The protesters are sincere in their intentions but their late entry is divisive and ill-considered
The road to meaningful change at Celtic is paved with missteps, and today now supporters’ protest is in danger of turning into yet another one.
I don’t doubt the sincerity, the passion, or the sense of injustice that drives the majority of people who finally said, “enough is enough”.
But sincerity without strategy is a blunt instrument, and this latest plan has all the hallmarks of the kind of half-thought gestures that make noise, divide fans, and leave the boardroom untouched.
The “late entry” protest is a textbook example of what happens when you rush to action. Hundreds of people debated scattergun proposals and, instead of distilling the survey feedback - of 38,000 responses - into a handful of well-considered ideas, they reached for the most dramatic gesture. That is not strategy, that is impulse. Unsurprisingly, the backlash has already been significant. Before a ball is even kicked this protest has become an own goal.
It has taken what was arguably the biggest show of fans unity in Celtic’s history, and been met, in many quarters, by frustration, derision and anger. What a start!
On paper it sounds dramatic: no Celtic fans in the ground at kick-off, thousands filing in after twelve minutes. In practice it will be a trickle, managed by stewards and police.
That ensures friction, it frustrates paying fans, and it gifts the board a perfect alibi. If Celtic put in a lacklustre performance and drop points, the late entry will be blamed. If there is disorder in the stands, it will not be Celtic carrying the can.
This whole operation will be stewarded by Kilmarnock and Police Scotland, which means if it goes badly wrong the board can wash their hands and point the finger at the organisers. They will look like amateurs while the directors shrug.
Worse still, there is a genuine safety issue. Anyone who remembers the history of Ibrox the Ibrox disaster knows that crowd movement, whether an early exit or a late entry, carries risk. To risk fans and disrupt the team in pursuit of a poorly conceived point is reckless, not radical. That's also why the late entry will not be allowed to happen as the protesters think.
Celtic’s hierarchy themselves are masters of poor communication. For years I have argued that this club does not understand reputation management, public relations, or even basic respect for its own supporters. The White-Kelly era is remembered precisely because it combined arrogance with tone-deafness.
Yet somehow, elements of the fan movement have stumbled into mimicking the same mistakes: high on gesture, low on strategy, blind to consequences.
And let us not kid ourselves, there is a hierarchy here too. The notion that certain groups can drape banners over seats as if they were towels on sun loungers says it all. For all the rhetoric about unity, the reality is different factions jockeying for influence, with some familiar names seeking status and profile more than progress.
The Celtic Trust, which many of us warned years ago was not the vehicle for change, now stands exposed. Others, no less pompous in manner, have been quick to fill the vacuum. For almost 20 years we have been here, the same warnings, the same mistakes.
The tragedy is that the Celtic family has the talent to do far better. Among our support are people with the brains, skills and experience to mount a campaign that is coherent, safe and effective. Instead we get decisions made on the hoof, shaped by voices too keen on their own profile to let better ideas come through. The result is division, not unity.
It is not as if there were no smarter options. Ticket boycotts were dismissed because rebels were afraid of losing their places on the waiting list. That would have been a genuine sacrifice. Instead of hard choices we get grandstanding.
The survey looks like being another squandered opportunity. Poorly designed questions, no proper analysis of qualitative data, and a box-ticking exercise that produced a misleading ninety per cent “approval” figure. It gave the illusion of consensus where none really exists. That was not consultation, it was theatre.
People tick yes to, “Do you agree” or “Would you support” questions. Hence in referenda there are endless debates over the wording of questions and battles over which side of the argument votes Yes.
What could have been done? A properly constituted attitudes survey. Careful analysis. Clear proposals that could be evaluated on safety, strategic, financial, and cultural grounds. Building consensus, not splinter groups. Real communication with fans, not another copy of the board’s arrogance dressed in green and white.
And yet here we are. A protest that risks alienating fellow fans, risks safety in the stands, risks disrupting the team, and all to make a point that will be shrugged off by a board sitting on one hundred million pounds in the bank and more than happy to sell a player if there is any shortfall. That is not pressure. That is indulgence.
The call for change at Celtic is right. The board are culpable. The club’s communication is a disgrace. But until we find a movement with strategy, vision, and respect for the whole support, we are destined to repeat the cycle: loud gestures, fleeting headlines, and another opportunity lost.
