Celtic's 2025/26 Summer transfer window: Stage: Panic

Cant bother to dig but have heared Brendan say it himself and also Sinisalo have said it when interviwed by finnish media. Its well known. Im not sure im in favour of it though, yet.

Skickat från min SM-F956B via Tapatalk

 

I haven't heard anything of the sort from him.

If it was well know it would be easy find. Did a google search there and found nothing on it so I think might need to review that claim. Again I'm open to correction but if you can't find anything to support it then its very difficult for me to expect that as remotely credible.

 

I didn't say it's a major outlay. But history has shown us we're not spending anywhere close to £1m on a back up goalie who, more often than not, goes through a season barely having to stick his gloves on.

Fair enough, read the wrong fee for Hart. But Barkas, we paid £2.95m initial fee with add-ins potentially taking it to £4.5m - according to Sky Sports.

I think by simply reading Rodgers' comments about Sinisalo when he signed, and towards the end of last season, and Sinisalo's comments about the "plan" for him, it's clear Sinisalo was not signed just to be backup.

Rodgers in May

"As for Viljami, I think it’s been an interesting one because if Kasper had stayed fit we may not have seen so much of him, in which case then we would have had a decision in the summer because he’s a very, very talented young goalkeeper and it was in the case of does he go out on loan to get that experience with the view to him coming back to challenge Kasper to be number one."

Why would we send out a backup keeper on loan if they were signed to be a backup keeper? It makes no sense.

 

Challenging to be our no 1 is not saying he is going to be our future no 1 now is it? Why would we send any young player out on loan? To develop them by getting minutes they are not going to get here? Will we send Johnny Kenny out on loan now because he's coming back here next year as our starting 9? There's a huge inconsistency in your logic there.

 

You're not grasping me at all here. I've no issue if you're not convinced he's good enough, I disagree but whatever.

But you're spouting outright lies by stating he's been signed merely as a backup, that's where we get to 'talking pish' territory. You made that up in your own head, and I posted comments from the manager alluding to it (which you ignored btw).

So stop with the pearl clutching and own it.

 

I'm not stating outright lies but I admire your aggression in asserting that a goalkeeper who played 6 games last year was not signed as a backup. I thin what I have said makes complete logical sense. Why you need to refer to a logical statement as an "outright lie" and "complete pish" is the issue I've taken up here. You disagree but you haven't offered anything to support why you are right.

I'm not the one pearl clutching here, you are very angry that I don't agree with you. I don't mind that we disagree, I'd rather discuss it than getting as offended as you are.

 

You’re just being difficult at this point.

You said Sinisalo was signed to be a backup goalie. Why would be send our second choice goalie on loan? When have we ever signed a backup goalie and sent them on loan before? It doesn’t happen.

Johnny Kenny was not signed to be our backup striker. Pointless comparison. Kwon was not signed to be our backup 6. Tilio was not signed to be a backup winger.

We signed two keepers at the same time. A 37 year old to be our current number 1, and his young understudy to hopefully take his place in a year or two’s time. That was quite obviously the plan.

The fact you’re not seeing that is beyond me.

 

The irony of accusisng me of being difficult is insane but anyway.

What was he signed as? What was Yang signed as? What was Holm signed as? What was Kwon signed as? What was Tilio signed as? Young project signings who were tied to long term deals but and to add depth to the squad and hope that in years to come they might develop into first team player. Sinisalo is absolutely no different to these. I don't hear anyone saying Kwon was bought as our future no 6, Tilio was bought to replace Forrest long term, Yang was bought to be our new no 7, Holm was bought to be McGregor's long term replacement. They were all about as cheap punts who might one day be first team players. We know these deals barely work out.

The fact you think there is exceptionalism to one project signing over all the other is the difficulty I have understanding. The fact you don't think its logical to be concerned that a 23 year old keeper with such limited experience of playing at a club the size of Celtic who has only featured in 6 games for us is a huge risk is what I don't understand. The fact that you can't see that he's been brought in as a young prospect who will be backup keeper to the 1st choice keeper is what I can't understand.



Tilio payed twice in his first season here. Holm played 13 times in his first season here, Yang played 31! Sinisalo played 6.

What's the difference?

 

I’ve told you the difference.

We sign “cheap punts” all the time. Tilio, Holm, Kwon, Yang etc. Every single season we sign them.

Where we don’t do it is with the goalies. Because there’s literally no need. A backup goalie is easily signed for peanuts, or by promoting youth (like Hazard).

So history and logic would tell me, and probably many others, that Sinisalo was signed with the intention of him becoming number 1.

Again, he may not end up being number 1 if an opportunity comes up to sign an even better keeper. Fine. But I think there’s a massive difference between signing Sinisalo and a Kwon.

And on the risk part. I’m not concerned about the risk because he’s done nothing to concern me in those appearances. He’s played well and was on an upward trajectory when we signed him. Won POTY at his previous club. Broke into his national team as well.

As I’ve said with others, the exact profile of player we should be after.

Anyway, it’s a pointless argument. Going round in circles. I rate him and would be happy with him taking over from Schmeichel. You have concerns. Fair.

 

See that's the issue. This is why I laughed when you accused me of being difficult. A cheap punt is a cheap punt. Sinisalo has all the hall marks of a cheap punt. He's a player in the 20-23 bracket signed for a small fee on a long term deal who is brought into add depth but with the hope he might develop into a first team standard player. You're trying to make an exceptionalism out of him because he plays a different position to all his fellow project signings and turn around and accuse me of being difficult.

History and logic doesn't tell you that, it tells you the opposite. He's your typical project signing. The fact he played 6 games last year says it all. He's played 6 games, his pedigree before this is League One and Scottish Championship. He was poor for two of those goals in my view. I think we flaps at crosses and I feel his distribution is way off Schmeichel. He could prove me wrong but I wouldn't have anywhere near the level of confidence you have in him. Time will tell on that but there's no doubt if we are going to go with Sinisalo as no 1 next season it's a massive gamble. I think Rodgers will want more if he's here personally.

 

Jeezus.
Is it safe to come back on here looking for transfer rumours ?
I'm beginning to think RR has two accounts on here.
Either that, or it is his doppleganger.

 

There are no rumours.

We are looking at going into the season opener with what we have now. Starting the season with only 3 wingers in the squad when it was by far and away the most pressing issue at the start of the season is unforgivable. The fact that two of those are Yang and Forrest is telling. I actually thing Yang could have a big season but relying on him is a gamble and Forrest is 34 and ever more injury prone. We needed 2 wingers beforehand, then we sold Kuhn.

I have a bad feeling that we will sign one winger in the last couple of weeks of the window and then try for another on loan on deadline day.....all the while our bank account is bursting with money we refuse to invest.

 

Why are you using terms like 'aggression' and 'angry'? I'm nothing of the sort, saying you talk * is just being truthful.

And AGAIN, it's not the disagreeing part I'm highlighting, it's the clear manipulation of facts I've a problem with. And you can't accuse me of not 'offering anything to prove I'm right', I did exactly that and you ignored it in favour of talking more *.

Spouting blatant falsehoods that multiple posters have pulled you up on, only to carry on regardless while claiming victim...it's been a good laugh if nothing else

 

Mate he was brought in as Kaspers understudy with the view of replacing him when he retires. That's the plan and always has been. If it doesn't work out that way, it doesn't change the fact it's the very definition of forward planning.

Trying to nit-pick at the terminology is just silly and pointless ffs.

 

Amazing how utterly certain people can be about why we do things. One side looks at gametime and infers that he must have been bought as backup and the other looks at a few comments and infers that he was bought as future number 1.

None of us really know why we do things, it's all just inference and reading between the lines. For all I know, we signed him because Dudu Dahan or Karl Starfelt's agent recommended him. Either that or Peter Lawwell saw him in the shower and offered him a contract. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

In all seriousness, Paul seems to have the most balanced take IMHO.

 

We disagree of what is forward planning. We needed a back up keeper who was better than Bain, we got that last season. Sinisalo is young and can improve but from what I have seen from him I am unconvinced we have got a new no 1 on our hands so I think as soon as this window closes we should be looking at other goalkeepers and trying to get a new no 1 in next season. If Sinisalo surpasses them then well done but it would be a huge risk and negligent not be targeting a 1st choice keeper for next season. I don't understand why saying that has been such a point of contention here, fair enough you can disagree but it's a valid viewpoint to hold.

 

Still not tackling the comments made by the actual manager then? Cool.