I have never met Peter Lawwell. And I don't care to.
This is unlikely to cause him sleepless nights.
I somehow suspect that there would be a minimal interface between our values but that doesn't matter a jot.
I have no desire for titbits from the top table, the kudos of being considered "in the know" or being able to humble-brag about landing a high-profile interviewee.
As a minor blogger, I have little of substance to offer and, as a Celtic fan, my importance is inconsequential. Easily-dismissed, barely missed and of negligible cash value.
Like you – or at least the vast majority of people who may take the time to read this blog.
(I hope you will not feel insulted by my being so presumptuous as to lump you in with me.)
But, as someone with no traction within the Celtic support to offer, there are other reasons why I suspect that Lawwell and I would have little in common.
To do with Celtic – in terms of ethics, vision and values.
I should start with my caveats. I don't believe that Lawwell is incompetent or unethical in the sense that would debar him from other executive positions.
He's no Craig Whyte, Charles Green or Dave King.
I don't believe that he would break the rules or bend the law in the manner that people at some clubs have done and do. And nor, I am sure, would he sanction such practices.
But there are other values, ethics and even professional practices that are anathema to me and which I believe will continually hobble Celtic unless they are rooted out.
And that, I believe, will only be possible when Peter Lawwell takes a bite of one of those sweet, fat cherries that we are continually told are regularly dangled in front of him and brings his expertise to another club.
Apparently, there are many to choose from.
Now, there are many Celtic bloggers, including some which you and I know are "close" to Peter Lawwell and the board of Celtic plc.
These are popular as their adherents like to believe they are close to the inside track at Celtic. By being on first-name terms with some blogger, they may boast about "one degree of separation" from the head honcho at Celtic Park.
Many of these like to bring their own knowledge of the business world and the complexities that naive, plebeian fans could never hope to appreciate.
It's not "the economy, stupid", as William Clinton used to say, it's "asset-management, idiot", in case you didn't know.
Because, you see, there are things at football clubs that lowly football fans can never understand.
You may think that football players' primary value relates to their performances on the pitch.
Oh, how you are to be pitied – with as much kindness and understanding that will allow you to recognise your foolishness but not alienate you to the extent that you will stop investing in the club.
Let me delicately tell you that footballers – Celtic-players, if you wish – are like property (real estate, as our American cousins might say).
It doesn't matter how nice or impressive they look, and far less how well they perform their notional function.
No, you see – and don't be embarrassed (because a lot of fans are as misguided as you) – football players are assets to be bought low and sold high.
Stay with me.
Take Scott Brown. One major Celtic blogger, who campaigned against buying players from Dundee United and Hibs, considers the signing of Scott to be a disaster.
For years, the said blogger was advocating selling Scott.
Don't feel stupid if you disagreed – even the smuggest blogger in the Celtic blogosphere regularly boasts about thinking that Scott was a great signing.
But don't you see why signing Scott was an abject failure?
Yes, I know. In your innocence, you probably think that signing a young Scottish footballer with huge potential, one who went on to captain his country and our club to a historic double-treble was a success.
11 years of outstanding service, blah, blah. Taking his place amongst the Celtic all-time greats, yawn.
Have you no idea of how much money Celtic could have made if we had sold Scott Brown before he reached his peak?
Now, I know you aren't stupid enough to have thought that, because Brendan Rodgers clearly wanted to sign John McGinn (painfully great debut for Villa), that spending about a third of the fee that we recouped for Stuart Armstrong would have been good business.
McGinn was already a Scotland International and 23 – so not a young player – and so there may have been a limit to his growth potential as an asset.
These are just a few examples of Lawwell-omics, the view that the playing squad is simply a collection of assets to be managed –bought low and sold high – which conveniently makes Peter Lawwell the most money.
Is this in any way compatible with building a team and gradually improving, year-by-year?
Of course not!
Continually seeking performance improvements is literally inconsistent with managing an asset portfolio based on buying low and selling at peak value.
You see, ideas that you may have of seeing promise in the team and looking forward to getting a little better the next season – and again and again ad infinitum – simply show you to be a fool.
Like me.
A few days ago, I noted that no Celtic manager since John Barnes had been sacked but neither had any left for a better job,. That's pretty damned amazing.
Equally amazing is that none of these managers have uttered a bad peep about their time at Celtic.
There are various possible explanations for this phenomenon.
1. Everything was just peachy and these guys left for reasons unconnected to the activities of the board.
2. No outgoing manager since Barnes wanted to rock the boat (Wim Jansen did a bit of boat-rocking but only criticised Jock Brown. )
3. They all sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of their contracts with Celtic and therefore can't say that all in the garden is not rosy.
Think about the times we have had – the managers who have come and gone – the times of great hope that were followed by deep disappointment due to the quiet policy of managed decline.
What are your values, hopes and aspirations with regard to Celtic?
Mine are to see a team of players on the field worthy of carrying our tradition as one of the great clubs in world football.
I want the best players to be encouraged to stay with us in their best years.
I want to see us building on success, in a sustainable manner, and believing that the next season should be better than the last.
I want to see us supporting Brendan Rodgers in every way, particularly in his club-building efforts, and never undermining him.
I want to see us focusing on football, not obsessively on finance.
One of the biggest weaknesses we have, in my opinion, is the fact that we do not have football people by any measure working with Brendan Rodgers but, instead, have one of the best coaches we have ever had working with a specific form of capitalism.
You see, in my world, there is more than one type of capital.
For example, the people who buy season tickets, merchandise and plough their money into the club in various other ways, invest more than money.
To me, those fans who invest money – often more than they can afford – are also investing a kind of capital.
Sadly, it's the most easily-scorned form of capital, and yet the purist. It's the emotional capital of hoping that their investments in the club's vision will bring pride, joy and lasting memories.
But, as with the boiler-room scammers who robbed countless pensioners and other vulnerable people of their savings, Celtic's Peter Lawwell Capitalism cares nothing for those who staked their real money on an unreal dream.
And that is the problem for Celtic supporters.
The evidence of Peter Lawwell's entire tenure as Chief Executive points to a supporters' experience of constantly building hope, investing their money and being disappointed when things were really looking up.
Every tantalising dream results in frustration.
Again and again and again.
Would it be so bad if – this time – we kept our exceptional coach, Brendan, and experimented with a new Chief Executive, and one who doesn't make money out of selling our best players?
It could be win-win for everyone.
Peter Lawwell gets the money his talents apparently deserve; Brendan Rodgers has to deal with a "Head of Recruitment" he believes in and the club formulates a plan that sees continual improvement on the field as a good thing, rather than a reckless ambition.
Think about it – it's not so crazy.
Is it? --
