Just because you type FACT in capital letters doesnt actually make it a fact even on the internet.
what makes them facs ar the fact that they are infact facts
celtic didn't F@ck the taxman and have paid all there bills etc etc these debts were very managable
but at the time of Rangers going bust Celtic had debts these debts due to to "success" in europe along with good management have basically been wiped out
allowing celtic to spend more freely now without having to pay interest on £20 million + worth of debt
i am praising celtic here guys, they have done a great job in getting there books balanced something that might/ might not have happened if rangers had by some miracle found an investor who cleared there tax bill for them
Praising Celtic but still getting it wrong Iron, your 'FACTS' are opinions, mainly press driven I'd say, I'd give you a couple of half facts but only because you've shifted slighly on where Rangers 'splashed the cash'.
1 Rangers kept the second highest wage bill in Scotland, from bottom league, all the way up. That's WAY beyond splashing cash to come up - Gretna did it in successive years for £4m - Rangers pissing away approx £70m was grandstanding.
2 The books were balanced before the Rangers Liquidation. Bank loans 2011 £10.9 m, Bank Loans 2016 £6.6m. Hardly major consolidation. (and we had to make large sales to keep books balanced during the years you think we were consolidating).
The biggest debt (post McCann) was run up under Martin O'Neill and the tightening of the belt came under Gordon Strachan & mainly Neil Lennon who was never allowed to splash cash, spending rose a bit in NL's last year, stayed up under RD, but these 3 years of slighly higher spending coincided with large sales, which were used to cover lower incomes.
3. Ronnie Deila was struggling badly in his last season, it was that & his own admitted failure to deal with the pressure that saw him off. The 'experiment' of a promising young coach from abroad having had mixed results the board had to get a Celtic Man, and an experienced manager. The Rodgers signing follows the pattern of the Martin O'Neill signing. This was about getting sales back up and qualifying for Europe, the reappearance of a financially hamstrung Sevco was well down the list of priorities.
4 The VVD & Forster (and Wanyama the year before) money kept things ticking over financially - other players were bought as the board had to release some of that income, but it mostly went to keeping things stable.
To describe what happened under Deila as improving squad depth shows you don't understand what went on. RD's first season he brought in a stack of expensive loan players - which don't improve squad depth. He had a shotgun approach when he did buy & a predilection for buying 'projects'. This strikes me more as trying to make Rodgers' success at getting players the fans wanted rid of last season playing at the level they currently are fit the 'success paid for when Rangers were missing' argument, that's like giving John Barnes credit for Martin O'Neill's early success, retrospective nonsense.
5 The increased distance is due to an overall improvement - the signings help obviously (1/2 a fact) - but getting performances out of Forrest, Armstrong, Boyata etc is the biggest difference for Celtic. And the gap isn't that different from other years, slightly more, but that's because there's a record to chase. 13/14 we got 99 points, but slacked up at the end of the season - because of the prospect of an Invincibles season, we aren't taking the foot off the gas.
6 Celtic were probably the only club NOT to see significant benefit from the demise of Rangers, struggling in CL qualifying & season ticket sales dropping off as the quality of play suffered under Ronnie Deila. Many other clubs cleared debt & saw attendances rise. I'll give you that the demise of Rangers gave us an opportunity, but associated with that opportunity was a financial hit, the opportunity wasn't taken.