When Celtic released their marathon statement on Saturday night, one of the most striking passages was their insistence that UEFA’s financial sustainability rules were a major constraint on spending. It was presented as if the club’s hands were tied, a reason why supporters shouldn’t expect marquee signings or bolder investment.
But according to two of Scotland’s leading football journalists, that defence doesn’t just fail the smell test – it collapses entirely under scrutiny.
Stephen McGowan, the Mail’s former top Scottish football writer, didn’t hold back when asked about the claim. He said bluntly on the Graham Spiers Podcast:
“I cite Club Brugge, who are subject to the same rules but still sign players… Ajax, Porto, Benfica too. They’re all subject to these rules. This is not unique to Celtic… I’d be very surprised if Celtic were in any danger whatsoever of breaching UEFA’s financial sustainability rules. What we’re seeing is simply a cautious, accountant-driven club always planning for the worst-case scenario rather than showing ambition.”
It’s a damning point. You really have to be a special kind of detached to throw this out as an excuse as to why you can’t sign players to improve your squad. With so many other clubs managing to do so with the same UEFA restrictions, somehow Celtic are a special case?
Graeme McGarry, another experienced journalist, cut to the heart of the matter:
“Celtic actually brought in more money than they spent. They weren’t in danger, even if they’d landed Oberg. So this excuse is nonsense.”
The board don’t appear to be hamstrung by UEFA. They are choosing to operate in the most conservative way possible, and then attempting to pass that off as financial responsibility. Unless they’re making up a hypothetical in their head where they think Celtic fans want to go see them spend £30m on a striker, which has never been the case or argument.
Supporters aren’t buying it. Celtic’s turnover dwarfs that of most clubs in our region, yet European performances remain stagnant and transfer windows limp. When the board wheel out excuses about financial sustainability, it smacks of a leadership that thinks its fans are buttoned up the back.
The reality? Celtic could have strengthened more aggressively and still been miles within UEFA parameters. Instead, they opted for the bare minimum – and then tried to spin that as prudence.
It’s simply not good enough.
Once again, M.Ross in with two feet and an empty head! These other clubs mentioned are all in better leagues playing against better players, earning better money.
The board are lying Joe.
Are you happy with the bullshit they are saying?
As far as I know there is a ratio to turnover that clubs must be within however that excludes profit from player trading.
In other words, clubs just can’t sugar daddy their way round these rules by having a benefactor write them a cheque for £40M every year.
The money Celtic have in the bank hasn’t come from a benefactor, it has been generated by player trading, sponsorship, and merchandising deals. So essentially that money is available to spend.
Even if you take the Board’s statement at face value regarding UEFA, what is the worst that could happen initially?
The club across the city has NEVER made a profit and the worst that happened to them was getting put on a watch list.
Oh am I scared at that but clearly our Board are terrified. It would be like getting a hundred lines at school.
I suspect Joe is being paid to write comments supporting the board. Have seen a few recently all with the same narrative, now they’re getting pelters. Pathetic boardroom shill.
People like Joe are the biggest enemies of the club.
Joe seems to live in a belief-driven world rather than an evidence based one. He seems to be easily fooled and truly is a happy clapper who lives in a wee comfort zone. One where you don’t have to think for yourself.