Celtic Fails to Press Financial Advantage—Again 

This week’s column presents several challenges for us, dear readers.
Not that you should care. Our job is generally pretty easy and is, in fact, a labor of love.

However, the topics to be addressed herein involve finances and the January transfer window. We’re uncomfortable with the former, as our checking account and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service can attest, and tired of the latter. But here we are.

Depending on how one counts—due to add-ons, sell-on fees, etc.—Rangers spent somewhere between £12 million and £20 million during the recently closed winter transfer window.

This despite the fact the club earned just around £18 million by reaching the Europa League quarterfinals during the 2024-25 season.
Meanwhile, current league leaders Hearts spent a mere £500,000 on four players: forwards Rogers Mato and Islam Chesnokov, midfielder Marc Leonard, and fullback Jordi Altena.

This is understandable, given that the club garnered only £4.9 million from its Conference League campaign last term, reported net losses of £400,000 during the 2024-25 fiscal year, and has a fairly recent history of financial problems.

And yet, as paltry as £500,000 in transfer may sound to, say, observers of the English Premier League, that figure dwarfs what Scotland’s wealthiest club, Celtic, spent in January, which amounted to (checks notes)… um… £0 with the signing of five players on loan.

This is made all the more galling by the recent announcement that the Hoops earned a whopping £40 million by reaching the Champions’ League knockout stages last season.

We have enough problems keeping our personal finances in line but we ask you: How in the world does that make any sense?