As we stumble towards, financially, the biggest game of the season, are we allowed to question the clubs signing "policy"?.
Let's give it a go.
Why didn't we sell Hooper in January for the reported £8m that Norwich offered, instead of waiting till June and only get £5m? That alone cost us money and time. We didn't need him for SPL, we weren't going to improve his contract (I personally believe that all players should be sold with 18mths left on their contract if they won't extend) and we could have brought in someone straight away in June.
Why did we let Johnny Russell sign for Derby after being asked to be kept aware of his activity? Russell's career stats are better than both Teemu and Balde, he has also impressed in games a against us and is on the verge of international caps. At @ £800k, he would have been half the cost of Balde and at least a 3rd leas than Teemu. There is of course a snobbery amongst some Celtic fans who feel that there are no players in the SPFL, out with Celtic, worthy of wearing the Hoops. Despite these lesser players beating us to many trophies and taking potfuls of points off us in the last few seasons.
For a club so intent on developing potential why was Jackson Irvine allowed to leave on loan to go to Kilmarnock? After a terrific performance against Liverpool what a blow to his confidence to then put him away to another club. Players we loan out never come back. For those that say it will give him game time, should we also have loaned out Dylan McGeough or James Forrest? The best place for them to develop is with us.
We all know that we can't go daft in the transfer market, and no one is suggesting we do. But... We are constantly praising our scouts, Park in particular for unearthing gems. Well I'm a little sceptical on that assessment. When we look at some of the players unearthed in recent seasons, we would have been as we'll digging them backnin. Anyway, my point is this, if we are trusting the scouts to unearth players for a couple of million to invest and sell on, why don't we trust them with a little more now that we have the financial resource? (Please, we do have resources. We are constantly reminded by the board how solvent we are). If the scouts have £3m to scout with, what could they find with, say £6m? Is that too much of a stretch for us? Really? I don't think so. Yes, I know, wages blah blah blah. But to make money, you have to invest. Examples? Benteke in England. A bigger budget widens our options.
Ultimately though our board, sorry, policy, seems to be intent on having us accept mediocrity and mask it as financial prudence. A boards job in football is not only to manage finances but to ensure success and entertainment on the pitch. At Celtic we were brought up this way. The policy is all well and good at cutting coats, wages and transfer fees, but to do it while providing a team worth watching is what is required. This isn't happening. The focus is on penny pinching and watching what happens elsewhere before acting. Investment in players at the right time and with the right quality will ensure the fans don't become disenfranchised and lose interest. It is a gamble, of course it is. But if we can invest now, when can we.
