Looks like they're about to spend a chunk of that on a left footed centre-back to replace Scales, Auston Trusty.
Scales not giving up his starting place without a fight anyway, did well today in the Glasgow derby.
Can't Trusty play left back too? And he cost 6m. Would Scales cost that too?
And neither should he be expected to be ousted from the team easily; he's generally done very well.
If Scales were a Japanese or Israeli international, you suspect he would be held in far greater esteem by the Celtic support, who generally come across as having unfounded and grandiose ideas about their club's standing in the game, almost to the point of outright delusion, as well as being rather unpleasant all round.
Rodgers says pretty much the same here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/c4glxgllxr7o
Did very well yesterday.
Bullet header
Played well. I thought he was good start of last season too. Great for him and Idah to score on the stage you want to be playing. A few of the anti Celtic crowd here probably with mixed feelings this morning. If only they'd managed Lee O Connor and Jonathan Afolabi as well where would ROI be now??
So players at Celtic do well and it's a good place for them to be, but players at Celtic do badly and it's Celtic's fault?
I think there's a bit of bias there to be honest.
Great to see Scales score though (and indeed Idah, although the link with UCD playing in Europe on the same night meant Scales' goal meant more at the Bowl). Slovan are going to set all sorts of CL records given they have Man City, Bayern (who just won 9-2), Atletico, Stuttgart, AC Milan and Girona to come.
Exactly. It's biased both ways.
There's lots of factors going in to whether a player makes it or not. Talent and dedication being foremost.
Celtic can be a great platform for many players as its a quicker route to medals and European football than you'll get nearly anywhere else.
But if you don't make it you don't make and Celtic move on and sign another. Same as at any club in the business of winning really.
Fair enough. I'll agree with that though it's not how I read your post!
delighted for scales (and UCD!) -
Very good. My team won the Superleague in 1987, best thing I achieved in UCD.
I think there's a difference in signing for a Celtic as a senior player compared to signing as a youth. There's no issue going there once you're getting first team games, in fact as last night showed it can be a great club to be at. The issue is their conversion of youth players to senior players. Who was the last Irish player Celtic signed as a teenager who went on to have a high level career? I can't think of many (any?) since Liam Miller, and he broke through there over 20 years ago.
It's not just Irish players either, they're just not good at bringing young players through their youth system and in to the first team, and getting them to a standard where they can establish themselves at that level. But give them a player where that work has been done elsewhere, and they can provide a platform for them to showcase their abilities and move on to another level in time.
I think there's just a bit of nuance. It's a good place to sign at 23. It's a terrible place to sign at 16 or 17 or 18. Obviously depends a bit of the level of the individual player, like for Arnie Engels, who is a hugely promising footballer, he's ready to make a huge impact at 21 - but you want to sign there at a time when you're ready to be a first team regular - because as a kid, they'll keep signing good lads in that 22/23 range to sign.
(wrote this before Eirambler's response - basically the saying the same thing)
Moving to Celtic as a youngster with first team potential is high risk, high reward decision. Not one i would recommend to any promising youngster myself.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Bookmarks