Celtic was not embarrassed yesterday. An elitist billionaire was.

Celtic has described yesterday’s protest at St Andrews as an embarrassment and claimed that the club’s reputation has been damaged. But I have to ask a very simple question: how exactly has Celtic Football Club been embarrassed?

Because, as far as I can see, the protest was not directed at Celtic Football Club. It was directed at one man: Dermot Desmond, the prick of pricks.

And that distinction matters.

Celtic itself was not standing on the fairway at St Andrews yesterday. The Celtic team was not there. The Celtic support, as a collective, was not there. Celtic Park was not there. One man was there, and it was one man who became the target of an angry protest.

So, when Celtic says that its reputation has been damaged, I find myself asking whose reputation we are actually talking about.

Because if a shareholder is criticised, does that automatically mean Celtic Football Club has been criticised? If the principal shareholder is protested against, does that automatically mean the club has been attacked?

And if supporters are furious with the way the club is being run, are they somehow no longer entitled to express that anger simply because the person they are angry with happens to own a significant part of the football club?

I think this is where Celtic’s statement becomes incredibly revealing. The club says: “Celtic Football Club has never sought to prevent supporters from expressing criticism of the Club, its Board or its shareholders.”

Fine. I actually welcome that sentence.

Supporters should be able to criticise the club, the board pricks and its shareholders. They should be able to question decisions, protest peacefully and demand accountability. That is not an attack on Celtic. That is part of being a supporter of Celtic.

But then the statement moves on to describe what happened at St Andrews as a “significant and unacceptable escalation”. And this is where I think we need to stop and examine the language very carefully.

Because what exactly has escalated?

The frustration among Celtic supporters has been building for a long time.

It has been building over the boardroom structure, the lack of visible leadership, recruitment, football operations, managerial decisions and the direction of the club. It has been building over the relationship between the people who make decisions and the supporters who finance this football club year after year.

That frustration did not magically appear at St Andrews.

It has been sitting there for a very long time.

And I would argue that the real embarrassment for Celtic is not that one shareholder was confronted. The real problem is that the club seems incapable of understanding why supporters are so angry in the first place.

There is also a very important difference between saying, “Celtic Football Club has been attacked,” and saying, “A Celtic shareholder has been protested against.” Those are not the same thing.

Yet increasingly, I get the impression that some people inside Celtic Park have forgotten the difference. And perhaps that is the biggest problem of all.

The problem seems to be that one man thinks he is Celtic, and too many people on the board seem to agree with him.

Dermot Desmond is a major shareholder. He is not Celtic Football Club. Michael Nicholson is the chief executive. He is not Celtic Football Club. The board is responsible for running Celtic. The board is not Celtic Football Club.

No individual owns the identity of Celtic. No individual owns the history, the memories, the songs, the tears, the celebrations, the heartbreak, the European nights, the trips to Celtic Park or the generations of families who have followed the Hoops.

Celtic belongs to something much bigger than the people sitting in the boardroom.

That is why I find the language of yesterday’s statement so frustrating. If the club wants to condemn unacceptable behaviour, then condemn the behaviour. If someone crossed a line, say so. If there was intimidation or criminal conduct, deal with it properly.

There should be no argument about that.

But do not then wrap the entire incident in the Celtic badge and tell supporters that “Celtic has been embarrassed” simply because somebody protested against Dermot Desmond.

Because I do not accept that equation.

I can be embarrassed by something done in Celtic’s name. I can condemn something done by a Celtic supporter. I can believe certain behaviour is unacceptable. But I can also understand the anger that produced a protest without pretending that the target of that anger and Celtic Football Club are one and the same thing.

That distinction is absolutely essential.

I am a Celtic supporter. When I criticise the board, I am not criticising Celtic. Quite the opposite. When I demand better leadership, better communication, better football operations and greater accountability, I am doing it because I care about Celtic.

When supporters protest against the people running the club, that does not automatically make those supporters enemies of Celtic. Sometimes it means they care enough about Celtic to refuse to remain silent.

That is the uncomfortable truth the board needs to understand.

And perhaps this is why the club’s statement has irritated so many people. It feels as though Celtic is once again attempting to blur the line between the institution of Celtic and the individuals who currently control it.

I do not accept that. I never will.

Dermot Desmond is not Celtic. Michael Nicholson is not Celtic. The Celtic board is not Celtic.

Celtic is Celtic. Which means that the fans are Celtic.

The football club is bigger than every individual who passes through its boardroom, and supporters have every right to remind those running it of that fact.

So yes, if what happened yesterday crossed a line, condemn the conduct. But do not tell me that criticism of one man automatically damages Celtic’s reputation.

Perhaps instead ask why that one man has become such a powerful symbol of supporter frustration. Perhaps ask why supporters feel increasingly disconnected from those making decisions. Perhaps ask why the same questions keep coming back.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the board should stop behaving as though defending the reputation of Celtic means defending the reputation of the people who run Celtic.

Because those two things are not the same.

Until the pricks at the top understand that, I fear they will continue to completely misunderstand the anger coming from the stands.

Celtic is not one man. Celtic is all of us. It’s just that those at the top have either forgotten that or never realised it in the first place.

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