Brendan Rodgers is cleared of blame over ‘those fees,’ while Celtic’s board is held responsible for the £20m transfer deals.

Celtic’s combined £20 million investment in Arne Engels and Adam Idah has become a major talking point, with the sizeable fees inevitably drawing attention from supporters and analysts alike. Engels’ £11 million price tag, alongside the £9 million paid for Idah, placed both players under immediate scrutiny, as expectations naturally rose in line with the club’s financial outlay.

Such figures tend to shape perception, and in this case, they not only influenced how the players were judged but also led to questions about the role of manager Brendan Rodgers. There has been a suggestion in some quarters that these expensive signings were driven directly by Rodgers, adding further pressure to both the players and the manager himself.

However, that narrative has been challenged, with growing clarity around how these deals actually unfolded. The central issue is not necessarily the decision to spend £20 million, but rather the process that allowed the transfer fees to rise to those levels.

Rodgers not responsible for inflated transfer fees

According to analysis from Michael Gannon, the idea that Rodgers personally pushed for such high fees does not hold up under closer examination. Instead, the escalation in price is attributed to how negotiations were handled rather than any direct demand from the manager.

Gannon explained that Celtic initially entered negotiations for Engels with a bid significantly lower than the eventual £11 million fee. However, delays and hesitation in completing the deal allowed the selling club to increase their demands. This lack of decisiveness ultimately led to Celtic paying a much higher price than they might have secured with quicker action.

A similar situation occurred with Idah, whose £9 million transfer fee also reflected a process in which the valuation rose over time. These patterns suggest that the final figures were shaped more by inefficiencies in execution than by strategic intent to spend heavily.

The implication is clear: Rodgers was not the driving force behind the inflated costs. Had the deals been completed earlier and more efficiently, the same players might have arrived for significantly lower fees. In that scenario, the perception of both transfers would likely have been far more positive, with fans viewing them as bargains rather than expensive gambles.

Delays in negotiations identified as key issue

The handling of these transfers highlights a broader concern within Celtic’s recruitment strategy. Rather than acting swiftly to secure targets at favourable prices, the club has shown a tendency to delay, allowing market conditions to shift and valuations to rise.

In the case of Engels, Celtic’s initial offer reportedly stood at roughly half of what they eventually paid. The failure to conclude the deal at that stage meant returning to negotiations under less advantageous circumstances, ultimately pushing the fee into eight-figure territory.

Idah’s transfer followed a comparable trajectory, reinforcing the notion that this is not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern. Over recent years, similar delays have been observed, suggesting a structural issue in how the club approaches transfer dealings.

These inefficiencies have tangible consequences. While Celtic are still identifying talented players, the inability to act decisively is eroding the value of those decisions. Higher fees not only impact the club’s finances but also increase the pressure placed on incoming players to justify their price tags.

Strong investments overshadowed by inflated perception

Despite the criticism surrounding the fees, both signings retain underlying value. Idah has since moved on, but there remains confidence that Engels, in particular, could develop into a profitable asset for the club in the future.

The problem, therefore, is not necessarily the quality of the recruitment but the perception created by the inflated costs. If Engels had been signed for a figure closer to the club’s initial bid, the reaction from supporters might have been overwhelmingly positive, with far less scrutiny on his performances.

This distinction is important, as it shifts the focus away from the manager and the players, and toward the processes behind the scenes. It suggests that the club’s recruitment team is capable of identifying the right targets, but that improvements are needed in how deals are executed.

Board-level inefficiencies place added pressure on manager

Ultimately, the responsibility for the rising fees appears to lie at board level rather than with Rodgers. The delays and lack of decisiveness in negotiations have created a situation where the club is paying more than necessary, inadvertently placing additional pressure on both the manager and the players.

This dynamic can have a knock-on effect, as heightened expectations may impact performances and overall perception. It also raises questions about how Celtic can refine their approach to ensure better value in future transfer windows.

The key takeaway is that while the club continues to attract promising talent, greater efficiency is required to maximise the benefits of those signings. Acting more quickly in negotiations would not only reduce costs but also help maintain a more balanced narrative around new arrivals.

Need for sharper execution in future transfer dealings

Looking ahead, Celtic have an opportunity to address these issues and improve their transfer strategy. By streamlining decision-making processes and acting with greater urgency, they can avoid repeating the mistakes that led to inflated fees for Engels and Idah.

The potential for resale value within the squad remains strong, but margins are being unnecessarily reduced by delays. Sharper execution would protect that value, ease the burden on players, and prevent misplaced criticism from being directed at the manager.

In summary, the £20 million spent on Engels and Idah is less a reflection of reckless spending and more a consequence of inefficient negotiation. By learning from these experiences, Celtic can ensure that future investments deliver both on the pitch and financially, without the complications that have accompanied these deals.