Celtic is stronger than it has been for years. This is the best time for the chairman to go.

The other day, someone sent me a piece by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain in which he expressed his view that it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if Peter Lawwell decided to step down as Celtic chairman. I found the piece interesting, although there wasn’t much in it that could be pinned down. It’s an opinion, not a fact. But is it an informed opinion? Something in the wind, perhaps?

There are those who argue—some quite vocally—that Lawwell’s departure would make no difference to the club and how it conducts its business.

However, as we’ve discussed repeatedly on this blog, that view is not shared by the majority of supporters. Those who see Lawwell as a positive force would consider his exit a great loss, while those who believe he has had a negative impact in recent years (or perhaps as far back as a decade ago) would see it as a welcome change.

But would anything actually change?

Those who defend Lawwell sometimes argue that the real decisions are made in Ireland by a man who operates the board like puppets on strings although this individual has only a minor shareholding. He has never held a majority of the shares or commanded a majority of the votes. Still, he is widely regarded as the man who runs Celtic—the decision-maker.

So, if Lawwell were to leave, what impact would it have?

Let me be clear: I am not one of those who believes that all the major decisions are made in Ireland. I don’t believe that for a simple reason—he’s not terribly interested in what happens here. He doesn’t take on day-to-day responsibilities for running the club, and if he ran his other businesses the way Celtic is run, he wouldn’t have such a vast personal fortune. He would never allow one of his Irish companies to make internal appointments based on cronyism and nepotism.

At a strategic level, at least some decisions are made around the boardroom table by those who attend every meeting. In that regard, Lawwell’s departure could result in changes, but perhaps not the strategic-level changes some might expect.

Let’s, for a moment, give the man some benefit of the doubt.

Now, this goes against my personal opinion, which is that he does have day-to-day involvement—of course, he does. The idea that he doesn’t is laughable. When I say he is a cardboard cut-out chairman who hands out the pens and takes the roll call, it’s said with the deepest sarcasm. I firmly believe Lawwell takes a strategic role in running the club, and it would be unjustifiable to keep him on the board and pay him a salary if he weren’t involved in some way.

But let’s indulge those who claim he does nothing. If Lawwell is simply a figurehead who opens and closes meetings, would his departure change anything? My answer is yes—absolutely.

Even if he were doing nothing, his presence still acts as a deterrent to new ideas and innovations. How could it not? Whether you think he’s been positive or negative, Lawwell has had a tremendous influence on Celtic’s policy direction for nearly 20 years. Influence of that magnitude lingers, whether or not it is exercised. The last thing our CEO, Michael Nicholson, needed was Lawwell looming over his shoulder once again. I believe this has probably stifled Nicholson’s ability to freely make decisions and limited his manoeuvrability.

It has probably also affected the willingness of other board members to speak up and suggest solutions or alternative strategies. How could it not? Lawwell remains someone others in the room look to for guidance or approval. This isn’t about weakness; it’s just a fact of corporate life and interpersonal dynamics. It is inconceivable that his presence wouldn’t influence the board.

And that’s just the first benefit of Lawwell’s departure—it would give people breathing room to express their own ideas. This is especially relevant in the context of what Dave King has been saying across the city. King believes their next chairman should come from within the Real Ranjurs community, whereas I think the exact opposite.

The next chairman of Celtic must come from outside, bringing fresh thinking. King wants to keep the same old faces around the table. I don’t. Celtic fans, given the choice, would prefer someone from the upper echelons of business with new ideas.

Lawwell’s original hiring was a shocking departure from that vision. The second benefit of Lawwell stepping down would be this. It’s something every supporter would applaud.

The third and most important benefit, in my view, would be the repair of the club’s relationship with the fans. As long as Lawwell remains, there will be a fundamental lack of trust between the club and its supporters. Some fans simply do not trust anything the club says as long as he is involved. This perception, fair or not, is incredibly difficult to shake.

They point to Lawwell as the architect of our hiring practices. It may not be fair, but it’s what many believe. They also point to our transfer strategy. The 12-month period without a Lawwell overseeing it was one of the most successful windows we’ve ever had. Was that just a freak coincidence, or was it a result of Ange Postecoglou and a different approach? Either way, the belief persists that things improved when Lawwell wasn’t in charge.

If Lawwell remains, it’s hard to see how this perception problem can be fixed. Perception trumps reality, and that’s not always fair—but CEOs, chairmen, and even presidents have stepped down because of it. The perception problem hangs over Celtic like a cloud, and no matter what the club does, some supporters will doubt it as long as Lawwell is in place.

The financial statement that came out recently paints a picture of success, and on the commercial side, Lawwell has done an exceptional job. He should be proud of that. But he is not, and never has been, a football man. He should never have been involved in the football side of things.

If he’s going to step down, now is the perfect time.

The club is riding high, and we’re in a strong financial position. There’s always the temptation to stay for one more triumph, but in this case, that would be a mistake.

The year before Gordon Brown brought Tony Blair down one of the remaining Blairite ministers talked to the journalist Andrew Rawnsley about the inevitability of a bad end. “Prime Ministers never get their exits right,” he said with scorn. He’s correct. So few of them have the sense to go out on top, and that’s common across fields other than politics.

Lawwell can go now with at least some applause ringing in his ears. Had we slipped even a little on those last two days of the transfer window he wouldn’t even have had that to fall back on. Right or wrong, fair or not, that’s the reality, because that would have been the perception.

This is the moment to recognise that it’s time.