost 600,000 fans have stopped attending SPL

games in the past five years.

I also read it as quoted from the article. 600,000 fans have stopped attending in the past five years. To me that says 600,000 less clicks of the turnstiles over the 1140 matches played in that period. I make that down by 526.3 per match. Pretty meagre amount really considering standards have dropped so much in the period.

Which is why (as I said earlier) I used the raw data to produce my figures and not those being reported.

If you look at the figures in the table I did previously you'll see that for just the 8 teams that have been in the SPL for the 10 years, the difference between last year and 5 years previous was 449,480. For the various combinations of the other 4 teams for the last 5 years the difference between last season and 5 years previous was 123,194....total = 572,674....or as near to 600,000 as matters for reporting purposes.

That's 150,000 per year (you only have 4 drops measured in a 5 year period) and it's cumulative. i.e. 150,000 between years 1 & 2, another 150,000 between years 2 & 3 (300,000 total)..etc..etc.

If, as you are stating, it was 600,000 less "clicks" over the period then you would only expect to see a drop of 150,000 between the start and end of the 5 year period.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I have to admit to a fair degree of scepticism and sarcasm regarding the manner in which this club has been financially and generally managed in the past. I have to concede that it does appear that the present "Leadreship" have learned from errors in judgement, reactive decision making, naievity and lack of communication with the support.

However the business prowess of these "leaders" have improved significantly due to learning lessons, gaining in expereience, reading this forum and developing a professional business acumen.

I would wish to emphasisie that despite the fear of other clubs facing harsh times and even fears bout their mere existence - ICTFC is on a firm footing and we are in good hands.

Fer fecks sake they have evn brought out a leadership training package.

Leadership Training - ICTFC.com

[Gabby]

Not an error or oversight at all.

The point I'm making is that Celtic have reaped the benefits of having a lions share of the income from the league for years. When things were on the up they were happy enough to pedal the line that they were doing most for the "good of the game". Now that things are on the decline, they want to continue in that privileged position, even though they are the ones contributing most to the erse falling out of the game....both in hard number and % terms.

The question is...Why, when they continue to receive a disproportionately high % of the finances are they doing least to prevent the decline? Would it not make more sense to divert at least some of those resources towards clubs where the decline is much slower...after all, they are making best use of the little they currently get.

Even 3%, which is representative of the drop in Celtics share of the overall attendances for the period, divided up amongst the smaller clubs would give them all an extra couple of hundred thousand. Imagine what someone like ICT, who have actually grown attendances by 7% since getting in to the SPL, could do with that. The impact on Celtic? I doubt they'd notice it, and if they did then tough, they should have been thinking more about putting their success/income/privileged position to better use over the years to prevent/slow the decline they have witnessed.

However, their TV audience is probably growning as fans watch the game at home or at the pub. This makes broadcasters very happy. You insist of confusing bums on seats at the stadiums with income derived from TV rights that are dispersed by the SPL. These 2 income sources are not related. In fact it could be argued that Celtic are already paying the price of reduced attendances because reduced attendences affect their bottom line only.

You also said that you would doubt if Celtic would even notice. I'm sorry but I do not know a single businessman that wouldn't notice a reduction in revenue and wouldn't be doing their best to retrieve it. You are asking one businesses to give up their competitive advantage over another business. That is quite naive.

[hislopsoffsideagain]

CaleyD, just worth asking...Rangers and Celtic still sell a huge number of season tickets - isn't it often the case that the empty seats when they are playing the likes of us have been paid for, but the fans only turn up for the Old Firm games and a few others? So attendances are lower, but the revenue isn't.

Or am I talking complete crap?

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

CaleyD, just worth asking...Rangers and Celtic still sell a huge number of season tickets - isn't it often the case that the empty seats when they are playing the likes of us have been paid for, but the fans only turn up for the Old Firm games and a few others? So attendances are lower, but the revenue isn't.

Or am I talking complete crap?

Well you usually do but not this time. And they still count the non attended but paid fer season ticket seats in the attendances at league games.

[Alex MacLeod]

CaleyD, just worth asking...Rangers and Celtic still sell a huge number of season tickets - isn't it often the case that the empty seats when they are playing the likes of us have been paid for, but the fans only turn up for the Old Firm games and a few others? So attendances are lower, but the revenue isn't.

Or am I talking complete crap?

10 years ago it would be impossible to get hold of a season ticket for OF unless you had been on a waiting list for years and someone died. Today they have to spend a fair bit in advertising those self same season tickets. Even offering incentives to the purchasers.

[tm4tj]

Free penalties with every Old Firm season ticket

[PullMyFinger]

Free headers at every home game.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Free headers at every home game.

Does that mean that "headers" get in free ?!!