Celtic's Player Trading Strategy Examined
Deep dive into the figures behind Celtic's recent history in the transfer market
After Celtic’s failed bid to complete 10-in-a-row in season 2020/2021, when instead Rangers completed an invincible league season, conceding a British record low of 13 league goals in the process, something had to change at Celtic Park.
After months of pursuing the then out of work former Bournemouth manager Eddie Howe, Celtic eventually took what was viewed at the time as a ‘gamble’ on a largely unknown quantity in Ange Postecoglou, joining Celtic from Yokohama F. Marinos.
Of course, the ‘gamble’ was a monumental success in Glasgow, as Ange steamrolled his way to five trophies in two years, before leaving for Tottenham Hotspur where he delivered Spurs’ first trophy in 17 years - the Europa League.
Stephen McGowan speculated in The Herald last week that Rodgers may leave Celtic when his contract expires at the end of this season, primarily due to lack of spending by the Celtic board. McGowan’s column piqued my interest in what is a growing sense of disquiet within some sections of the Celtic support. There’s now at least a smattering of fans worried the hierarchy may not be appropriately backing Rodgers in the transfer market, preventing the club from kicking on to the next level. But how exactly has Celtic’s player trading evolved over the last five years? This article will discuss in detail:
The Charlie Nicholas window
“Laxalt isn’t an inspirational signing”
Neil Lennon and his brave face
The Spend since 2021
Net spend under Ange
Net spend under Rodgers
Net spend since 2012
The Players Traded
Every in and out since 2012
The Contingent fees
Merry Christmas, Virgil van Dijk
The Celtic Strategy?
“It depends on your ambition”
“We still need reinforcements, that’s evident”
THE CHARLIE NICHOLAS WINDOW
If we go back to the beginning of the failed 2020/21 campaign, Neil Lennon was given ‘just’ £13.5m to spend. The day after the transfer window shut in October 2020, Charlie Nicholas publicly called out Celtic’s transfer policy ahead of the crucial 10-in-a-row campaign:
Charlie Nicholas, October 2020: “Laxalt, for me, isn't an inspirational signing. I said Celtic would go cheap in their pursuit of a left-back. I knew they wouldn't spend money on a defender that Neil Lennon has been ever so patient for. I don't think Lennon has been given much of a helping hand, if I am being honest. He had to work double time to get anything out of so-called wealthy Celtic. I'd imagine he'll be pretty annoyed this morning”
Charlie Nicholas has had a poor relationship with Celtic over the years, and due to that his comments were ridiculed by most, including the Celtic F.C twitter admin:
Neil Lennon too would reply via a press conference, stating that Nicholas had been negative about Celtic for years and so his comments should be ignored. Behind a brave face, Lennon stated that Celtic emerged from the transfer window in a very strong position - just as Nicholas posited.
Charlie Nicholas on Neil Lennon: “I am sure he will put on a brave face but I don't think he will have got anything close to what he was looking for”
THE SPEND SINCE 2021
History now shows that Nicholas was right. It was a horrific transfer window. Lennon would lose his job in February, weeks before Steven Gerrard’s Rangers secured the title at a canter - chronologically the earliest champions in 119 years. The Celtic squad was in disarray and in need of major funds that summer to allow the new Australian manager to transform it into something that could represent his style of football. Unlike Lennon in the previous summer, Ange was (eventually) backed with a massive £38.4m, before following it up with a further £13m the following season, a total spend of £51.4m across his two seasons.
Since Ange departed for North London, Rodgers has also enjoyed two very successful seasons since returning to the club, adding a further four trophies to his Celtic haul. Of course, his success has been helped by the £47.8m spend he was given across his first two seasons. The January re-signing of Jota will take that figure above the £51m that Ange was given across the same time period. Rodgers enters his third - and potentially final - campaign as Celtic boss, with the club keen to point out that they have been investing heavily, breaking transfer records to assemble the most expensive squad in the club’s history.
And some might say that the club’s board are correct - a £100m spend on players in four years in Scottish football is surely tremendous backing? Well, it depends how you look at it.
It’s not a £100m net spend, as Celtic have perfected their strategy of balancing the books. Across the same four year span, Celtic have sold players to the tune of £87m. That figure doesn’t include the January 2025 sales of Kyogo, reported to be around £8.4m, nor the apparent £5m received for Alexandro Bernabei in the same month. If those media reported figures are accurate then Celtic will have brought in £100m across the same four year period. This would almost exactly balance the £100m spent on new arrivals, although Jota was also re-signed in the same window.
This shouldn’t come as any surprise to Celtic fans - it’s a well known, extremely successful player trading model - from a financial point of view, that has been in operation for over a decade. In fact, looking at the ins and outs at Celtic Park since 2012, they’ve spent £205m while bringing in £211m over the same period. A slight negative net spend across a 13 year period is rare in modern European football, especially for a club of Celtic’s size.
THE PLAYERS TRADED
In Celtic’s annual report every year, when they reveal the amount spent and received on player trading, they tend to list the players that the bulk of the fees relate to. They don’t break the overall figure down by player, and they may not list every single signing or sale. However, if we class any players Celtic mention as ‘notable signings’, then under Ange and Rodgers Celtic have spent almost exactly £100m on 36 ‘notable’ permanent signings up until, and including, last summer (2024).
The overall figure given by Celtic includes costs involved in registering players on loans, and additionally includes any “costs associated with the renewal of player contracts”, as well as registering youth players and “contingent fees crystallising” - more on these contingent fees later.
Examining Celtic’s transfer activity since 2012 reveals a slight pattern - where they spend big in one window, they tend to follow it up by spending less the following window. Nearly £17m spent in 2017 was followed up with just £6m the following year. The club backed Lennon with over £20m to secure 9-in-a-row, before dropping that to £13.5m for the disastrous 20/21 campaign. Ange was given nearly £40m in 2021 to win back the league title, before the spend dropped to £13m the following year. Rodgers was given £31m last summer and - one week before the season starts - has spent considerably less this summer.
This is a sign of the prudent financial management that has typified the last two decades at Celtic, which is also clearly linked to player sales. As mentioned, Celtic have brought in pretty much the exact same number as they’ve spent since 2012.
Celtic sold Matt O’Riley for a fee that could rise to a reported £30m, although much less was paid up front - given they ‘only’ received £20.5m in total for the seven players sold last summer. MK Dons may also have been due a sell-on %.
There has been no ‘big’ sale this summer, and so a lesser spend this summer would align with how the club has operated over the years, after they broke their transfer record twice in one window last year.
CONTINGENT FEES
If you’ve got this far then you are probably as interested in football finance as I am, and so this final section will likely be up your street too. Contingent transfer fees - more commonly known as “add-ons” are negotiated when buying or selling a player. Celtic include the “contingent fees” received from previous players transfers in their player sales figures, something which is probably best demonstrated in the accounts for 2017/18.
That year, Celtic declared in their accounts a profit on player sales of £16.5m. The players they mentioned selling were Izaguirre, Janko and Mackay-Steven. The Honduran left back departed for an undisclosed fee as a 31 year old, Janko left after making just 7 appearances before being shipped out on loan to Barnsley, while Mackay-Steven joined Aberdeen. Safe to say, they didn’t receive £16.9m for these three players, who had a NBV (net-book value) of just £400k.
Therefore, there must have been a fairly substantial contingent fee which became activated sometime in season 2017/18. We can therefore assume that the Celtic directors enjoyed the now famous new signing reveal on twitter as much as the Liverpool fans. Especially for a fee rumoured to be £75m...
When Celtic sold Virgil van Dijk to Southampton for around £13m in 2015, it’s reasonable to assume the Hoops inserted a sell on clause on the profit of any future transfer. If the profit was £62m, then a 20%-25% sell on clause works out at Celtic receiving somewhere between £12.4m and £15.5m from Southampton - which would explain the bulk of the £16.9m player sales of 2017/18.
Of course, a club can’t put a £ value on a sell on clause, as they don’t know how much a player will subsequently be sold for. Therefore this particular clause isn’t accounted for in the reports, but it seems Celtic negotiate some kind of add-on in almost every deal they negotiate. As at 30th June 2024, Celtic had 20 players no longer at the club, who could still earn Celtic more money in future. These “contingent transfer fees” have always featured in Celtic’s accounts with a value of a few million pounds, but over the past few seasons - where Celtic have sold more players for higher fees - this number has grown rapidly.
The potential future income in their most recent set of accounts was a substantial £19.55m, with the conditions for triggering the extra payments broken down into two categories, firstly “appearances” which could earn Celtic a further £5.6m. The bulk of the potential future earnings are categorised as “success achievements”; if all conditions were met by all players then Celtic would receive a further £14m, taking the total to nearly £20m.
The reverse is true, too, in that when Celtic have been signing players they have agreed to certain contingencies as part of the deal - where they’d pay more in future if certain conditions were met. It can be assumed Celtic include these clauses in almost every player they sign, as part of their negotiation tactic, given that there are 42 current Celtic players that could trigger clauses that would result in Celtic having to pay out (up to) an extra £7.4m. The majority of this (£5.5m) would be due based on specific “success achievements”, with number of appearances or even just still being a Celtic player on a given date making up the rest of the contingent fees they may have to pay out.
Celtic define their contingent transfer fees as: “Under the terms of certain contracts with other football clubs in respect of the transfer of player registrations, additional amounts would be payable/ receivable if specific future conditions are met. Such future conditions could include first team competitive appearances, football success, international appearances and being a registered Celtic player at a certain point in time.
CONCLUSION
Where the criticism of Celtic stems from, is that Celtic have over £65 million in cash reserves in the bank. They shouldn’t have to wait for another eight-figure player sale in order to strengthen the squad. They expect the club to increase spending on top level players now, fully accepting that such players will then need to be sold for a profit in 2-3 years. Some fan media analysts, such as the brilliant
of believe there is a clear lack of strategy from the Celtic board. James explained in a recent podcast that Celtic may be sitting on mountains of cash, but a lot of this could reasonably be attributed to luck rather than a coherent strategy at boardroom level.For example, much of the cash reserves are thanks to the riches of three years of automatic Champions League qualification. Celtic of course had to win the Premiership, but the absence of qualifiers was largely due to the coefficient exploits of their city rivals Rangers. One would argue that a coherent football club strategy cannot rely on the performance of your rivals in European football. Similarly, the most recent ‘big sale’ was Matt O’Riley, who was reportedly only targeted after their first choice recruit, Riley McGee, turned them down. Was that a ‘lucky’ turn of events, or part of a larger data-led prosperous recruitment model that should be able to replicate a signing like that every summer?
Another financially astute Celtic fan called John (known as JBLuvsCeltic on twitter), recently vented:
“What is Celtic’s ambition now, beyond trying to finish 1 point better than Rangers? Earn a bunch of bank interest? Send a big check to HMRC after another profitable season? We're not even asking Celtic to go into debt, or have the directors plow in funds in return for shares. JUST USE THE MONEY YOU HAVE! None of which is theirs. It all comes from supporters, commercial partners, and media.”
Overall, it’s clear that Celtic have consistently invested heavily in their first team, but their player trading model is perfected in that they largely cover all spending with money received from player sales. The club stressed in their interim report in February that they “aimed to do more in the recent (January) window”. It remains to be seen if they will come out of the current summer window having fulfilled that aim or not. If they don’t retain the title, or are unsuccessful in Europe, then the growing dissenters within the support may claim that the club didn’t do enough - no matter what was eventually spent. As might Rodgers.
In 2021, After Ange Postecoglou’s side were eliminated from Champions League qualifying, losing 3-2 AET to Midtjylland, he said:
“Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, I don’t know. I think I have been pretty consistent in saying we need more players. The club is working hard to get those players in. I have talked endlessly about the challenges we face. Our supporters just want to see us bring in the reinforcements that we need, and I have just got to keep reinforcing my views on it as strongly as I can.”
“I take responsibility. I’m the person who has been put in charge. We haven’t got players in, I obviously haven’t done a good enough job convincing people we needed to bring people in. I’m not going to shy away from it. I don’t say that because I’m some kind of martyr, I just think that’s my responsibility, that’s why I was brought in
I have been trying to be as forceful as I can about what we need to bring in, and the challenges we have had are well chronicled. Irrespective of the result tonight, we still need reinforcements. We had a really young squad out there, young players on the bench. It’s not a situation we need to be in.”
I genuinely appreciate you being a paid subscriber to my work.
Thank you, Gavin