Celtic fan media does not exist to cheerlead failing directors.

One of the more interesting takeaways from last night’s meeting between Celtic Fan Collective representatives and the board was the brief discussion around fan media and why its current position is under review.

Most regular readers will know that I was part of the fan media rotation for a time. I withdrew from it after the treatment of Joe McHugh at the AGM a couple of years ago at the hands of our chairman, Peter Lawwell.

I took the view that if the chairman of the club could be so openly condescending towards one fan media outlet, then the club clearly had little respect for fan media as a whole. In those circumstances, there was simply no point taking part in what appeared to me, and always had, to be something of a charade.

Nothing that has happened since has persuaded me that I was wrong.

If the club is now telling the Celtic Fans Collective that certain fan media outlets have “stepped over the line”, or that fan media requires review because of critical commentary, then I find that deeply troubling.

If they have specific outlets in mind, they should name them. Those people can then step up to the podium and collect their medals. My only question would be this: if some outlets have crossed the line, what exactly are the rest of them waiting for?

Let’s be clear about something.

It is not the job of fan media to act as cheerleaders when people inside the club are failing.

The club is what we support. The club comes first.

It matters more than any player, any manager, any director of football, any executive, any chairman or any absentee shareholder. When the actions of any of those people threaten the club, then it is our responsibility to say so. If people inside the club would prefer that we didn’t, then that is simply too bad.

Fan media exists to hold those inside the club to account. That is the job.

Yes, we report on injuries, signings, tactics and team selection. Yes, we analyse performances and debate decisions.

But when everything else is stripped away, our role is simple.

We are the last line of defence for the club itself. Sometimes that means protecting Celtic from people inside its own walls. Our job is not to become another layer in an internal echo chamber. If the board does not understand that, then they do not understand supporters at all.

There is not a single fan media outlet that has not defended Celtic and fought its corner. Some of us have done that seven days a week, 365 days a year, for a very long time. We challenge false narratives when they appear. We call out journalists whose coverage consistently undermines the club.

Fan media stand with Celtic in disputes with officialdom and in battles with sections of the media.

The club has not always objected to that support.

On occasion, it has relied on it. When messages needed to circulate informally, fan media helped carry them. When the club needed the supporter base to understand a position, fan media often played a role in communicating it.

That is why the current tone feels so misplaced.

There is a great episode of The West Wing called Constituency of One. In it, Josh Lyman challenges his girlfriend Amy Gardner for pursuing her own agenda while working inside the administration. He tells her that when you work in that building, you serve a constituency of one: the President. Amy replies that she also serves a constituency of one: herself and the principles she believes in.

The problem at Celtic is that some people inside the club appear to have made the same mistake. They have come to see themselves as the constituency of one. They have started to confuse what suits them with what serves the organisation.

These people are custodians, not the club.

Fan media serves a constituency of one as well.

That constituency is Celtic Football Club itself, not whoever happens to sit in the boardroom at any given time.

We are not here to protect egos.

We are not here to tell executives that everything is fine when it clearly is not. It’s not our role to defend poor decisions or failing leadership. The people running Celtic are not Celtic. They work for the club. They work for the support. When they fall short, it is our responsibility to say so.

If they insist that a process has remained unchanged for twenty-five years, then it is our job to point out that the industry has changed dramatically in that time. Football evolves. Recruitment evolves. Structure evolves. If Celtic does not evolve with it, then it falls behind. If the board does not like hearing that, then the problem is not with fan media.

This is not unusual. People who hold positions of authority for a long time often begin to see themselves as the institution. Their perspective narrows. Their egos harden. Criticism starts to feel personal.

But when fan media criticises the club right now, we are not attacking Celtic as an institution. We are challenging their stewardship by questioning their leadership. We are highlighting failures that sit on their watch.

If that crosses some invisible line, then that line exists only in their own minds.

Their attitude is not about protecting Celtic. This is about their discomfort with criticism.

Well, hard lines.

They are not Celtic. They never will be.

The sooner they understand that fan media serves the institution rather than the individuals running it, the sooner some of these tensions might begin to ease.