12 Jan 2026 16:44:55
Celtics next fixtures - Falkirk, Auchinleck Talbot, Bologna and Hearts away - then home to Utrecht. There should have been a proven striker signed in January 1st for game against The Ronjers - banner at Celtic Park on Saturday was spot on - not least with respect to appointment of Tisdale and Nancy - 'Own Your Mistakes Michael - Resign'.
Rumours to date have been underwhelming (surprise surprise) not least the £2m prospective signing (that had gladly fallen through) - which had all the hallmarks of a political two fingers to the support from the Desmond's who are evidently doubling down on their unwillingness to be bullied by those of us who they consider have only one objective which is to be anti-establishment.
Failure to sign as a minimum at least one goal scorer before our trip to Tynecastle on 25th of January could and for me should be the catalyst for a boycott.
While it would be unforgivable and the epitome of negligence, incompetence and arrogance not to support Martin O'Neil given the potential implications for the league and qualification for next years champions league it's certainly not unimaginable. Martin O'Neil would just be added to the list who have begged for reinforcements after Neil Lenon, Ange Postecoglou, Brendan Rodgers and captain Calum McGregor. Would it shock me not if they failed to recruit effectively and support the manager? Not a jot. The best indicator of future behaviour is historic performance. I'm not holding my breath but I live in hope if not in expectation. Over to you Michael.
12 Jan 2026 17:19:54
The lad whose deal has fallen through is from the agent Celtic have used numerous times, which shows we aren't actively recruiting, we are relying on agents punting us players, every player linked from abroad is either not established, or have fallen down the pecking order of the current club (agent punting player) !
"Celtic have been scouting player for a number of months" = sitting in witherspoons midday Monday looking at a 3 minute video montage provided by the players agent, come back the following Monday and having another look, at the same barsteward video, haggle a fiver a week.
12 Jan 2026 18:04:30
It's criminal that those in control of OUR club take more pleasure in siege mentality defiance than actual sensible cost effective planning. Quick to bank any CL cash or prize money but far too hesitant and incompetent in recruitment and public relations with supporters. We have made money in the past by buying great potential quality then selling for a considerable profit.
However, this has also dried up alarmingly and the repeated downgrading of replacement players means we have little or no 'assets' at our disposal either.
The warning signs have been there since last seasons CL exit but still they plid on oblivious or nonchalant about our plight.
12 Jan 2026 18:28:43
Hey, watch it you! Nothing wrong with Spoons on a Monday. ??.
12 Jan 2026 18:40:40
I completely agree with you, JFP, and I'm fully behind the idea of maintaining pressure on the board while we have the momentum.
That said, I think many people still don't fully grasp the severity of the situation and the long-term implications of the board's management this season.
At this point, it's no longer possible to make significant investments in players this window without serious consequences. This is truly remarkable and deeply damning, when you consider how poorly the board has handled the financial side of things. Despite having tens of millions in the bank, we can no longer spend it freely.
Here's why.
When a player is signed for a transfer fee, that fee is amortised over the length of their contract. Essentially, the cost of the transfer is spread across the duration of the deal, meaning a percentage of the fee shows up as an expense each season. For example, if we spent £40 million on transfers and gave the players four-year contracts (in reality, it would be closer to 3.5 or 4.5 years) , that would add £10 million to our expenses for next season, before we even get into wages and other costs.
Now, with revenue for 2024/ 25 at around £145 million, and the expected revenue for 2025/ 26 dropping to between £100 million and £110 million, the financial landscape is changing rapidly as we can only spend 70% of our revenue. The reduction in revenue for the upcoming season means the amount we can spend on wages, transfer fees, and agent fees will be severely restricted in order to comply with UEFA's sustainability regulations.
This is the crux of the problem: the mismanagement this season has effectively limited our ability to spend freely. With a significant drop in revenue expected next season, we're going to have to make some difficult decisions in order to comply with UEFA's financial regulations.
We have a few ways to address this:
1. Spend freely this window and make substantial cuts in the summer to balance the books.
2. Keep spending low this window to minimise the cuts needed in the summer.
3. Sell players this window to raise revenue, which would help increase our budget for next season.
Personally, I think we'll likely see a mix of options 2 and 3, keeping spending restrained this window and potentially selling players to increase revenue.
12 Jan 2026 18:40:50
Agree with the above.
This board are solely responsible for creating the problems that the club currently faces.
Purely from a footballing perspective, the position that we currently finds ourselves in simply beggars belief and although was avoidable, many could see this coming.
As JFP has posted in the past, this is self inflicted.
12 Jan 2026 20:54:27
We can also spend what is already in the bank. That would more than cover transfers and any shortfall that might happen next year. Plus I think as ed mentioned before our accounts are done over three years for fair play rules so I think we will be ok.
12 Jan 2026 21:25:32
I thought the figures/ limits are based on a running 3-year period?
12 Jan 2026 21:38:41
Dr Phil that is not how it works.
Our budget for player transfers, wages and agent fees is based on our revenue for 25/ 26. That is why I am even more annoyed with the board, as not only have they made an arse of this season, it will have an impact on next season.
{Ed007's Note - That's not how it works.}
12 Jan 2026 22:10:22
So how does it work then?
From what I understand, UEFA looks at the most recent audited financial statements to figure out a club's spending limits for the upcoming licence season. In practice, that usually means the revenue reported for 2025/ 26 would be used to calculate the squad cost ratio for 2026/ 27.
12 Jan 2026 22:17:18
I think Dr Phil and [masoninblack] are getting confused. The 3-year period relates to cumulative losses and has nothing to do with the revenue used in the squad cost ratio calculation. The squad cost ratio is always based on the most recent single-year audited revenue.
To put it simply: the 1-year revenue determines how much a club can spend on wages, transfers, and agent fees, while the 3-year cumulative loss test is just there to make sure clubs aren't running unsustainable deficits over time.