Have we done enough to be champions?

By Aidan Connor

We’re six points behind Hearts with 14 games left and a game in hand, third in the table, staring at a season that has felt like a slow-motion disaster. Rodgers’ departure made headlines, shocking everyone, only for Desmond to follow up with statements that promised reassurance while taking public shots at the recently departed manager. Wilfred Nancy arrived with fanfare and a supposedly bold vision, only for it to collapse in 33 days. Paul Tisdale was next, a so-called football doctor who has butchered the squad in a year and a half. Peter Lawwell stepped down, leaving a boardroom in flux, and Martin O’Neill returned not once, but twice. Meanwhile, Hearts quietly pulled away, calm and consistent, while we stumbled from crisis to crisis. For months, the talk was that the Premiership would be decided by the end of the January window. If that was ever realistic, have we done enough to behave like a team desperate to win the league? The question now isn’t whether we can win it, it’s whether we’re acting like champions-in-waiting or simply hoping the title falls into our lap. 

Hearts didn’t just acknowledge their weaknesses, they identified them early and acted decisively. Jordi Altena and Islam Chesnokov were secured quickly, with Chesnokov’s deal agreed months in advance, removing uncertainty and allowing integration planning. When injuries struck key players like Cammy Devlin and Lawrence Shankland midway through January, Hearts responded immediately, signing Marc Leonard to stabilise the midfield and bringing forward the summer arrival of Rogers Mato to cover emerging gaps. Every move was calculated, proactive, and designed to maintain momentum. Contrast that with us, we entered January knowing a striker was required and didn’t act until the third week of the window, a delay that directly affected crucial league fixtures. Hearts treated January as a problem-solving exercise. Celtic treated it as a waiting game. Rangers, meanwhile, didn’t just add bodies but first-team players designed to lift confidence and preserve momentum – Tochi Chukwuani, Tuur Rommens, Andreas Skov Olsen, and Ryan Naderi. These were not speculative purchases for resale, they were intended to strengthen the squad immediately. In a title race, that clarity of intent matters. Rangers strengthened as if they genuinely believed the title was achievable. Celtic behaved as if maintaining position was enough. This contrast isn’t about emotion or fan panic, it’s a difference in competence, planning, and urgency. The January window should have been an assertion of ambition but instead it highlighted the wider pattern of a club comfortable with survival over seizing the title, waiting for problems to solve themselves rather than forcing solutions. 

The issue wasn’t availability but intent. This wasn’t a freak window or a run of bad luck. There was no single transfer that “cost” us the window. A pattern of passivity was revealed, waiting for prices to drop, prioritising optionality over decisiveness and delaying action until pressure forced it. That approach might protect balance sheets, but it rarely protects us on the pitch. We entered the window with clear, identifiable needs – a striker, greater attacking depth, and competition in key positions. Those needs were acknowledged publicly and privately. We weren’t blocked by market conditions as much as by internal thresholds of valuation ceilings, approval structures, and a reluctance to act early. These were strategic choices and self-imposed limitations that dictated how the club behaved. 

We weren’t beaten to targets by Europe’s elite or priced out by financial superpowers. We repeatedly stepped aside while players we had identified moved to clubs operating at a lower competitive level. That distinction matters, because it shifts the issue from ambition elsewhere to decision-making at home. Rather than losing battles we chose not to fight them. Ta’bi, for example, was viewed internally as a player with potential and a first-team squad member. Sunderland are a well-run club, but they are not operating at our level, no European football, no immediate title pressure. We lost Ta’bi to hesitation on valuation and timing. The board then decided to leak a story that the deal fell through because of injury. Franko Kovačević’s move to Ferencváros reinforces the pattern. This wasn’t a player chasing a bigger league or greater exposure as our interest was known. Instead financial caution dictated the outcome. Callum Wilson’s decision to stay at West Ham shows the same recurring issue – interest without conviction, no decisive move to shift the player’s thinking. When players sense uncertainty, they choose stability elsewhere. None of these deals were blocked by finances, timing, or football logic, they were self-inflicted, restricted by valuation ceilings and a reluctance to act early. Repeated inaction damages recruitment credibility. Agents and players notice, expectations shift, and over time, we stop being the decisive option and become the hesitant one. Celtic didn’t lose these players to better offers, we lost them to our own caution. And when caution seeps into every negotiation, it affects who we pursue and when. 

Attempting to loan Joel Piroe from Leeds United in the middle of a title challenge wasn’t just a long shot, it was a decision that laid bare flaws in our strategic thinking. Leeds and Rangers have the same owners and in the context of a live Premiership title race, that alone should have ended the conversation before it began. Even entertaining the idea suggested a lack of awareness around optics, leverage, and timing. Leeds had no obligation to strengthen a direct title rival and Rangers had every incentive to block, delay, or inflate terms. The chances of a clean, timely deal were minimal from the outset. Public knowledge of the ownership structure made the move look naive and rather than signalling strength, it suggested uncertainty at a critical moment. In elite environments, perception and confidence are part of the contest. The approach felt designed to show activity rather than deliver impact. There was no urgency, no leverage, and no alternative pressure applied. When the move predictably stalled, we were left further behind the curve. We were wasting time on unrealistic targets. 

The club also continues to allow talented Scottish players in our domestic game to leave without mounting serious competition. These are players we could have realistically retained or signed, but didn’t  and the consequences are both sporting and strategic. James Wilson, for example, was reportedly on Celtic’s radar as early as 2022 for the B team under Ange. Despite that early interest, he chose Hearts over us, a move that already suggested hesitation or mismanagement. Now Wilson has moved from Hearts to Tottenham, a pathway Celtic could have influenced but didn’t. The losses are clear – a potential first-team contributor gone, future resale value diverted to another club, and another missed opportunity from us without any fight. Kieron Bowie’s move to Verona further underlines the pattern. Bowie had evident development potential and was a known talent in Scottish football, yet Celtic’s hesitation allowed another club to swoop in and secure him. This is a systemic issue. Each failure chips away at the club’s influence in the Scottish market, weakens credibility in domestic recruitment, and hands advantage to rivals who act decisively. The problem isn’t just the players lost, it’s also the message it sends. Celtic are losing control, letting others profit on both performance and future resale, and reinforcing a perception that the club’s approach to recruitment is reactive rather than proactive. 

When the news midway through January came around that Andy Robertson was available on a pre-contract, it should have triggered immediate, serious discussion at Celtic. Not out of nostalgia or sentimentality – Robertson is a boyhood Celtic fan – but because the logic was undeniable. A player with elite-level experience, proven leadership, and who already understands the Scottish Premiership and the club’s culture. Celtic had the chance to approach and secure him under pre-contract terms, a low-risk scenario with clear timing. Hesitation turned that opportunity into a missed chance. While sentiment isn’t the point, Robertson’s alignment with the club made him a ready-made addition. Now potentially, the player is going to go to Tottenham. This is about missing obvious, low-risk, elite quality opportunities to sign the sort of player who elevates a squad without complicating recruitment. 

Refusing to meet £6.5m for Fares Ghedjemis during a live title race wasn’t financial prudence was, again, hesitation dressed as caution. Ghedjemis was identified as an immediate contributor, a player who could have materially strengthened the squad at a decisive moment. Celtic refused the fee despite the urgency, and the result was predictable –  a potential upgrade slipped away when it mattered most. Reports that Chris McKay and Michael Nicholson require approval for deals over £3m only reinforced the problem, creating a ceiling that slowed decision-making and turned identified targets into bottlenecks. Martin O’Neill later confirmed that two players – Ghedjemis and Redzic –  were “close,” yet both deals fell through within days, exposing the gap between intent and execution. Restraint has become self-defeating and the risk of inaction starts to outweigh the cost of investment. Title-deciding windows demand speed, conviction, and clarity of purpose. A £3m approval ceiling undermines all three. Martin O’Neill’s third spell required decisive recruitment to compete for the league, yet delay, hesitation, and bureaucratic friction prevented meaningful additions. A year on from losing Kyogo and the lessons of that window appear largely unlearned with a clear gap at a critical attacking position, yet no replacement of equivalent quality signed. The squad operated with that hole for almost an entire season. Going into this window, we decided to replace Kyogo with….Kyogo? The idea of bringing Kyogo back on loan felt less like forward-thinking strategy and more like an admission that the problem had been left to fester. 

The collapse of the Wilfried Nancy project forced Celtic into a late and disruptive shift in transfer strategy. Players who had been aligned with Nancy’s vision, Laquintana, Ta’bi, Niko Sigur, Josh Mulligan, Diego Rossi, Steven Moreira, and Wessam Abou Ali, were

suddenly discarded, leaving the club scrambling to fill gaps and react rather than plan. An effective recruitment system absorbs managerial change but ours stalled. Signings under Nancy were carefully identified to fit his tactical framework – Laquintana and Ta’bi as immediate right winger cover, Niko Sigur as a centre back option, Josh Mulligan as domestic talent with potential, and Rossi, Moreira, and Abou Ali as further squad reinforcements with experience in a Nancy system. When Nancy left, these deals were abandoned or postponed instead of being adapted to a revised strategy. That created last-minute gaps in recruitment and delayed the integration of new players. Rather than proactively identifying alternatives or maintaining momentum, the club waited, assessed, and adjusted only when forced. The result was a chaotic window defined by hesitation, improvisation, and reactive thinking. 

January has revealed a recurring problem in Celtic’s recruitment philosophy of prioritising potential over certainty. For example, Tawanda Maswanise, the Scottish Premiership’s top-scoring winger, was passed over in favour of Joel Mvuka, a player who is out of form and inherently a higher risk. Maswanise offered proven output, low adaptation risk, and immediate contribution to title-defining fixtures, yet he was ignored in favour of a speculative option. Mvuka, by contrast, represented potential but no guarantee. He was a gamble in a period that demanded reliability. This perfectly encapsulated the thinking of the window, speculation over strategy, potential over proven impact.Reliance on short-term loans compounded the problem. Title races are often decided by the smallest of margins, yet Celtic repeatedly failed to address obvious gaps that could have made a decisive difference. Kasper Schmeichel’s dip in form exposed a vulnerability in goal, yet no competition was introduced. Stefan Ortega was available on loan as a proven goalkeeper capable of providing immediate reliability but the opportunity was overlooked. Similarly, the delayed pursuit of David Datro Fofana left Celtic short of options at striker for crucial fixtures. Fofana could have bolstered depth and given the team cover at a pivotal stage, yet the signing was postponed because we did not want to pay the money, forcing the squad to navigate key matches underprepared. In a tight league, these oversights are not minor; they are the difference between seizing the initiative and reacting to circumstance. Timing and squad depth are just as crucial as overall quality, and ignoring easily accessible upgrades magnifies risk when every point counts. 

There have been encouraging signs proving Celtic do understand what the correct decisions look like, even if they apply that clarity selectively. Julián Araujo has added intensity, athleticism, and competition, contributing immediately to improve the team in the present. Tomáš Čvančara has offered physical presence and direct impact, another example of a signing that elevates the first XI instead of merely providing depth. Most tellingly, Celtic rejected three separate, ever-increasing bids from Nottingham Forest for Arne Engelson deadline day. On the surface, it looked like a rare moment of conviction with the club demonstrating timing, resisting temptation, and prioritising performance over profit. The full context, however, reveals a familiar problem. The £25 million rejection wasn’t backed by the thought of us being in a title race, it was because we didn’t have a replacement plan. It was enforced restraint, not strategic thinking. This pattern has appeared before. Daizen Maeda and Yang both attracted interest, but neither could move because no replacement was lined up last summer. Celtic aren’t just struggling to buy at the right time; they are failing to make sequence decisions, leaving the club trapped between holding value and improving the squad. 

The contradiction becomes clearer when compared to deadline-day activity. On the same day Engels was retained Celtic completed three loans; Benjamin Arthur, with only three senior appearances, Joel Mvuka, out of form and high-risk and Junior Adamu, arriving temporarily with potential but no immediate certainty. Individually, each move is defensible. Collectively, they underline the inconsistency. Celtic can show firmness when it comes to selling but revert to short-term, low-commitment thinking when strengthening the squad. 

While Celtic tread water, rivals are already planning ahead. Rangers, for example, are reportedly moving early to secure Jens Hjerto-Dahl, a highly rated Norwegian prospect for 2026. This starts to underline a mindset of; act early, act decisively, control the market. Celtic, by contrast, continue to operate window-to-window, reacting late rather than shaping outcomes. We have somehow survived up until this point thanks to Martin O’Neill. He has not lost a game since coming back, he’s averaging two goals per match and has only drawn twice all while arguably managing the poorest Celtic squad in a decade. And yet, the team isn’t fully backed. If this level of performance doesn’t justify ambition in the market, what does? Perhaps the starkest evidence is in spending. Celtic are the only club in the Scottish Premiership to spend nothing in this window. Hearts top the league after spending £1.5 million and Rangers are third after spending £12 million. Hibernian is in fifth place after a £1.1 million spend and Aberdeen is seventh after forking out  £250,000. Celtic sit second and have spent nothing. Every other club found a way to act. When Celtic frame inaction as a “difficult window”, the argument collapses because everyone else still did business. 

With 14 league games remaining, Celtic may still claim the Premiership title, but based on January’s window, missed domestic talent opportunities, delayed signings, and cautious recruitment across this window and last summer, any title this season would likely feel like a triumph by margins rather than previous years when we are the clear best side in the league. Champions assert dominance and they push when others hesitate. Celtic, by contrast, have hesitated repeatedly. While the squad remains competitive, it is not convincingly superior. Winning under these conditions would feel like managed survival. With 14 games left, even a single misstep or moment of complacency could allow rivals to exploit the gaps left unaddressed. So yes, the team could still lift the title. But lifting it under these circumstances answers a different question – not how strong we are mentally, but how narrowly we have survived a collapse? With 14 games left, that is the lens through which our title challenge should be judged.