By Jamie Kilday
As we enter the new year, conversations, of course, turn to transfers. Although for many Celtic fans it will feel as though the conversation never went away. When the summer transfer window closed, it was the final straw for many who felt there had been a lock of progress made by the club. Rebuttals from the board have done nothing to stem the ire, namely due to a lack of substance. What is Celtic’s transfer strategy? How do the club go about their transfer business, and what on earth is a “club signing”?
In the absence of any clarity, I’ve looked back over the last 10 years and 19 transfer windows for top-flight clubs across the top 18 leagues in Europe, 18 being where Scotland’s league coefficient is currently placed, so every nation reviewed is ahead of Scotland when it comes to European Club competition spots. Overall, there have been 48,293 unique transfers – so what trends, if any, can be found amongst the rest of Europe, and can it help make any sense out of what Celtic are trying to do?
The caveat to all of this is that successful transfers are only half the story; we’ll never know if a player was a club’s first choice or their fourth, and with almost 50k transfers, I’m not about to delve into 10 years of media speculation, so we’ll take it as read that every signing was made with the purpose of a player being identified as part of a club’s strategy. It’s also worth pointing out that there are 7k ‘undisclosed transfer fees’, which I’m not going to speculate on, as well as all the fees we’re never made aware of, sell-on fees, and performance-based fees. Who really knows the true cost of a transfer? For the benefit of the doubt, whatever Transfermarkt says the fee is, that’s what we’ll go with.
Since the 2016/17 season Celtic have spent €225.24m on 227 players. In that same period they have also sold 227 players for €265.01m. 85 clubs have spent more on transfers, and 86 have received more globally. Whilst Celtic have been making a profit in the transfer market, 90 clubs have made a greater profit in the same period. One club that has spent a similar amount to Celtic is RB Salzburg, who have spent €221.85m on 287 players but have sold 286 for €687.42m. Looking at the top 10 sides for net profit in the transfers, there are a number of clubs that Celtic have faced in Europe recently, albeit managing only 2 wins and a draw in 7 games.
What is the Strategy?
As you can see from the chart above, clubs across Europe all have different approaches when it comes to the age profile of signings. Generally, Celtic tend to sign players who are younger than the squad average, and somewhat ironically, two of the clubs closest to Celtic on the graph are Bodø/Glimt and Club Brugge, sides who Celtic have failed to overcome in Europe in recent seasons and with managers the club have been linked with. They are oft cited by fans as clubs who look as though they have a clear strategy that wouldn’t be out of place at Celtic. Certainly, when it comes to age profiles, this is something the clubs are already doing similarly, but if the profile is the outcome of the strategy, what is it that the other clubs do differently from Celtic to build their sides?
Firstly, let’s look at minutes given to new signings. For clarity for the rest of the analysis, I’ll use the median as opposed to average. For instance, if 5 players have played 87, 94, 165, 200 and 1864 minutes the average would be 482 minutes, whereas the median is 165. One large number can skew the average more whereas the middle figure in a range should be more indicative of an individual players contribution. To analyse minutes played, I’ve also removed all the clubs who have not been in the top flight for 10 consecutive seasons. This theoretically should show us all the ‘stable’ clubs, who have not had to overhaul their squad due to a promotion or relegation triggering release clauses or just reducing the squad due to changes in income.
Looking at this season on season you can see Celtic are consistently below the median for comparable clubs when it comes to the median age of the players signed, but the minutes played and volume of signings differ a lot each year. Interestingly recent seasons have seen more minutes for new signings with 21/22 being a relatively successful window and most of the signings making a big impact on the first team. Kyogo, Starfelt, Abada, Juranovic, O’Riley and Hatate to name a few. However, although we are only a few months into the season, this year is already looking like most of the signings are struggling to make an impact, a similar situation to back in 23/24. Nawrocki, Palma, Lagerbielke, Holm, Kwon, Iwata all came in that year and have either left or are out on loan currently. This is also similar to 17/18 and 18/19 where with the exception of Ntcham and Édouard most signings didn’t cement a first team place.
This isn’t uncommon, most clubs in Europe have fluctuations each season, especially those outside of the big 5 leagues. However, FC Copenhagen are an example of a club who are relatively similar to Celtic and yet have more successful transfer windows, if we can use first team minutes as a measure of success. Whilst the profile of player that FC Copenhagen are signing is older than that of Celtic, their transfer outgoings is far below Celtic (€139.43m) and their transfer profit is much higher than Celtic too (€96.41m). This is aided by some high value sales of players that have come through the clubs youth academy, with virtually one 8 figure sale every season for the last 5 years.
One thing that Celtic seem to be good at is giving minutes to the young players they sign. Signings under 22 are more likely to get over 900 minutes in their first season than at other comparable clubs, on average. That sounds good, but if you dig into the numbers, it is only 10 out of 27 signings, and the median minutes for new U22 signings is actually only 87. This points to Celtic hedging their bets a bit. Celtic rank 16th in terms of number of U22 signings in the dataset. Those that are good enough seem to get playing time, but it seems like there is an expectation that not every signing is going to walk into the first team. It must be noted that in the last two seasons Celtic have only signed 2 players under 22, Arne Engles and Callum Osmand which suggests that the club is moving away from the policy of signing and developing young players.
Across all comparable clubs, the median is 252 minutes, so you could say that it is the case across the board, but there is no real correlation between the number of signings and the number of first-team minutes. You would maybe expect clubs who sign a high number like Celtic to have fewer minutes per player, as they are trialling the players in the first team. The reality is some clubs like Celtic are doing this while others are more selective. Real Sociedad, for example, only signed 7 players under 22 in the last 10 seasons, but the median minutes for those players is 1228. FC Midtjylland brought in a comparatively low 16 players with a median of over 1000 minutes. FC Basel, LOSC Lille, KRC Genk and RB Leipzig are some examples of clubs who sign young players in volume, each signing over 30, and have given more of them a sustained run in the first team, with each having a median over 500 minutes.
If you factor in the first two seasons for new signings, things look a bit more positive with Celtic now rising above the median, suggesting that the club are likely to take their time assessing and developing young players, rather than bringing them in the door first-team ready, but this isn’t the case. Only Kristoffer Ajer has managed to go from less than 900 minutes in one season to over 1800 in two seasons, a figure undoubtedly aided by the 1440 minutes he got on loan at Kilmarnock. This likely suggests that those players who have made the most of their first team opportunities tend to cement their place in the first team in their second season. No player at Celtic with over 900 minutes in one season has dropped below 1800 minutes over two seasons.
Celtics median raising above the median for all clubs is not the norm as most clubs stay below for both season and vice versa. However, Celtic are in the company of clubs Sporting CP, BSC Young Boys and FC Nordsjælland, who have each been lauded for their youth development. It must be noted that the players under 22 they do sign tend to be younger than those signed by Celtic, which is why they are likely to see a rise in minutes in the second season.
Transfer policies are not always centred around youth, and when it comes to signing first-team-ready players, Celtic falls behind the pack. On average amongst the clubs in the dataset, signings over 21 have a median of 997 minutes. Celtic’s median is 842; it’s not disastrous and is akin to Club Brugge KV (878) and FC Midtjylland (778), but it is in the bottom 25% of comparable clubs.
Across two seasons, it’s clear that money talks, with sides in the big 5 leagues mostly showing a trend of buying a low number of players who will slot right into the first team. Celtic now sit firmly below the median in volume of players and minutes those players get, which isn’t surprising, as we know Celtic have favoured younger players. Clubs I’ve highlighted, like Club Brugge KV, FC Midtjylland and BSC Young Boys, all give their more experienced signings more minutes, which suggests that when they do have to dip into the market for first team ready signings, they do so more successfully than Celtic. Much in the same way they have started to reduce the number of signings under 22, they have decided to pivot to slightly older signings. What was once a more defined policy of signing young talent to develop, with the occasional older player to fill in a short-term gap has now turned the other way with the club signing players of an age where they would expect significant game time.
There is some relative clarity on what Celtic are trying to achieve and its successes (again, that is, if we are deeming game time as a success). But what is it that other clubs in Europe do that sets them apart from Celtic?
Multi-club Ownership and Foreign Academies
According to ProfluenceSports, in 2024 there were 336 clubs globally that are part of a multi-club ownership model, ranging from 2 clubs to, in some cases, over 6.
Red Bull Salzburg are part of one such multi-club ownership group who own 7 clubs across three continents. As is the case with these arrangements, players move between the clubs in a hierarchical manner, with the smaller clubs usually losing their best players to clubs higher up the chain. No player better epitomises this than Liverpool’s Dominik Szoboszlai. Picked from the youth system in Hungary, he signed for Red Bull Salzburg but was transferred to Red Bull’s other Austrian side, FC Liefering, who play in the 2nd tier. He then came back to Salzburg before eventually transferring to RB Leipzig, all in the space of 4 seasons. Naby Keita, Dayot Upamecano and Konrad Laimer are other notable players to follow a similar journey.
Red Bull Salzburg have had 38 arrivals from FC Liefering and moved 11 players to RB Leipzig for a total of €192.70m. All of these transfers will follow a “Fair Market Value Assessment” of some sort to ensure they are above board, but recent changes in FIFA legislation are starting to try and unpick the competitive advantage that sides in a multi-club ownership structure are clearly having.
FC Nordsjælland, like Salzburg, favour signing lots of young players, with only a few going on to make it into the first team. They are owned by the Mansour group, who also own the Right To Dream Academy in Ghana. This has garnered 15 transfers in the last 10 seasons, with a number of them leaving the club for huge sums. Notably, Mohammed Kudus left for €18m to Ajax (recently signed for Tottenham from West Ham for €127m) and Rangers midfielder Mohamed Diomandé. The strangest transfer they have had recently was for Ernest Nuamah, who signed for second-tier Belgian side RWD Molenbeek for €50m and immediately went on loan to Lyon. Both sides are owned by John Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings, and the move to Molenbeek was to avoid Lyon’s spending restrictions. He subsequently signed for Lyon permanently the following season. Sarpsborg 08 FF of Norway has an agreement with the Oslo Football Academy in Dakar, Senegal, which means the academy regularly sends players to the Norwegian side, with some of them staying. French side FC Metz similarly have an agreement with Senegalese football club AS Académie Génération Foot.
As is the case with these clubs, the academies don’t guarantee success, and whilst I can cherry-pick examples of where it has gone right, it is often the case that clubs bring in a large number of young players with only a few making the grade. The agreements they have in place mean these transfers can be low risk but high reward.
Youth Teams in Senior Leagues
In my review of transfers, I haven’t included internal promotions from youth teams. However, it must be considered that many clubs on the continent have youth sides in the second tier of their respective leagues. One of the beautiful things about Scottish football is that it has the fan base to support 4 tiers of professional football without the need to supplement it with junior teams, which I think is something that should be protected. It could be argued that it comes at a cost to Celtic when it comes to youth development but it’s not an excuse. FC Copenhagen don’t have a youth side playing in lower divisions in Denmark and can still self-develop players who they can sell for significant figures.
You could argue that big clubs having a monopoly on talent is detrimental to keeping leagues competitive. Using Ajax as a recent example, their reserve side won the second tier of the Dutch league in 2018. Due to the rules around reserve sides being unable to play in the same division as their senior side, it meant that all the promotion spots moved down a position which in some respects taints the achievement of promotion.
What can Celtic do Differently?
Celtic looked like they were being progressive when they made inroads into the Japanese market with the signings of Kyogo, Hatate and Maeda. However, since they had recently appointed a manager from the Japanese League, I suspect much of this came from local knowledge rather than a concerted effort to find ‘untapped’ markets. Whilst the signing of players from Japan is not common, it is something that Belgian, Portuguese and Dutch clubs have been doing at a greater rate. It is also a market that the aforementioned Red Bull Group are moving into and one that the City Group have had a presence in for many years already.
The market for first-team-ready players is becoming more and more crowded and expensive, so buying proven quality that will help Celtic compete on all fronts domestically and in Europe is difficult and Celtic have already shown that they struggle in this market. The wealth of infrastructure elsewhere in Europe is looking in the places Celtic aren’t, and they are able to buy talent and develop internally or through multi-club systems. The type of young up-and-coming players that Celtic could sign years ago, like Victor Wanyama and Virgil Van Dijk, are now more likely to be already earmarked by clubs with deeper pockets at younger ages and are being churned through conglomerates where players can develop playing at a level they suit, without fear of the club losing potential talent.
As Eric Cantona once said, “When the seagull follows the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea,” and I think signings like Odsonne Édouard, CCV and Nicolas Kühn are examples of where Celtic have, much like the seagulls, picked up players who have been deemed no longer required by larger clubs but have since proven their worth. This could be a strategy that certainly doesn’t look like it’s employed by top clubs across Europe, but in the age of data and algorithms, it is going to become more difficult to find sardines worth catching.
That’s not to say Celtic can no longer perform at the top table. They have shown as recently as last season that they are more than capable of doing so, and clubs like FC Copenhagen, BSC Young Boys and FK Bodø/Glimt have shown that the barrier for entry is surmountable even if you don’t have deep pockets and are not part of a multi-club structure. Capitalising on domestic success is one thing they have in common, and there are already fears in Norway that Bodø/Glimt could go on to dominate the Eliteserien in the same way Rosenborg did from 1990 to 2010. I’m reluctant to draw a comparison to Hearts with there still being so much of the season to play, but it’s worth remembering that it was only 8 years ago that Bodø/Glimt were playing in the Norwegian second tier. They have won the Eliteserien and reached the semi-final of the Europa League since. Sometimes it just takes one strong season to be the catalyst.
I am by no means an apologist for the Celtic Board, but I think it’s important to look at what Celtic are competing against in the transfer market. It isn’t just a case of finances or data – the deeper I have delved into trends in the transfer market, the more it becomes apparent that this isn’t about one club’s finances – it’s a case of infrastructure. There is no one way of doing things, and where I have highlighted clubs that have found success doing certain things like partnering with academies abroad, there are just as many clubs doing the same thing who are not successful. As always, ultimately, it’s about bringing in the best players that are available to you, and having a multi-faceted approach to recruitment is a must if you want to do that. I think it’s evident that Celtic does have that approach; the issue in recent seasons is the quality of the players it has garnered.
As I said at the start, we’ll never really know if a player was a club’s first choice, but if we presume the players we’ve brought in who don’t make the grade were not the club’s first choice, then any investment in recruitment is pointless if first choice players don’t find the club attractive. I think one important thing that can’t be overestimated is the stature of the club, its fan base and its morality. As a football fan, I have recently struggled with the ethics and morals of football, and one thing that Celtic has been able to say is that as a club built on charity, which has a fan base that thinks that’s still important today.
