Surveys, symbolism, and strategy: fans protests are needed but should be handled with care

There's still an opportunity for change but be careful not to overestimate support 

Anyone who's ever read this blog knows that a theme of roughly 20 years has been disquiet with the Lawwell-Desmond model of club ownership and the consequent lack of ambition.

I honestly can't remember exactly when I started swimming largely against the tide saying that this board’s vision was one of keeping a nose above the Ibrox entities.

It was considered eccentric by many but I smelt a rat fairly early on. Recently, I reposted articles I published from 16 years ago.

Now, I'm well aware that self-referencing is one of the most annoying forms of pomposity. But, back then, you could draw a lot of flak from the “Celtic family” for saying that you didn't find things hunky-dory - and that we were being led, inexorably, to where we find ourselves in 2025.

Being a voice crying out in the wilderness isn't always a lot of fun and there have been those, over the years, who would cheerfully have seen my head on a silver platter.

I can't even remember when I first had that sinking feeling of tumbling to the fact that we were being told conflicting stories by two little birdies - one called Peter and one called Paul.

One incident that stands out was the unexpected elimination of Rangers from the Champions League by FC Kaunas of Lithuania. (2008/9 - I had to look that up.)

It hit me particularly hard because we had been led to believe that Celtic were preparing to invest significantly in the squad, for our own Champions League challenge. (We were drawn against Man Utd, Villarreal and Aalborg.)

But, that Rangers result had barely sunk in when a blog considered close to Peter Lawwell changed the narrative, espousing the benefits of cash in the bank.

No mainstream outlet had wind of this and it had to be either wild speculation or informed from the only authoritative source itself.

It was of profound significance. We were touting plans to compete with Rangers, based on us both having Champions League income. When Celtic were guaranteed the entire pot allocated to Scotland, it would allow us an exciting opportunity.

The blogger was right - we banked the cash, finished fourth behind Aalborg and a policy direction was made blindingly and painfully clear.

That UEFA Cup Final defeat to Porto in 2003 really had been the watershed some claimed. Brian Quinn and his fellow directors had decided that the spending model had to change - and the fans had to be cajoled into acquiescence.

The intervening years have only vindicated being an outlier while others saw Celtic as a cash cow or a means of gaining a profile.

But we are where we are and a significant proportion of Celtic supporters now see that inaction will only guarantee decades more of emotional ping-pong - feeling that we're going somewhere only to be cut down to size by our own shareholders and directors.

That's great but it's also vital to seize on a wave of popular opinion without the missteps that will condemn any efforts to failure.

When supporters feel shut out by the boardroom, it’s natural to look for ways to make their voices heard. Consultation, protest, and fan media are all part of that. But if we want to be effective, we need to recognise the traps – and avoid the kind of missteps that can weaken rather than strengthen our case.

The recent fans’ consultation is a case in point. The intentions were good, but the execution was rushed through.

Attitudes research is a sophisticated process. There are known pitfalls that are not always immediately obvious and that can lead to significant error. I remember being at a meeting when a senior figure, who had commissioned a survey, gleefully called in representatives of every department to announce that the results had fully supported his preferences. 

Anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge of statistical analysis could see that the results had been distilled to convince the man who paid the piper that the survey had echoed his tune. The result was a disaster, convincing him to commit to an expensive path that was unsupported by the actual data.

The Celtic fans’ survey was a good idea but the execution was sub-optimal, leaving too much room for bias. Almost every question was framed as “Do you agree with/would you support X?” with yes/no boxes. That leaves itself open to what's known as acquiescence bias – people are more likely to say “yes” simply because of the way the question is asked.

Additionally, there was no vetting of the respondents. That's not a criticism of the organisers – it's virtually impossible to have an open survey with control over who responds.

However, it does need to be factored in. With surveys such as this, those with the strongest feelings will typically dominate the respondents, skewing answers to the more extreme end of the scale.

That's only one issue. Another is the fact that there's a likelihood that a significant number of responses could potentially come from rival fans, set on sabotaging the results through supporting the most disruptive proposals.

This happens, to some extent, with virtually every survey involving polarising issues and it would have been wise to take that into account before claiming more than 90 percent support for every proposal.

The obvious outcome was numbers that looked far stronger than they were.

Headlines of “90%+ support” gave the impression of a mandate. But when the first protest – the late entry at Rugby Park– took place, around a quarter of fans refused to join in. Others voiced their disquiet online and in the stands. What looked like overwhelming unity in theory quickly turned out to be fragmented in practice.

Potentially worse was the fact that the protest sparked angry comments about not supporting the team and about the makeup and conduct of the away support.

This is why we should be wary of rushing in. A movement built on a misunderstanding of survey data risks its credibility and carries the risk of future unpleasant surprises.

It's far better to take the time to test the ground properly, refine the strategy, and build a consensus that will hold up under scrutiny. 

SurveyMonkey’s own guidance makes the point: avoid leading questions, broaden the answer options, verify your respondents. If we want real legitimacy, that’s the standard we should aim for.

Another area worth reflecting on is fan media. Reducing presence at press conferences or briefings but still keeping some representation achieves little. It sends a half-signal that is neither a real boycott nor genuine engagement. The board barely notices, and supporters see no tangible gain. Symbolic gestures only matter when they’re unmistakable.

So what does work? The blunt truth, as argued here and nauseum, is that boards respond to one thing above all: money. 

Season tickets are prepaid, so there’s no leverage there. European tickets, cups, and away games can make a dent, but they may also split opinion – many supporters won’t stomach walking away from the team itself. That leaves merchandise, matchday spend, Celtic TV, and commercial partnerships.

This is where a united front can be powerful. Refusing to buy official strips, food, or drink is more than symbolic – it dents revenue streams and, rattles sponsors. No commercial partner wants to be associated with declining sales or visible supporter discontent. Pressure from sponsors is a language directors cannot ignore.

Symbolism can still play a role, though. For example, rather than sporting the latest Adidas clobber, perhaps fans could go back to the days of wearing anything green and white that isn’t official merchandise – knitted scarves, homemade hats, gear bought from independent sellers.

It would show support for the team, starve the board of income, and hark back to traditional roots. It would also lend itself to the sort of optics that could draw media attention, without risking team morale.

Just as old songs like “Putting on the agonies, putting on the style” have been revived for nostalgic power, so too could a return to community-made colours strike a chord. It keeps the stands full of colour while sending a clear message: we are Celtic, but we won’t bankroll complacency.

The aims of these protests are sound. No one doubts the frustration with the lack of ambition from the board. But if we want action that matters, it needs to be measured, disciplined, and strategic. 

And some of those who embraced flawed data with excessive enthusiasm could do worse than be open-minded to that fact, if they want success rather than the ability to insist that they were right.

Hasty gestures based on flawed data risk backfiring. Financial pressure, carefully applied and visibly coordinated, offers the best chance of making directors and sponsors listen.

If we take the time to get it right, we don’t just protest – we influence. The opportunity remains – let's watch out for unnecessary knocks.

Missteps on a road paved with good intentions

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.

Brendan, signings - and the "spectre" of Shaun

There's something oh-so-familiar about this close-season.

It follows a pattern we've come to know well. The team looks shakey - they come good - we start to look like we've got the makings of something with real potential - players become restless - we sell more than we buy (in financial terms) - there's speculation about the manager.

As ever, fans are divided. 

"The board's not backing the boss!"

"We can't invest for a manager who won't commit."

"Why are we hoarding cash in the bank?"

"Do you want us to go bust?"

I've been a Celtic supporter long enough to have become jaded by the whole carousel.

But amid all the angst, the navel-gazing and the infighting, something is going almost unnoticed.

The return of Shaun Maloney.

I'll make it clear that I like Shaun and respect what he has achieved in football. I have nothing whatsoever against him or his appointment as "professional player pathway manager".

And change was evidently needed in that department. In recent years, Celtic's youth development has been like a production line with nobody to man the end of the conveyor belt, while talent was whisked off by opportunistic clubs offering baubles and big dreams.

As with most things, that led to all manner of finger-pointing within the development setup as well as the manager "not giving youth a chance".

That's another conversation but there can be little doubt that Shaun, with his CV including coaching Belgium under Roberto Martinez while the country was ranked 1st in the world, has huge talent and experience to bring to the role.

But are we being told the full story?

This isn't the first time that Celtic have appointed Shaun to a similar role. The previous occasion was in 2017 when the first-team coach was... Brendan Rodgers.

Of course, things were different then. At that time, Peter Lawwell was CEO, not chairman of the board, as he is now.

There are those who will tell you that anyone who thinks the Chairman directly influences policy doesn't understand business.

Those people, in my humble opinion, are either liars or fools. You can forget about the extent and limitations of the remit of an executive role when personal relationships are at play.

Celtic tried an outsider as CEO - Dominic Mackay lasted approximately two months before he left in mysterious circumstances, only for insiders at Celtic to brief against him for failing to take Lawwel's advice in the transfer market.

That caused a ripple of disquiet before Ange started exciting us with some sensational football and issues like club governance seemed too dull to consider.

But Shaun, like John Kennedy and Gavin Strachan, is very much an insider with key members of the board.

Unlike most clubs, the Celtic board have kept an iron grip on the coaching team for years, with the core being board appointees, rather shaped by changing managers.

There can be a lot to be said for the stability that brings, especially with little interest in retaining ambitious managers, but it's also a strategic bargaining chip when dealing with those same head coaches.

It means that replacing the head coach is a relatively simple logistical task and that weakens the hand of someone like Brendan Rodgers, when the prospect of a new contract arises.

I'll come straight out and say it - I believe that's the main reason for Shaun's appointment.

"You want guarantees over quality signings and control over who comes in? Well, we've got alternatives to you already in place."

Many will dismiss this as nonsense but, from a strategic point of view, Celtic have coaching team in place, that could be headed by Shaun "on an interim basis" at the drop of a bunnet.

Add in the prospect of the up-and-coming Ayr United boss Scott Brown or - gawd help us - the ever-available Dunfermline boss Neil Lennon - and you have the sort of continuity options that would require Peter Lawwel to have his sheets changed.

Is that a coincidence, as there are again hints that signings have been brought in without the enthusiastic support of Brendan?

Do key members of the board want him to stay?

All will be revealed by the end of the season but you can be sure that those who refuse to communicate with the fans directly already have their PR ready for when he next "abandons" us.

Imagine starting season 2026-27 with the dream team: Head coach, Shaun Maloney; assistant manager, Scott Brown; team coaches, John Kennedy, Gavin Strachan; Direct of Football, Neil Lennon - all happy to work within the existing recruitment strategy.

The only downside is, of course, that Shaun's forays into management have been less than stellar.

But, of course, should he fail, Scott could step up "on an interim basis", with Neil as "a safe pair of hands".

It all makes perfect corporate sense.