Do we target a (negative) net spend in our windows?

As per the title. I posted this information (below) in a previous post and have copied it at the bottom of this post. Since Rodgers came back, we have consistently had a net spend of around minus 10 million pounds (plus or minus a few million).

It's weirdly consistent: we think of last summer as a big-spending window because of the big money signings and the summer before that (we can all agree) was a very bad window, and yet the net spend was around the same. We've had windows where there were a lot of comings and goings and ones where there were far fewer, and yet the net spend has been roughly the same. It's got me wondering if this is something we are actually targetting.

If it is, then we only have £5 million pounds left to spend this summer as it stands (which is clearly not enough for what we need) and maybe what we are waiting for is not CL qualification but the money from selling Maeda. Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong and it's just a weird coincidence. Information and sources below:

Summer 2023 net spend: minus £11.5 million.
https://www.67hailhail.com/transfers/celtic-net-spend-summer-transfer-window-2023-24/

Jan 2024 net spend: £130 thousand.
https://www.67hailhail.com/transfers/celtic-january-2024-transfer-ins-and-outs-signings-done-deals/
But note that if you include Abada, who went a couple of months later, the net spend was minus £7.87 million, which fits the pattern
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68507625

Summer 24 net spend: minus £10.6 million.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cz6x2gledydo

Jan 25 net spend: minus £7 million
(https://www.skysports.com/football/...-2025-scottish-premiership-deals-ins-and-outs)

Summer 25 net spend so far: Proably around minus £14.95 million.
I say "probably" because I can't find a trustworthy source for this one, but I think the following is at least in the right ballpark: https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/footba...nsfers-all-confirmed-ins-and-outs_573976.html

 

It goes a lot further back than that, I think if you went back to 2010 there'd be at most 2 or 3 windows without a negative net spend.

You can argue if it's a clear policy of downsizing or negligence