Phew. When a club is £36m in debt, stoppage time winners against resilient Kazaks might have more than just its manager re-enacting the Olympic 100 metres hurdles final (well, OK, maybe the slowest of the heats) down strips of open Glasgow land. Try as I might, I canât quite picture chief executive Peter Lawwell leaping about the place after Celtic qualified for the âlucrativeâ Champions League group stage. But if Celticâs long-term financial challenges are as stiff as many Rangers fans have been suggesting this week, then Lawwell will have felt like doing so.
After Celticâs mediocre performance in Kazakhstan, the twin spectres of Champions League exit, and the relatively pitiful financial compensation of the Europa League group stages, loomed large over Celtic Park. Fortunately, it turned out to be a cunning, almost master, plan to add to the Celtic coffers. The prospect of seeing Celtic overcome a two-goal deficit on another âglory nightâ of European football would, the plan went, put an extra 10,000 on the gate. Such nights are exhilarating, let me assure you from the personal experience of seeing Celtic beat Cologne using that modus operandi, ulp, twenty-one years ago. And if the Kazaksâ pre-match traditional sheep slaughter was banned, they wonât have a clue how to defendâ¦and it wonât matter that Celtic havenât a clue how to defend either. Especially long throws.
With the current squad, the Europa League will remain the height of Celticâs post-Christmas European ambitions. That isnât a criticism of the players at Neil The Bigotâs disposal, just an acknowledgement of how important Victor Wanyama, Gary Hooper and, Kevin Wilson were to their success last year. Among the welter of criticisms Celtic received after defeat in Asanta, the board got their share for not spending last yearâs Champions League proceeds (£23.67m) plus the Wanyama, Hooper and Wilson transfer fees (£20.5-21m) before the play-off round. A view took hold that the board were âgamblingâ on Celtic overcoming Shakter before committing any more funds to the market, judging that the recently-depleted squad would still cope with anything the Scottish Premiership could throw at it (except, as Shakter and Inverness Caledonian Thistle demonstrated last week, the football itself).
Another theory emerged this summer, which would explain the current Celtic boardâs investment care. Or, to be precise, the theory re-emerged, as the financial information upon which it was based has previously been a topic for debate on internet forums â the idea that, prior to last yearâs Champions League run, Celtic were £36m in debt and struggling to meet repayment deadlines. The theory has been propagated almost exclusively by Rangers fans fed up with having their financial dirty linen publicly ridiculed almost daily. It had emerged in February 2012, just before Rangers went into administration, as a classic case of âwhataboutery,â a popular defence mechanism against criticisms of Rangersâ financial shambles, asking âwhat about Celtic?â as if doubtful financial dealings were justifiable if âthe other lotâ doubtfully dealt too.â And it moved from internet forum to mainstream Glasgow media on August Bank Holiday Monday, when âJohn from Airdrieâ, a frustrated but calm enough Rangers fan, was the last caller to Radio Clydeâs phone-in programme Superscoreboard.
John attempted to expose the ânonsenseâ of Celticâs financial well-being, which had underpinned the debate around the clubâs European football prospects (which, in itself, underpinned much of the 90-minute phone-in). Daily Record newspaper journalist Hugh Keevins had gone as far as to proclaim Celtic to be among Europeâs best-positioned financially, which might have stopped committed Celtic fans in their proverbial tracks, let alone embittered Rangers fans. And John directly challenged Keevins on the issue: âWhere do you get your facts from about Celtic being cash-rich and financially well-off?â Keevins replied, âCelticâs balance sheet,â to which John retorted: âDid you look at page 57, Hugh? What did it say?â knowing fine well that Keevins had looked at little or nothing more than the Celtic press release accompanying the accounts, with its list of âhighlightsâ and no mention of any âpage 57.â
âIt says theyâre in debt, £36m,â John declared, prompting an âI donât think soâ from the very soul of Keevinsâ sneering superiority. Unperturbed by a disrespect he probably anticipated, John continued: âIâve been trying to get on for the last six weeks to verify this to you. Page 57 and page 60 of Celticâs last audited accounts. âIt states on there, £36m loans from the Co-op and the Co-op have four charges on Parkhead Stadium and Lennoxtown⦠£19m to be paid back in 2019⦠the loans go back to 2001 when Martin OâNeill made his signingsâ¦â And, after a couple of feeble rejoinders which exposed Keevinsâ financial uncertainty, John continued: âI keep hearing they are cash-rich. Nonsense⦠If you do your proper journalism, go to page 57⦠deliberately at the back of the accounts. The Board of Celtic have been lying to their fans for years, telling them they have no debt.â
Indeed, John, drawing a disapproving snort from the newspaper veteran with âItâs what they call Starbucks accounting,â argued long enough for Keevins to âgo to page 57â (I know because I managed it myself while listening to the programme podcast). But neither Keevins, nor presenter Gerry McCulloch, were interested. Rangers fans have long filed Superscoreboard in the âRangers-hatersâ column. Most individuals and organisations that have had the slightest criticisms to make of Rangers over the last four years have appeared in there. That is a lot of individuals and organisations, given how worthy of criticism Rangersâ financial management has been in that time. But the dismissive attitude showed towards John rather backed up these claims. It was not only unfair on John, an articulate contributor whether you agreed with him or not, but also revealed an unwillingness/inability, by Keevins especially, to understand the financial issues being discussed. It was as if this part of the mainstream Scottish media had learned no lessons whatsoever from their ignorant coverage of Rangers financial downfall.
Had they âgone to page 57â of the Celtic PLC Annual Report to 30 June 2012 they would have discovered a reference to: âloans (which) form part of a £21.94m loan facility⦠repayable in equal quarterly instalments from October 2009 until April 2019⦠£16.69m is repayable in July 2019. The Group has the option to repay the loans earlierâ¦without penalty. The bank loans are secured over Celtic Park, land adjoining the stadium and at Westhorn and Lennoxtown.â âPage 60â, to which John also referred, added: âThe Group and Company has a £33.49m facility with the Co-operative Bank of which £12m is in the form of overdraft and £21.94m in long-term loans. £10.97m (2011: £11.34m) of the loan facility is required to be drawn down for the term of the facility agreement.
âThe Group achieves short-term liquidity flexibility through use of a bank overdraft. Of the available bank facilities of £33.94m (2011: £34.69m), of which £21.94m is represented by long-term loans and £12m by overdraft, £22.97m (2011: £23.34m) remains undrawn.â The interpretation of this as a £30m+ debt re-emerged via the weblog of former journalist Bill McMurdo, who opines regularly from near the nutjob wing of Rangersâ support. He wasnât blogging on Celticâs finances. But excitable missives began appearing among the blogâs âreadersâ commentsâ, under the (presumably) assumed name of Pharez, Zarah and Judah (PZJ), who hoped McMurdo âand others could help dispel the myth that Celtic are financially strong.â
PZJâs comments demanded close examination, not least because they displayed an allergy to punctuation which rendered them incomprehensible at first glance. But PZJ emphasised two realities; the loans secured against Celtic Park, their Lennoxtown training ground and other land which, it was hinted darkly, had come Celticâs way via a âdealâ with Glasgow City Council that potentially constituted âstate aid,â and the afore-mentioned £16.69m. PZJ explained that these loans and securities had been wilfully hidden by Celticâs group company structure, with £30m-£35m liabilities in Celtic FC Ltd, the company paying, though not actually owning, the players and staff. With these liabilities, and assets below £6m, PZJ noted, under another name on another Rangers forum, that âCeltic Ltd are already bankrupt.â He told McMurdoâs readers that Celtic were less a âfinancial model of excellence,â than âa financial disaster waiting to happen.â And âin July 2019, they could be homeless and (have) no training ground,â unless they paid back the £16.69m.
Celtic fans on various forums have drawn predictably placed different emphases on the figures. Some have distinguished between PZJâs claim that âCeltic supporters are under the illusion that this is a £35m facilityâ with the Co-op and the reference in the accounts to the â£33.49m facility with the Co-op.â Others contrasted PZJâs claim that the overdraft facility had been âdrawn downâ with the accounts statement that â£22.97m remains undrawn.â One supporter even suggested that PZJâs theorising was âinfuriatingly simple to debunk,â without quite getting around to do so themselves. The general consensus was that Celtic were at the very least up-to-date with any repayment schedules, with outstanding monies down to fractionally under £11m â so, not the âdebt-freeâ Celtic heralded by a line of âChampions League wipes out bank debtâ headlines six months ago.
After Celticâs mediocre performance in Kazakhstan, the twin spectres of Champions League exit, and the relatively pitiful financial compensation of the Europa League group stages, loomed large over Celtic Park. Fortunately, it turned out to be a cunning, almost master, plan to add to the Celtic coffers. The prospect of seeing Celtic overcome a two-goal deficit on another âglory nightâ of European football would, the plan went, put an extra 10,000 on the gate. Such nights are exhilarating, let me assure you from the personal experience of seeing Celtic beat Cologne using that modus operandi, ulp, twenty-one years ago. And if the Kazaksâ pre-match traditional sheep slaughter was banned, they wonât have a clue how to defendâ¦and it wonât matter that Celtic havenât a clue how to defend either. Especially long throws.
With the current squad, the Europa League will remain the height of Celticâs post-Christmas European ambitions. That isnât a criticism of the players at Neil The Bigotâs disposal, just an acknowledgement of how important Victor Wanyama, Gary Hooper and, Kevin Wilson were to their success last year. Among the welter of criticisms Celtic received after defeat in Asanta, the board got their share for not spending last yearâs Champions League proceeds (£23.67m) plus the Wanyama, Hooper and Wilson transfer fees (£20.5-21m) before the play-off round. A view took hold that the board were âgamblingâ on Celtic overcoming Shakter before committing any more funds to the market, judging that the recently-depleted squad would still cope with anything the Scottish Premiership could throw at it (except, as Shakter and Inverness Caledonian Thistle demonstrated last week, the football itself).
Another theory emerged this summer, which would explain the current Celtic boardâs investment care. Or, to be precise, the theory re-emerged, as the financial information upon which it was based has previously been a topic for debate on internet forums â the idea that, prior to last yearâs Champions League run, Celtic were £36m in debt and struggling to meet repayment deadlines. The theory has been propagated almost exclusively by Rangers fans fed up with having their financial dirty linen publicly ridiculed almost daily. It had emerged in February 2012, just before Rangers went into administration, as a classic case of âwhataboutery,â a popular defence mechanism against criticisms of Rangersâ financial shambles, asking âwhat about Celtic?â as if doubtful financial dealings were justifiable if âthe other lotâ doubtfully dealt too.â And it moved from internet forum to mainstream Glasgow media on August Bank Holiday Monday, when âJohn from Airdrieâ, a frustrated but calm enough Rangers fan, was the last caller to Radio Clydeâs phone-in programme Superscoreboard.
John attempted to expose the ânonsenseâ of Celticâs financial well-being, which had underpinned the debate around the clubâs European football prospects (which, in itself, underpinned much of the 90-minute phone-in). Daily Record newspaper journalist Hugh Keevins had gone as far as to proclaim Celtic to be among Europeâs best-positioned financially, which might have stopped committed Celtic fans in their proverbial tracks, let alone embittered Rangers fans. And John directly challenged Keevins on the issue: âWhere do you get your facts from about Celtic being cash-rich and financially well-off?â Keevins replied, âCelticâs balance sheet,â to which John retorted: âDid you look at page 57, Hugh? What did it say?â knowing fine well that Keevins had looked at little or nothing more than the Celtic press release accompanying the accounts, with its list of âhighlightsâ and no mention of any âpage 57.â
âIt says theyâre in debt, £36m,â John declared, prompting an âI donât think soâ from the very soul of Keevinsâ sneering superiority. Unperturbed by a disrespect he probably anticipated, John continued: âIâve been trying to get on for the last six weeks to verify this to you. Page 57 and page 60 of Celticâs last audited accounts. âIt states on there, £36m loans from the Co-op and the Co-op have four charges on Parkhead Stadium and Lennoxtown⦠£19m to be paid back in 2019⦠the loans go back to 2001 when Martin OâNeill made his signingsâ¦â And, after a couple of feeble rejoinders which exposed Keevinsâ financial uncertainty, John continued: âI keep hearing they are cash-rich. Nonsense⦠If you do your proper journalism, go to page 57⦠deliberately at the back of the accounts. The Board of Celtic have been lying to their fans for years, telling them they have no debt.â
Indeed, John, drawing a disapproving snort from the newspaper veteran with âItâs what they call Starbucks accounting,â argued long enough for Keevins to âgo to page 57â (I know because I managed it myself while listening to the programme podcast). But neither Keevins, nor presenter Gerry McCulloch, were interested. Rangers fans have long filed Superscoreboard in the âRangers-hatersâ column. Most individuals and organisations that have had the slightest criticisms to make of Rangers over the last four years have appeared in there. That is a lot of individuals and organisations, given how worthy of criticism Rangersâ financial management has been in that time. But the dismissive attitude showed towards John rather backed up these claims. It was not only unfair on John, an articulate contributor whether you agreed with him or not, but also revealed an unwillingness/inability, by Keevins especially, to understand the financial issues being discussed. It was as if this part of the mainstream Scottish media had learned no lessons whatsoever from their ignorant coverage of Rangers financial downfall.
Had they âgone to page 57â of the Celtic PLC Annual Report to 30 June 2012 they would have discovered a reference to: âloans (which) form part of a £21.94m loan facility⦠repayable in equal quarterly instalments from October 2009 until April 2019⦠£16.69m is repayable in July 2019. The Group has the option to repay the loans earlierâ¦without penalty. The bank loans are secured over Celtic Park, land adjoining the stadium and at Westhorn and Lennoxtown.â âPage 60â, to which John also referred, added: âThe Group and Company has a £33.49m facility with the Co-operative Bank of which £12m is in the form of overdraft and £21.94m in long-term loans. £10.97m (2011: £11.34m) of the loan facility is required to be drawn down for the term of the facility agreement.
âThe Group achieves short-term liquidity flexibility through use of a bank overdraft. Of the available bank facilities of £33.94m (2011: £34.69m), of which £21.94m is represented by long-term loans and £12m by overdraft, £22.97m (2011: £23.34m) remains undrawn.â The interpretation of this as a £30m+ debt re-emerged via the weblog of former journalist Bill McMurdo, who opines regularly from near the nutjob wing of Rangersâ support. He wasnât blogging on Celticâs finances. But excitable missives began appearing among the blogâs âreadersâ commentsâ, under the (presumably) assumed name of Pharez, Zarah and Judah (PZJ), who hoped McMurdo âand others could help dispel the myth that Celtic are financially strong.â
PZJâs comments demanded close examination, not least because they displayed an allergy to punctuation which rendered them incomprehensible at first glance. But PZJ emphasised two realities; the loans secured against Celtic Park, their Lennoxtown training ground and other land which, it was hinted darkly, had come Celticâs way via a âdealâ with Glasgow City Council that potentially constituted âstate aid,â and the afore-mentioned £16.69m. PZJ explained that these loans and securities had been wilfully hidden by Celticâs group company structure, with £30m-£35m liabilities in Celtic FC Ltd, the company paying, though not actually owning, the players and staff. With these liabilities, and assets below £6m, PZJ noted, under another name on another Rangers forum, that âCeltic Ltd are already bankrupt.â He told McMurdoâs readers that Celtic were less a âfinancial model of excellence,â than âa financial disaster waiting to happen.â And âin July 2019, they could be homeless and (have) no training ground,â unless they paid back the £16.69m.
Celtic fans on various forums have drawn predictably placed different emphases on the figures. Some have distinguished between PZJâs claim that âCeltic supporters are under the illusion that this is a £35m facilityâ with the Co-op and the reference in the accounts to the â£33.49m facility with the Co-op.â Others contrasted PZJâs claim that the overdraft facility had been âdrawn downâ with the accounts statement that â£22.97m remains undrawn.â One supporter even suggested that PZJâs theorising was âinfuriatingly simple to debunk,â without quite getting around to do so themselves. The general consensus was that Celtic were at the very least up-to-date with any repayment schedules, with outstanding monies down to fractionally under £11m â so, not the âdebt-freeâ Celtic heralded by a line of âChampions League wipes out bank debtâ headlines six months ago.
its uncanny.
