Celtic fan media doesn’t just have the right to question the club, it needs to.

The AGM was a big event today, covering a lot of ground. There’s plenty of detail to dig into, and I’ll be writing a couple of pieces about it tomorrow in the run-up to our game. In fact, I’ll almost certainly go over every major aspect of the AGM before the weekend is out.

For now, I want to address the headlines circulating today about the chairman’s comments towards my colleague Joe McHugh and, by extension, certain other sections of the fan media in general. As I’m one of only a small number who will stand up and speak in Joe’s defence it’ll be easy for you to identify those of us who he similarly would have had in mind.

(I particularly liked one description of Joe today as a “journalist turned blogger.” That’s only slightly less condescending than me calling the writer of that line “a blogger pretending to be a journalist.” But the difference is that mine is an accurate description.)

I’ve said this repeatedly, and I don’t mind saying it again: we’re not here to be cheerleaders for the people at the club. We’re not here to act as part of a personality cult for the manager, the players, or the executives. We care about one thing—Celtic. We care about the club’s health, its future, and its improvement.

When people in key roles find themselves in our crosshairs, it’s because they deserve to be there, not because we’re pursuing personal agendas.

I know the backgrounds of some of the people on the board. Nobody needs to tell me they’re Celtic fans who want the best for the club. I know the chairman is a lifelong Celtic fan. I know how he feels about the club on the other side of the city, and believe me, those feelings match ours.

I know our biggest shareholder is a die-hard Celtic supporter, as is his entire family. I know that Brian Wilson, who this site has criticised alongside the chairman and others, is not only a committed fan but also the author of one of the finest histories of this club that has ever been or will ever be written. Brian has provided the club with legal and political advice and has connected it with high-profile individuals to get things done behind the scenes.

I’ve never questioned their credentials as Celtic fans. I’ve never questioned their motivations. But they seem to feel entitled to question ours—mine and those of other bloggers, including Joe McHugh. Our motivations are simple: we want what’s best for Celtic.

That’s it. There is nothing else.

What I do question is their outlook. I question their competence in certain areas. I question their tendency to play it safe with some appointments and to take astonishing risks with others.

For a long time, I think there’s been a towering arrogance in our boardroom and a measure of complacency too. I’m glad we’ve made substantial changes since the last AGM, which have gone some way to addressing these concerns.

But some of their decisions, in my view, were not in the best interests of Celtic. If they were, no one has ever explained how. Transparency has been sorely lacking, and that’s an ongoing issue.

The first question Joe asked today—of many excellent ones—went straight to the heart of an issue fans care about.

Yet, it was met with a condescending reply from the chairman, who dismissed Joe as having some sort of personal agenda.

The question was simple: it was a question about the point at which some at Celtic realised that Mark Lawwell was in over his head. This, of course, springs from larger questions about how he ever ended up in a senior executive position at the club in the first place.

If people didn’t want that issue raised, there was a simple way to avoid it; they could, and they should, have hired someone else, something who’s name wasn’t Lawwell.

It’s not obvious to me, or to most Celtic fans, that Mark Lawwell was the best candidate for the job. Based on the signings Brendan Rodgers has actually been able to use, I doubt the manager thinks he was the best candidate either.

The chairman may not like the question. The board may find it uncomfortable. But that’s the job of fan media: to ask those tough questions. Fan media should make them uncomfortable. We should make them squirm a little in those soft seats of theirs.

Joe was doing exactly that, and he did it well.

It was the chairman’s reaction that struck me as hysterical and unprofessional. The question about how Mark Lawwell got the job has been valid since day one. It remains valid, even after his departure. All Joe did was articulate a concern shared by many fans.

Another questioner today chose to quote The Godfather: well here’s another quote, and one not designed as a means of flattery; “It’s not personal; it’s strictly business.” It’s a sentiment those at Celtic Park would do well to remember, and consider. If they view legitimate questions through a personal lens, that’s their problem, not ours.

In my time writing about Celtic, I’ve been accused of hating Neil Lennon. It’s false. I’ve been accused of hating Peter Lawwell. It’s false. Some have even accused me of hating Brendan Rodgers, which is absurd and false. These people don’t get that there’s a difference between the business and personal, but those in charge of Celtic should.

Perhaps these critics are unfamiliar with the concept of working without fear or favour. I approach this job every day with that principle in mind. If I worried about who might be offended or upset before I started writing, I couldn’t function.

When it appears that the club is being run on nepotism and cronyism, it’s a problem. It prevents us from striving to be our best. And fan media didn’t create that perception—those in charge did.

If we ignored that problem, we’d be failing in our responsibilities, just as those who signed off on Mark Lawwell’s appointment failed in theirs.

Even if he was the best candidate, the optics were terrible, and the club has done little to address the legitimate concerns.

There’s an old Russian joke that goes something like this; “Why can’t the son of a major become a colonel in the army? Because the colonel’s have son’s too.”

You seen the state of their military?

That’s what our club risks turning into if it ever adopts those attitudes.

I don’t deal in fantasy. I deal in reality. And in the various roles I’ve held over my life, it was immediately clear that we created a massive rod to beat ourselves with the moment Mark Lawwell’s appointment was announced. From that point on, people were never going to be convinced, and legitimate questions were always going to arise.

The club never made the slightest effort to answer those questions. That failure may have been the gravest mistake of all. It’s not just the decision itself—it’s the refusal to explain it or defend it, it was presented as a fait accompli, as a “like it or lump it” … and some of us didn’t like those options.

Since the decision has unquestionably cost our club both time and money, both valuable resources, those questions are just as legitimate as they were at the time.

Frankly, we’re entitled to ask them and it’s those who don’t want to give straight answers who come off looking and sounding ridiculous here.

The perception they allowed to grow—that the club is a little friends’ cabal, a private enterprise for Desmond, Strachan, Lawwell & Sons—is unhealthy. No institution benefits from being seen as a bastion of nepotism, run on the principle of who you know rather than what you bring to the table.

We wanted a credible, significant figure in a critical role, and it’s fair to question whether Mark Lawwell was that person. I won’t apologise for raising those questions, and Joe McHugh deserves commendation, not condemnation, for doing so today.

And he did it at the AGM, where the shareholders – which Joe McHugh is – are legally entitled to put them to the board, and it’s the only time in the calendar year when this actually happens. To express his contempt for the question in the way the chairman did today is unconscionable.

He should consider whether or not he still has the temperament for that role since he doesn’t seem to enjoy the scrutiny that goes with it.

Joe also asked about officiating, specifically whether the board agreed with Brendan Rodgers’ view that John Beaton is incompetent.

It’s a fair question. If the board disagrees with Rodgers, they’re undermining the manager. If they agree, why hasn’t the club publicly backed him on this issue? We all said at the time that we know Rodgers is speaking for the club, and he put himself in the crosshairs as he did. Why won’t they confirm that?

Joe’s questions about youth development were equally valid. The evidence suggests it has been a failure in recent years, a point this site and others have been making for a long time, an issue we’ve covered in detail including Joe’s question about whether or not our players can develop in the blood and thunder of the Lowland League.

Our youth setup is plagued by mediocrity, outdated ideas, and a lack of ambition. This is not a new thought. We’ve been saying it for a while. Recent appointments show signs of progress, but it will take time to clean out the Augean Stables and build a development system worthy of the ultra-modern facilities we’ve invested in.

Joe wasn’t the only one treated with disdain today. As far as I’m concerned, the chairman’s comments express a contempt for fan media as a whole, except that which never asks the hard questions or prefers to lob softballs. It was only Brendan Rodgers who gave his best efforts to answer questions thoughtfully. The board’s approach—dismissive and condescending—stands in stark contrast to the value fan media provides.

We do much of the spadework they won’t. We challenge the hostile narratives in the press. We push back against those who wish the club ill. We don’t need thanks, praise, or rewards for this work. But we do deserve respect for asking the questions that matter to fans.

There’s a brilliant line in the first instalment of Nolan’s sublime superhero trilogy when Gordon says to Batman, “I never said thank you,” and Batman responds, “And you’ll never have to.”

That’s how we feel about what we do for Celtic. We don’t do it for recognition or a seat at the table. We do it because we love this club.

When the board dismisses us, they’re dismissing the idea that these questions deserve answers, and it all comes back to that arrogance again, that arrogance that “we make the decisions and your job is to agree with them.” Well, that’s not our job at all.

Today’s AGM was, on the whole, more positives than negative. A lot of good came out of it. Many questions were answered in ways I found satisfying. The chairman’s statement struck the right tone in several areas, which I’ll discuss tomorrow.

That said, I’m furious at how my colleague Joe McHugh was treated.

The chairman dismissed him as a crank, which nobody in the fan media should tolerate. Hell, if you want to talk about the cranks, the club could point the finger at several mainstream media types who they refuse to combat … preferring to leave that to us. This attitude towards fan media—towards legitimate questions—would be a more fitting response to those whose illegitimate questions and brazen attempts to cause trouble are tolerated at press events every other week.

As a result, I’ve told the club to remove me from the fan media rotation. I’ll continue doing what I do—writing independently, without fear or favour—but I refuse to play along with a PR charade designed to maintain appearances. If the club wants to treat us with contempt and disdain, that’s their choice. But it’s a hypocritical stance and they know full well that it is.

We in the blogosphere will keep holding the club accountable. We’ll keep asking the questions that need asking and speaking out when things go wrong. And more than that, we’ll keep on fighting the clubs corner whether the club appreciates us or not.

I wrote earlier today about the positive direction the club has taken over the past year. I hope that continues. But that doesn’t mean I’ll support every decision or ignore issues I believe require scrutiny. The board’s refusal to answer some of these questions speaks volumes. They don’t believe we’re entitled to know, and that is unacceptable.

We don’t want thanks. We don’t want pats on the back.

But a little respect for asking the tough questions? That’s not too much to ask, because of course that contempt extends far beyond the fan media writers … it extends to, you, the readers too and that’s where I really get pissed off with it.

Joe did the job today … for all of us. He asked a lot of the questions we’ve been asking and want answers to. I cannot applaud him enough for it.