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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment