Blaming Desmond for executive paralysis at Celtic is no longer tenable.

There has been a lot of talk online recently about how difficult Celtic is apparently finding it to fill senior executive and boardroom positions.

There have also been persistent rumours that people already on the Celtic board badly want to get out, but cannot because the club is struggling to replace those who’ve already gone. If that is true, there is an obvious reason why Celtic might be finding that difficult.

Anyone considering a major executive role at this club knows that his or her authority will ultimately be constrained by one man. They know their better instincts could be constrained by one man. They know any ambition they bring into the building could be constrained by one man.

And the simple fact is that genuinely ambitious executives may not be willing to subordinate their own judgement to his. They may not be willing to prostitute their own opinions, ideas and ambitions for Celtic to the man who currently dominates the boardroom.

It is entirely possible that some candidates have already walked away. It is possible that others have expressed interest but made it clear that they would want to do the job their own way, and that this alone made them unpalatable choices.

If that is happening, it says an enormous amount about the people who currently serve at the pleasure of the minority shareholder in Ireland.

Perhaps Celtic is not struggling to attract good executives. Perhaps Celtic is struggling to attract good executives who are willing to behave like they’re not.

Because there is an argument which keeps being made in defence of some of the people running Celtic, and I am becoming increasingly irritated by it.

Whenever questions are asked about Michael Nicholson, Chris McKay or the other senior figures inside the club, somebody inevitably says that they cannot really do anything because ultimately everything has to go through Dermot Desmond.

“We need Dermot’s permission.”

If that’s true, why bother to pretend to be what you’re not? If he wants to run it, let him run it alone. Let him appoint his nepo-babies and let them have it all. Because this is dysfunctional to an absurd degree.

Because this idea that Dermot Desmond’s power somehow absolves everybody underneath him of responsibility is complete nonsense.

In fact, I think it does precisely the opposite.

If the executives at Celtic genuinely cannot make important executive decisions without the approval of a non-executive director and major shareholder, then that is not an argument for leaving those executives alone. It is the best argument for getting rid of them.

These people have titles. They have offices. They have substantial salaries. They sit on the board of Celtic Football Club and occupy positions which supposedly carry enormous responsibility. Michael Nicholson is not Dermot Desmond’s personal assistant. Chris McKay is not employed to wait beside the telephone until Dublin calls.

These are senior executives of Celtic.

I have no difficulty believing that Desmond wields enormous influence inside this club. You would have to be wilfully blind not to see where the ultimate centre of power has resided for years. But his influence is not some supernatural force which removes free will from everybody else sitting around the boardroom table.

There is nothing physically preventing an executive director from disagreeing with Dermot Desmond. There is nothing preventing somebody saying, “No, this is the wrong decision.” There is nothing preventing an executive insisting that his professional judgement is heard, forcing a discussion around the boardroom table or demanding that a decision is properly considered rather than simply nodded through.

Ultimately, there is nothing preventing somebody from saying: “If I am expected to hold this title while being denied the authority required to perform the job, I will not remain in it.”

That option always exists. Even for cowards. Even for greedy, grasping cowards who have spent so long taking things out of Celtic that they’ve forgotten what it’s like to give something back.

That is why “we need Dermot’s permission” is such an utterly pathetic defence. It asks us to believe that highly paid senior executives should somehow be treated as though they are powerless junior employees whenever responsibility arrives at their door.

We are supposed to imagine them sitting helplessly at Celtic Park, knowing perfectly well what needs to be done but tragically unable to do any of it because Dermot has not waved the magic wand. I don’t buy that.

And even if it is true, it does not help them.

Because if Michael Nicholson knows what Celtic needs, believes strongly that it should be done and repeatedly allows somebody else to stop him from doing it, then at some point you have to ask how Michael Nicholson has the brass neck to continues to be chief executive and draw the salary that goes with the job.

He’s not a yes man. He’s worse than that. He’s a well-paid mug who allows himself to be held up like a human shield or used as a punching bag. The money is good, but isn’t that a soul-destroying way to live your life every single day?

If Chris McKay believes the financial strategy is damaging the football operation but continues implementing it anyway, why is he there?

If other directors believe Desmond exercises an unhealthy degree of control but continue sitting around that boardroom table, approving the structure and collecting whatever rewards come with their positions, why should I regard them as victims of it?

They have choices. They can challenge him. They can organise against him. They can persuade other directors. They can force votes, register objections, threaten to resign or actually resign. They can walk out of Celtic Park and explain exactly why they felt they could no longer discharge their responsibilities properly.

That, in turns, gives choice back to the fans; what do we do about it?

What they cannot do is remain in those jobs year after year, accept the status and authority which supposedly accompany them, and then hide behind Dermot Desmond whenever the consequences of the decisions made under their watch become impossible to ignore.

You cannot take the title and surrender the responsibility.

And this brings us directly back to the difficulty Celtic may be having in recruiting senior people. Because imagine you are an ambitious executive looking at one of these jobs.

You have spent your career developing judgement, experience and expertise. You have ideas about how football organisations should work. You want authority over the areas for which you will supposedly be held accountable.

Then somebody explains the Celtic model. You can have the title. You can have the office. You can have the responsibility when things go wrong.

But when a really important decision has to be made, you may have to wait for the approval of a man who is not the chief executive.

Why would the best people accept that? Why would somebody with confidence in his or her own ability walk knowingly into an executive role where independent judgement is subordinate to one dominant personality? And if the answer is that the best people will not accept it, then what sort of people will?

That question should make everybody extremely uncomfortable.

Because suddenly the long-term problem becomes obvious. A structure like this does not simply suppress the people already inside it.

It selects for the kind of people willing to tolerate it. Over time, the people who refuse to subvert their judgement simply do not come. The people who insist on genuine authority walk away. The people who say, “If I am going to be judged on the outcome, then I need the power to make the decisions,” become unacceptable.

And what remains?

People who know how the system works. People comfortable operating inside it. People who understand that there are limits to how far they can push. People willing to accept the prestige of the position without demanding all of the power which ought to accompany it.

That is how bad governance perpetuates itself.

If that is genuinely Celtic’s operating model, stop presenting the rest of these people as serious executives. Call them what they are. Functionaries.

But I don’t believe it is quite as simple as Dermot Desmond sitting somewhere issuing instructions. I think something much more insidious happens inside organisations dominated for years by one powerful personality.

Eventually, he does not have to issue instructions. People already know what he thinks. They know what he likes. They know what he doesn’t like. They know what kind of spending will meet resistance and what kind will get approved. They know which arguments are worth making and which ones are likely to be rejected.

So they adapt. Before long, nobody has to tell them no because they have learned to tell themselves no.

You stop proposing the ambitious deal because you already know the likely response. You structure the transfer strategy around what you believe will be acceptable. You stop challenging assumptions because challenging them has never got you anywhere.

You hire people who understand the rules. You promote people who fit the culture.

And eventually everybody knows how the organisation works without anybody having to write it down. That is how informal power becomes institutional culture.

And that is why the recruitment problem, if these reports are correct, matters so much. Because the culture begins reproducing itself.

The people most likely to challenge it do not get appointed. The people most likely to demand genuine autonomy never get through the door. And the people who remain are exactly those willing to work within the limitations imposed from above.

At that point, Desmond does not even need to dominate every individual decision. The structure does it for him, and that is far more damaging than one man simply issuing orders because by that stage the entire organisation has internalised his preferences.

And if that is what has happened at Celtic, the executives are not absolved. They are part of the mechanism. There comes a point where compliance becomes complicity. That point was passed a long time ago.

Celtic has just endured another catastrophic European qualification failure. We have watched transfer windows drift past with obvious weaknesses unresolved. We have watched opportunities disappear, players leave without proper replacements, deals drag on needlessly and targets disappear elsewhere while this club sits on financial resources most of our opponents can only dream about.

Somebody is responsible for that. It cannot always be “somebody else.” The guy in Ireland may be as used as he is using of these people. Because they can defer decisions, they can hide from responsibility, they can fail on every level and they know that they can simply blame him and nobody will ever challenge that narrative.

At some point the buck has to stop somewhere. If it stops with Desmond, everybody underneath him has to ask why they continue serving a structure which they know does not work. And if it doesn’t stop with Desmond, they should cease using him as their shield. And I know that some of them do use him for that.

That is the trap in this argument.

There is no version of it which exonerates the executives. If they agree with Desmond’s strategy, they are responsible for implementing it. If they disagree but lack the courage to challenge him, they are responsible for that cowardice. If they challenge him privately, lose every argument and continue in office anyway, they are responsible for lending their names and credibility to decisions they believe are damaging Celtic. If they genuinely possess no meaningful power whatsoever, they are responsible for remaining in senior executive jobs whose titles are therefore a fiction.

Pick whichever explanation you like. None of them functions as a defence. And I am especially tired of hearing this argument from people who simultaneously want us to believe that Celtic is an exceptionally well-run company.

You cannot have both. You cannot boast about professional governance, financial discipline, executive expertise and stability while also telling us that everybody has to run along and ask Dermot before making major decisions.

Either this is a functioning board in which directors exercise judgement and carry responsibility, or it isn’t. If it is, hold all of them accountable. If it isn’t, tear the structure apart and build one which actually works.

But spare me this middle ground where everybody gets the salary and nobody gets the blame. That is precisely the culture which has infected Celtic for too long.

Managers are accountable. Players are accountable. Coaches are accountable. Supporters are endlessly told about their responsibilities. Even the people in the stands are lectured about behaviour, expectations, patience and what constitutes proper support.

Yet somewhere near the top of the building, accountability apparently evaporates.

There is always an excuse. There is always somebody else. There is always Dermot. Well, if Dermot really is the explanation for everything, these people should have confronted that reality years ago.

People keep asking what would happen if Nicholson told him no.

I have a better question. Why hasn’t he done it already?

If Nicholson believes the club requires £20 million of spending and Desmond says no, what happens next? Does Nicholson fight for it? Does he demand support from the rest of the board? Does he put his professional reputation behind the recommendation? Does he tell Desmond that refusing to act will damage Celtic?

And if Desmond still says no, what does Nicholson do?

Apparently, judging by the defence made on his behalf, he shrugs and carries on. Well, let’s stop pretending not to know that this is a choice too.

Walking away from a prestigious and highly paid job because somebody has made it impossible for you to perform properly takes courage. Staying is easier. Keeping the title is easier. Keeping your place around the boardroom table is easier. Keeping the salary is easier. Allowing supporters to believe the decision belonged to somebody else is certainly easier.

But none of those things makes you blameless.

There are moments in professional life when somebody has to decide what his name is worth. If you are the chief executive of Celtic Football Club and you believe the club is being damaged by decisions imposed over your head, eventually you either stop those decisions or stop attaching your name to them.

Anything else is acquiescence. And this applies just as strongly to the rest of the board.

If Dermot Desmond really exercises the level of control his defenders claim, why has an entire collection of supposedly capable, independent people tolerated it? Why do they continue standing for re-election? Why do they continue participating? Why does nobody resign? Why does nobody force the confrontation?

Why does nobody say that Celtic requires a different model?

Why does the same structure survive year after year?

Because eventually the obvious answer becomes difficult to avoid.

Maybe they are comfortable with it. Maybe their own interests have become their primary concern, rather than the good of the club itself.

Maybe a powerful figure making the ultimate decisions suits everybody else perfectly well because it provides the best arrangement imaginable: authority without ultimate responsibility. They get the offices. They get the titles. They get the status. They get the salaries. And when something goes disastrously wrong, somebody whispers that Dermot had to approve it before anything gets fixed.

What a wonderful system. Convenient for all involved.

For them. Not for Celtic.

And perhaps that also explains why replacing these people is allegedly proving so difficult. Because maybe candidates are looking at Celtic and asking exactly the questions all of these people should have asked before stepping into their own roles.

Will I actually have authority? Will my judgement matter? Will I be allowed to execute the job? Will I be able to build something?

Or am I being invited into a structure where somebody else retains the real veto while I retain the public responsibility?

A serious executive should ask those questions. A serious executive would ask those questions. And if the answers are bad enough, a serious executive walks away.

Which leaves another deeply uncomfortable question for the people already occupying these positions. If good candidates are refusing to accept these terms, why did you?

That question cuts right through every excuse.

If the conditions are so restrictive that ambitious outside candidates are unwilling to tolerate them, then the people who have tolerated them for years cannot suddenly present themselves as prisoners of circumstance.

They chose to stay. They continue to choose to stay. And every day they remain there, they endorse the structure through their presence.

And for the third time today, I’d like to address this to the executive box fans and the corporate hospitality types. These are the executives you drink with, speak to, sit beside and deal with commercially. The next time one of them tells you that a decision requires Dermot Desmond’s approval, don’t nod sympathetically.

Ask the obvious question.

Then what exactly are we paying you to do?

Ask what advice they gave him. Ask whether they opposed him. Ask how strongly. Ask whether they put their position behind it. Ask what they intend to do if the same thing happens again. Ask how many catastrophic failures they are prepared to put their names to while insisting privately that somebody else is responsible.

And if they tell you that Celtic is struggling to recruit people because nobody wants to work under those conditions, ask them the question which follows naturally from that.

Why are you still willing to?

Because access creates responsibility, and this is precisely the kind of bullshit which people with access should be challenging rather than repeating on their behalf. The rest of us do not get those conversations. They do. They should use them.

I want Dermot Desmond held responsible for his decisions. Absolutely. But we should not allow the existence of one powerful man at the top of Celtic to become a blanket excuse for everybody underneath him.

That is not accountability. It is precisely the opposite.

The executives of Celtic Football Club are adults. They are highly paid professionals occupying some of the most important positions in one of Britain’s biggest football institutions. If they are capable of doing those jobs, they are capable of taking responsibility for them.

If they cannot exercise their responsibilities because Dermot Desmond will not let them, then they should leave. If they will not challenge him because they are frightened of the consequences, then they need to leave.

If they agree with him, they should stop hiding behind him and defend the decisions themselves.

Those are the choices. There isn’t another one.

And if this structure is now so warped that Celtic cannot even attract ambitious replacements because ambitious people know they will not be allowed to exercise their judgement, then the problem is no longer merely Dermot Desmond. The problem is the entire system built around him.

“We need Dermot’s permission” does not save these people.

It condemns them.

Because the most damning question is no longer simply how Dermot Desmond acquired so much power at Celtic. It is why an entire board of supposedly serious people has spent years allowing him to keep it, and why the kind of people who might finally challenge that power appear to be precisely the kind of people Celtic struggles to bring through the door.

Choose The CelticBlog as a ‘Preferred Source’ on Google News for quick access to the news you value.