comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
would you say that Celtic have spent big in each of the last 3 seasons however?

a quick look shows that you have spent over 50m in total over the last 3 seasons in transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
swamped by what we've brought in for the same period

Just as a BTW, should Rangers fall into the Europa it should net us c.£3m more in TV money.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Just as a BTW, should Rangers fall into the Europa it should net us c.£3m more in TV money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yup an another reason why we cannot afford to drop down and earn even less than you, we need to bridge the gap.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
would you say that Celtic have spent big in each of the last 3 seasons however?

a quick look shows that you have spent over 50m in total over the last 3 seasons in transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
swamped by what we've brought in for the same period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s oft forgotten that generally when you sell a player, you look to replace them. We’ve sold numerous first team players over the years, which has given us money to spend. Think that’s why so many look at the net spend rather than just what’s been paid out. Gives more nuance to the discussion.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
would you say that Celtic have spent big in each of the last 3 seasons however?

a quick look shows that you have spent over 50m in total over the last 3 seasons in transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
swamped by what we've brought in for the same period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s oft forgotten that generally when you sell a player, you look to replace them. We’ve sold numerous first team players over the years, which has given us money to spend. Think that’s why so many look at the net spend rather than just what’s been paid out. Gives more nuance to the discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
love it !! no one said celtic are over spending

it was only asked that if you thought you were spending alot of money?

Its being said that Beale and Rangers have been spending big just curious if the celtic fans thought they were also spending big as it seems you spend more than twice the amount we do?

again you dont need to jump on the defensive.

Just dont see the logic in saying Beale/Rangers are big spenders but not thinking Celtic who over the last 3 season have spent almost double?

I see its repetitive circular debate time

‘Just dont see the logic in saying Beale/Rangers are big spenders but not thinking Celtic who over the last 3 season have spent almost double?’

I don’t think Celtic have spent big in the last 3 seasons. Compared to other teams outwith us and rangers in Scotland, yes-but overall-no. We’ve not spent big compared to what we’ve brought in. It’s all relative. If I get £100 and spend a tenner, then that’s not spending big. If I get £11 and spend £10, then that’s spending big.

My comment wasn’t being defensive btw-it’s called bringing balance. What’s odd is that even after making that comment, you’ve tried to make it something it’s not and then completely ignored it with your comment above. I’m not sure what the issue is-you clearly can read. Understanding seems to be the problem. Same with Mags comment earlier. Was pretty clear he was talking about Raskin.

lolits funny watching the squirm.

Just say yes we have spent a lot , we have a lot to spend !

Rangers dont spend a lot , we dont have a lot to spend in comparison.

its really that simple

I guess PSG and Man City dont spend a lot since they have the money to spend !

The assertions were inherent to the debate. Only a simpleton would assume or get a kick out of thinking otherwise.

Na I was questioning the validity of Rangers being labelled as big spenders this season. And seeing how consistent those views are when using their peers.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
I guess PSG and Man City dont spend a lot since they have the money to spend !


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Celtic spent a lot compared to either of these 2 teams then?

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
I guess PSG and Man City dont spend a lot since they have the money to spend !


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Celtic spent a lot compared to either of these 2 teams then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on whos logic you use ...

Use mine and look at the amount they have actually spent.

Use your and you minus what you earn.

Using your logic if two people bid the same amount for a house, one earns twice as much as the other, does that mean the one earning less is paying more for the house?

Its all relative. Rangers have spent big compared to the rest of the teams in Scotland and are where we should be in terms of spend. In European terms we are nowhere near it and neither are Celtic.

If you only use the spend argument then its logical Rangers will be second and Celtic first in which case there's no real argument either have over or under achieved. Only if those positions switch would that dynamic change.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
I guess PSG and Man City dont spend a lot since they have the money to spend !


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Celtic spent a lot compared to either of these 2 teams then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on whos logic you use ...

Use mine and look at the amount they have actually spent.

Use your and you minus what you earn.

Using your logic if two people bid the same amount for a house, one earns twice as much as the other, does that mean the one earning less is paying more for the house?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That comparison would only work if Celtic were buying the same level of players as Man City or PSG though.

And the one earning less isn't 'paying more' for the same house...

If we use your 'logic', then Celtic have not spent big because you want to bring in Man City and PSG. We're genuine minnows compared to them.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
I guess PSG and Man City dont spend a lot since they have the money to spend !


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Celtic spent a lot compared to either of these 2 teams then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depends on whos logic you use ...

Use mine and look at the amount they have actually spent.

Use your and you minus what you earn.

Using your logic if two people bid the same amount for a house, one earns twice as much as the other, does that mean the one earning less is paying more for the house?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That comparison would only work if Celtic were buying the same level of players as Man City or PSG though.

And the one earning less isn't 'paying more' for the same house...

If we use your 'logic', then Celtic have not spent big because you want to bring in Man City and PSG. We're genuine minnows compared to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


aye ok!!

the clutchiest of clutches!!

like I said the amount you earn has zero correlation on how much something costs.

If two people bid the same for a house one earns double what the other does.. is the one earning less paying more for the house? is he spending bigger ?

I dont see why there seems to be such big issue for some to say that Celtic are bigger spenders cos they earn more.

ah bit , ahh bit .....

'like I said the amount you earn has zero correlation on how much something costs.'

Ehm - no one said anything opposite to that?!

'If two people bid the same for a house one earns double what the other does.. is the one earning less paying more for the house? is he spending bigger ?'

He's not paying more for the house, but relatively he is spending bigger. How is that not clear to you? He's spending bigger because it's completely relative to his income.

'I dont see why there seems to be such big issue for some to say that Celtic are bigger spenders cos they earn more'

Again, I don't think the nuance is making it through to you. When we sell a player for £25 million and spend £5 million to replace him, that's not spending big. When you look back, you'll see that we spend to replace players we've sold. That's not quite been the same for other clubs.

I'm out btw - reply away. If the points made by not just me but others haven't landed then they're clearly going to keep going over your head.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
'like I said the amount you earn has zero correlation on how much something costs.'

Ehm - no one said anything opposite to that?!

'If two people bid the same for a house one earns double what the other does.. is the one earning less paying more for the house? is he spending bigger ?'

He's not paying more for the house, but relatively he is spending bigger. How is that not clear to you? He's spending bigger because it's completely relative to his income.

'I dont see why there seems to be such big issue for some to say that Celtic are bigger spenders cos they earn more'

Again, I don't think the nuance is making it through to you. When we sell a player for £25 million and spend £5 million to replace him, that's not spending big. When you look back, you'll see that we spend to replace players we've sold. That's not quite been the same for other clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
disagree.

like I said going by this logic you dont think Man City , PSG, Real Madrid etc are big spenders then ... ok.

Someone better tell POV that Celtic were bigger spenders than Man City last year !!

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
I'm out btw - reply away. If the points made by not just me but others haven't landed then they're clearly going to keep going over your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont blame you.. claiming celtic are not big spenders and using the same logic, Man City are not big spenders defo makes perfect sense.

I dont think many will agree that last year Celtic were bigger spenders than Man City !!

I wonder, if rangers had sold Morelos and Kent both for £40m, and they had still spent what they have this summer, would the fans be sitting on the club deck thinking “we’re big spenders”. Just a thought…

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 32 minutes ago
I wonder, if rangers had sold Morelos and Kent both for £40m, and they had still spent what they have this summer, would the fans be sitting on the club deck thinking “we’re big spenders”. Just a thought…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last 5 years (just plucked a figure)

We've spent about €60m in transfers fees, that's including our spending this summer

We've brought in about €55m in transfer fees over that time period (Bassey, Aribo, Patterson sales making up the majority of that)

We could still sell some more players before the window closes...so our net spend over a 5 year period is about €5m, so about €1m per season

To me, that's not big spending for either of the old firm, and that's not even taking into account our income from the Europa League run and our Champions League campaign last season, money that can be used by the club off the field

right so people are saying Man City havent been big spenders over the last few years then ... superb !!