GLASGOW, SCOTLAND - FEBRUARY 19: Balls are thrown onto the pitch as part of a Celtic fan Protest during a UEFA Europa League Play-Off First Leg match between Celtic and VFB Stuttgart at Celtic Park, on February 19, 2026, in Glasgow, Scotland. (Photo by Alan Harvey/SNS Group via Getty Images)
There are a handful of questions that the Celtic Fans Collective gets asked over and over again. You see them in the papers, hear them on the radio and read them in comment sections and social media threads.
They usually come wrapped in the same weary tone, as if the person asking believes they’ve just delivered a devastating piece of logic that will bring the whole thing crashing down.
In reality, those questions reveal something else entirely.
They are not serious questions. They are lazy questions. More importantly, they only make sense if you misunderstand what protest movements do, what they are for and how organisations actually function. Let’s start with the most common one.
“Why protest now, when the team needs support?”
This one appears every single time.
It assumes there is some perfect moment when protest would be more appropriate. After the season. During the summer. When things are calmer. When the board isn’t under pressure. After results improve. After results get worse.
In other words, never.
And that’s part of how we got here; people wanting to put off hard choices.
Protests work because of timing. They rely on pressure. They rely on visibility and attention. If you want to draw attention to problems, you don’t act quietly in the off-season. You act when the cameras are on and people are watching.
Closely related to that is another familiar line.
“Aren’t you giving the opposition an advantage?”
This one tries to turn structural failure into an atmosphere problem. It suggests that the difference between winning and losing comes down to a banner, a protest or a few minutes of disruption. Let’s be honest. If a team gets beaten comfortably at home, the problem isn’t the protest. The problem is the team. We didn’t regress because of the protests. The protests are because of the regression.
That brings us to a broader category. The obedience questions.
“Why don’t you just get behind the club? If you love Celtic, why criticise it publicly?”
These questions only make sense if you believe the board and the club are the same thing. They are not. The board are temporary custodians. The club belongs to its history, its supporters and its future. Holding the people in charge accountable is not disloyalty. It is loyalty in its purest form.
In short, it’s because we love Celtic that we do criticise it. To see what happens when you slavishly accept everything the club tells you even when the evidence is mounting that all of it is delusional rubbish, look at what happened to Rangers. They blame Murray. They blame Whyte. None of them asks what they as fans could have done and the answer has always been pretty simple; ask questions, demand answers, hold people to account.
Next comes the consumer model.
“If you’re unhappy, why not just stop going? Give your season ticket to someone else.”
This reduces supporters to customers and treats football like any other product. It assumes the relationship is purely transactional. It isn’t. Celtic supporters invest emotionally, culturally and financially over decades. They don’t just buy a ticket. They build a relationship with the club. That gives them every right to demand that it is run properly.
Then there is the minimisation routine.
“What exactly are you protesting about?”
This question grates on me considering many of us have spent years reporting on recruitment failures, strategic drift, governance problems and ongoing disputes with supporters. I’ve spent much of the last couple of years terrified of the answer to one question; what happens to Celtic when these people no longer have a top class manager to bail them out? We’ve seen what happens.
At this stage, if someone still doesn’t know what the protests are about, the issue isn’t a lack of information. The issue is their lack of attention.
Another favourite focuses on finances.
“But the club is financially stable. What more do you want?”
That argument praises the balance sheet while ignoring the team sheet. Financial stability is the baseline. It is not the objective. Football clubs exist to compete, improve and progress. Stability without ambition is stagnation.
However, none of these questions comes close to the grand champion of lazy thinking.
The heavyweight title holder. The one that appears every single time.
“So, you want the board out. Who would you replace them with?”
At this point, many people think the debate is over. They believe they’ve landed the decisive blow. They haven’t. All they’ve done is reveal their own ignorance. In two ways. First, that question shows a complete misunderstanding of how organisations operate.
When a senior executive leaves a major company, the organisation does not grind to a halt. Finance keeps working. Recruitment continues. Operations carry on. Every department already has structure. It has managers and staff and systems.
The day-to-day work continues.
Meanwhile, the board does what professional organisations always do.
They appoint placemen to do the day-to-day work of directors and hire head-hunters to identify candidates. A longlist becomes a shortlist. Interviews follow. Due diligence takes place. Negotiations happen. Then a new appointment is made.
This is normal corporate practice. It happens every day across the business world. Supporters do not need to produce a ready-made replacement team before they criticise leadership. Celtic is a major institution; there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of well qualified candidates who could come in and run this club.
Nobody is suggesting it be run be the Collective nor any part of it. Nobody is talking about a board made up of ordinary fans hand-picked from the bloggers and punters in the Gallowgate and anyone who tries to paint the objective of all this as something along those lines is not ignorant, they are lying to you.
Modern governance relies on professional recruitment. It relies on structured searches. It relies on external expertise.
One of our strongest objections to how this club is run hinges on this precise point.
To answer the question in a different way, let me tell you who would be automatically excluded; anyone hired on the basis of who they know or who their daddy is. If we were presently run on that basis, we’d be far better off.
In fact, it’s doubtful we’d even be here.
That question survives because it shifts the burden. Instead of asking whether leadership has failed, it demands that critics solve the entire problem before they are allowed to speak. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest parts of this whole debate.
Then comes another familiar line, usually once protests gain attention.
“Isn’t this just a small noisy minority?”
This tends to appear shortly after protests dominate television coverage, trend online and become the main story around the club. Apparently, thousands of supporters and international media attention now qualify as a bit of noise made by a minority.
Wake up and read the room for God’s sake.
The recent Dundee game was played in front of a half empty stadium.
Anyone who thinks this is a minority is not paying attention.
Finally, we reach the lowest tier.
“What’s the point of protesting anyway?”
This question reveals a basic misunderstanding of how pressure works.
The purpose of protest is visibility. The point is narrative.
The point is to change the conversation from what the club wants to talk about to what supporters want to talk about and when European broadcasts discuss fan unrest, when national media ask what has gone wrong and when directors face uncomfortable questions, the protest has already achieved its primary goal. The discussion is the one fans want to have.
For years, the opposite happened. The board operated quietly. Problems were downplayed. Concerns were dismissed. Everything was presented as stable and under control. Protest breaks that illusion. It forces scrutiny.
That is why boards and institutions fear it.
Supporters do not organise campaigns, demonstrations and coordinated actions for entertainment. They act because they believe the club is drifting. They act because warnings have gone unheard. Most of all, they act because pressure is often the only thing that produces change.
The lazy questions ignore that reality.
They treat protest as the problem. They never ask why the protest exists in the first place. Once you ask that question, the conversation changes. It becomes a discussion about leadership. It becomes a discussion about strategy. We get a discussion about accountability.
And that is the conversation some people would rather avoid.
So the next time someone asks, “What’s the point?” the answer is simple. The point is that everyone is talking about it. The point is that the spotlight is on and the people running the club can no longer pretend everything is fine.
If the questions being asked feel uncomfortable, that probably means they are the right ones.
If people are squirming in their seats and resorting to the kind of naked emotional blackmail we got from the chairman last night … then yeah, these protests are having the desired effect. And all of us will be better off for it.
That’s what organised protests are all about James, bravely fighting against injustice and withstanding resistance and criticism from the powers that be.
E.g. Gandhi’s Salt March, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Tiananmen Square, Suffragettes.
Good points Danny, sacrifices have got to be made to overcome injustices, suffer now for a better future later.
All of those remarks shown in bold are shallow and flippant from anyone who utters them, they have no substance and could only come from people who are unaware, or prepared to ignore, what is going on in the background at Celtic.
Despite knowing just how incompetent our board barnacles are though, I still wonder just what effect the protests are having on these people, I fail to see any inroads being made, and I doubt the fact that they their squirming in their comfy seats. For do they even have a conscience to explore?
I don’t believe for a minute either that the protests do not affect the team, we are dealing with human beings here and MON would not have brought the subject up lightly, for of course they are affected, they cannot blot it out and give 100%, the vibes coming from the stands are both an encouragement and a comfort blanket for them, they need to feel the love only we can provide, but in that last game those vibes were non existent and the atmosphere was as flat a a pancake.
So while I agree that protests are needed, I am not convinced that the present methods are the answer.
The fans ars deeply divided here. 24,000 at the Dundee match is not solidarity in a game where there wouldn’t be much more than 40,000 without protests.
It’s the veil of secrecy is the problem. Neither the collective or the board is informing us what the sticking point is regarding the GB. What are the GB demanding and what are the board demanding? We dont want silence or snippets and rumours. The talks have taken place, why so cagey?
Lets get it all written down in black and white. Lets hear what was actually said!
The minutes of the last Collective meeting with Brian Wilson will be on the Collective’s websire soon. One staggering admission from Celtic was that: They informed us that they were not aware who made the decision to remove fan media access.
Cheers jrwalker, that’s good info. I always find the biggest problem in any dispute is misinformation. I would have had the minutes published before the Stuttgart game but I realise sometimes there can be issues with this. Sounds like fan media will be back shortly but I never saw that as major sticking point.
Any hope of the ultras giving the fans a look at the minutes of their meeting?
Clarity is the most important thing here.
Maybe the collective who the GB are a part of will give us the full transcript of that meeting also?
If you look at the protests from the boards point of view would you let back in a section of the support who want you sacked?
I am afraid Desmond is going nowhere although the CEO might resign and that’s it.
I think a decision has already been made to ban the GB for good.
The protest the other night did affect the team which pissed me off.
I disagree. A common ground can be reached to get the GB back in. It wont be unconditional though.
The collective are not asking for much.
There was 3 points.
1.They are asking for the removal of Nicholson, not Hargreaves not Wilson not anybody else.
2. They want Fan media reinstated
3. They want the GB reinstated.
I dont see a massive issue unless it is completely unconditional especially regarding the ultras.
I get the point about the fans having tickets removed for the offenses of a few but unfortunately that’s how football works. Feyennord had 10,000 removed v Celtic. Ultras throughout europe get section closures every week.
Predating the ultras, every English club was banned from europe for years because of the actions of a few.
We live in a health and safety culture, the ultras get a lot of leeway but they cannot threaten the safety of others whether its in the stadium or in the city streets.
Its a non starter.
Mr M. – I cannot see the Board agreeing to point 1. They might agree that MN is out of his depth and needs to be relieved of his duties, but they will be unwilling to be seen to concede this point to the Collective. If they did concede and appointed a replacement, how long before the Collective started agitating for the next CEO’s removal over a poor transfer window or the new manager they appointed?
I think it’s a mistake to focus on individuals (not because I think they are doing a good job). Better to focus on outcomes and when these fall short demand accountability and change. Our financial performance will suffer from the current on-field performances (everything from match day revenue to sponsor payments linked to success and UEFA TV monies) and I suspect that will shine more of a spotlight on MN from his board colleagues than any number of tennis balls.
I agree regarding its a mistake to focus on individuals but still an easy point to concede. He’s only on £17,000 a week. Many of our underperfoming players earn more. Im sure he would be persuaded to retire quietly for 2 or 3 million and we have plenty cash in the bank.
He hasn’t been performing well, is under constant scrutiny, it would be an easy option for him and the board. The fan media is easy to deal with also imo.
Easily your best article to date……clear succinct and on point.
However, the pressure being applied by the Collective should be divorced from the GB problem.
To me it’s 2 different issues and the board are hiding behind and only responding to the
GB’’s clamour for attention.
I never understood.why the Collective embraced the GB . It would have greater impact if the Collective dumped the GB and continued the focus on the actions of. the board.
They won’t be allowed back in any circumstances and drag the Collective cause down.
Yeah I’m convinced now Even going to take the tennis balls my Hun workmates threw at me on Friday morning while pishing themselves laughing to the game tomorrow
Obviously a boycott is the best way for the so called Collective to protest Cyas hello ??
Great article James.
It makes it crystal clear to any rational people still asking why thousands upon thousands of us who live for Celtic, feel the need to create a protest group.. because we want the best Celtic possible and we are getting nowhere near that… In fact we are being treated with utter contempt and its important we don’t stand for it any longer..As the great Paul McStay once said, Celtic Football Club is the fans, without them there is no club..
The old dictator, narcissist, golf fanatic is of course the main problem.. and we need him gone..Celtic supporters limited is a very good vehicle to attain more shareholding and buy as many of his shares as possible. I urge all supporters to subscribe. The campaign needs to be ramped up by David Low and his colleagues and urgently.
Hail Hail
I’m sure David Low was involved in the project aiming to buy over Wimbledon FC, change their name to Celtic, their strips to green and white and move them to Celtic Park — thus giving “Celtic” a place in the English league. Had that happened, I, and surely many others, wouldn’t have followed Wimbledon in fancy dress.
As vocal as I am about this shambles of a board and where we find ourselves, I think it is important that any changes are thought through — I wouldn’t be surprised if DD sold his shares to Tesco.
It is, of course, great if David Low and co can help Celtic supporters trace their shares.
On a personal note I was unhappy with the tennis ball protest. I believe it affected the focus of our players and in turn the result. Whilst the not another penny action will no doubt have an impact I believe focus on the sponsors would be better. Giant banners with Don’t Purchase Adidas Don’t Drink Magners or Don’t Bet with Dafabet being shown weekly on TV screens would have those companies pressurising the board. Just my thoughts to lessen the impact on the park.
Fantastic article which every supporter can use as a template answer to all these questions from those resistant to ambition and improvement.
I think you covered it all in there JF.Really impressive article.
I see you are getting some board apologist types in your comments now which is always a sign you are doing a great job.
Its comical watching their obvious tactics to split the Collective or weedle their way in by agreeing with the Collective’s/commenters aims but slowly trying to subvert them.
Volp I like your input on here. Though I often disagree with it I realise it is heartfelt and you come across as a good guy. Debate is healthy and you have to realise the support is split on this. Petty insults are not constructive though. Everyone wants this over and done with. It cant go on into next season. Even with entirely new owners and the board investing properly in the team, Celtic still has a duty to ensure CP is a safe place for everybody fans and staff.
The Dundee game the collective asked for a boycott. With no boycott there would have been around 40,000 fans, going by the crowds last season around the same stage when we were doing well in the UCL and cruising to another title.
With the boycott called there was still 24,000 there so a net of 16,000 stayed away in stadium that holds 60,000.
If you do the maths that’s 40% support for the boycott. There is a lot of work to do if you wish to convert the 60% and calling fans who have a different take on it, happy clappers and board apologists is not going to help the cause.
Make your point and get people on board with quality arguments instead.
I’ve obviously hit a raw nerve with my last comment, but why if you support the board don’t you like the term board apologist?
I don’t use it as an insult but as a descriptor.Surely you should be proud of that term.
Would you prefer board supporter instead?
Volp you are missing the point or maybe evading it. I’m not a board supporter for sure but I’m a realist. Board apologist and happy clapper is generally used as an insult on these pages if you dont mean it as such fair enough.
You never responded to the valid point that 60% did not support the boycott and I’m interested on your feelings on this. Do you consider the 60% that disregarded the boycott for the Dundee game as happy clappers and board apologists?
If so do you have a plan to get them on side…..surely we should be operating democratically and in solidarity?
When MON mapped out how the tennis ball protest adversely impacted his players, he cited his first spell when the likes of Juventus were “scared stiff” of playing at CP. He made the point that any successes came from the fans, players and management all fighting together for one cause. He noticeably did not include the board in that collective.
The board are lucky that Hibernian scored in the 88th minute today…
They are also lucky to have a good few away games now…
But they cannot run forever !