The Celtic problem isn't what but when they spent as soaring financials create false narrative – Chris Sutton

It's not so much about how much was spent. It’s more about when it was spent.

Quite frankly, I feel the timing of the club’s financial figures just before the opening game of the Champions League group caused a bit of a false narrative. It’s perfectly natural for people to see a figure of £72 million sitting in Celtic’s bank account and wonder why more wasn’t spent in the summer market.

Muse over why the club didn’t go and buy a couple of £10m players knowing more group-stage cash was on the way. It’s frustrating for fans, I get it. But, when making such judgements, there has to be an understanding of the modern market and the potential impact it can have on a dressing room.

Wage offers and demands are off the charts these days. Player value dictates the wages they get paid. Celtic have a successful business model and, if you have to do things football-wise to keep it working correctly, that’s how it has to be. Brendan Rodgers said as much when he talked about not being a fantasist.

Put simply, you can’t sign a £15m player without paying the weekly going rate for a £15m player and there’s the issue right there. Do it with one, you could have an army at the door wanting the same pay. Not even with riches in the bank can Celtic sign £15m players because they can’t be paying £60,000-a-week to any individual, so I don’t have an issue with not splashing on fees because it’s more complex than just a fee and the market is crazy.

Bristol City’s Alex Scott to Bournemouth for £20m. Cameron Archer £18.5m to Sheffield United. Manchester City’s Under-21 keeper James Trafford going to Burnley for £15m. Chelsea paid £60m for Romeo Lavia, a development player. That doesn’t mean you can’t find gems for £5m or less and polish them up as