Mondays Meeting

It's about the story that came out where supposedly Rodgers was working his ticket. It was meant to have been leaked by a board member, AKA Lawwell.

 

Hahahaha "closed case" regarding the leak?

* off. Knew that would be the case as soon as there was talk of an "internal investigation" regarding it.

Internal investigation would've went something like this:

MN: It was you right enough eh Peter?

PL: Aye

MN: Cool. Case closed. No telling anycunt.

 

See the thing I don’t get in all this is they are finance driven people. Like all of the decision makers, Desmond, Lawwell, other non exec Board people.

Since COVID we had played in CL 3 of the 4 seasons, our finances have been transformed.

In terms of financial performance:

1. Our cash at the bank has gone from £16.6m to £77.3m so we have retained £60.7m of profits as cash in the club.
2. Taking our last season in the EL to last year our revenue grew from £88.2m to £143.6m so an increase of £55.4m or 63% increase. Yes expenses have increased from £91.7m to £117.1m so £25.4m, 28% increase so our income increased by more than twice the rate of our expenses.
3. We have managed to sell players each year for record fees and had 3 of our top 5 sales during that period. Likely we could have done even better had we let Maeda go.
4. The assets on the club balance sheet have gone from £178m to £262.6m so a £84.6m increase in balance sheet value in 4 years.
5. Pre tax the club has generated £110.3m profit in 4 years, largely fuelled by CL revenues.
6. Last season we had record performance in all three revenue pillars (or at least within £28k when it comes to merchandise sales).

Yeah we could have arguably spent our money more wisely on signings, but by and large the club has been financially transformed by being in the champions league.

So, why when presented with a two legged tie against Kairat Almaty or Slovan Bratislava, an open goal in European qualifying, why wouldn’t you spend £15m to capture at least £30m more in revenue? Especially knowing you could sell a Maeda and Yang to recoup £20m+ if it doesn’t go well or even in advance.

Their decision making makes absolutely no sense. It is self defeating for their purpose.

Even refusing to sell Maeda and Yang has probably cost the club about £12m in what we could expect to get for them in January.

To come out and say that you have no regrets about how that summer window goes makes absolutely no sense.

 

My point along. It isn't about money its about incompetence. Maeda+ cl money is +70mill..if we had been anyway organized our business would have been done and we would have easily negotiated kairat, then let maeda go with his replacement already in the building. It's like some within the club are trying to tie Nicholson and Rodgers hands behind their back

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

I think where maybe not all about money there is an element of all this being about risk aversion and not wanting to speculate at all even when it makes sense to do so.

On Nicholson, the more you hear the more you reach the conclusion he is in a token position. Other than title and salary he isn’t a CEO, he’s there so Lawwell could continue to basically be CEO, with Nicholson handling the administration. Someone who is massively out of his depth.

Rodgers has his flaws and player recruitment is a massive one for him but a functioning football team would recognise that and have someone in to cover that flaw and get deals done. I actually think in terms of talent identification we have some capable people at the club, we have been linked with guys like:

- Malik Thiaw
- Michael Olise
- Ardon Jashari
- Archie Brown
- Vini Souza
- Alvyn Sanches
- Gustav Isaksen

Mostly guys who have then in a year or two that followed went on to have big seasons and some then went on to make really big moves. There will be plenty more we don’t hear about. But this inability to do a deal is killing us in the market to the extent we can’t even sell players when a good deal is on the table.

 

I agree with all your points. I don't buy the risk aversion part though. Nobody was demanding big Engels/idah type signings. People just wanted what was essential for the team to somewhat function, people wanted to be able to field a average team. Going into that playoff it was glaringly obvious we lacked creativity at right and left wing, especially if maeda was being used centrally.a touneki level player at right and left wing in for the kairat game and we are playing champions league football this season. Would have strengthened our hand in maeda negotiations too and made us a much more attractive option for incomings towards the last week or so of the window.. we all would have snapped your hand off for a nil all v kairat away from home, the problem was we should have been going over there with a 3/4 goal lead.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

Similarly I agree with that above but the risk aversion part is the only way I can explain why we constantly do what we do in the market. Almost we don’t buy players in case someone better or we could get a better deal somewhere. It is mental.

That line that we have had European Group stage football for 19 of 20 seasons is just mental. We are all but guaranteed it for now, to use that as an argument for success, when it really is the bare minimum is insane and shows how out of touch these people are. In the last 13 years we should have been looking to make CL at least 10 times instead of 7 as we have basically had no real challenger for the league apart from maybe in 3 of those seasons where Rangers went beyond their means again.

It’s as if they accept bang average as being where we should be. The other problem is the incompetence of doing deals.

 

Also our messing of our own players around.. the model is the model and maeda should have been out the door in the summer just like two or three players should have been coming the other way

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

Totally agree, I don’t think we really have a model that we actively pursue. We should have actively been looking to sell Maeda in the summer his age, contract status, fact he told us he wanted a move, his value would have never been higher.

We have let the squad go somewhat stale as we have too many players that have been here too long and by their sell by date. Hatate is another prime example there. Even Kenny, we had money on the table for him, we should have negotiated a deal to move him on as he’s never making it here and Yang is in this boat too.

When we sold Kuhn that money should have been reinvested in 2 or 3 players right away. We could then have let Maeda and Yang go and brought another couple of players in.

We went into the CL qualifiers playing a front 3 with two guys with a foot out the door and someone that is away. As you say imagine actually having a fresh and hungry new forward line for that tie.

 

Isn't Strelec the secong prospect weve lost who claimed negotiating was too hard as WE were using an agent?

Who is this * "agent"?

 

If the measure of success was only about being a successful business, then the board are great. However we are first and foremost a football team and we fall down there. Winning domestically has been easy this century, taking the next step hasn't happened because of short sightedness. One step ahead of our glasgow rivals seems to be what satisfies our board and biggest shareholder, but not the fans. It has to change, soon.

 

He’s the buffer between BR and PL due to the frosty relationship in the past. The issue is, if they don’t have direct contact then they can’t make progress together with their relationship.

 

https://celtsarehere.com/inside-celtics-monday-meeting/

Paul Thompson, who attended on behalf of the Collective, shared his account of the discussion in the Jock Stein Lounge at Celtic Park — the same meeting which has since produced two very different public statements from the club and the fans’ group.




Fans are awaiting the minutes of the meeting being released, with both sides of the table taking their own minutes from the meeting.

Thompson, appearing on his RGC Podcast, said:






The meeting itself, very civil, very generally even tempered, I’d say. There wasn’t any raised voices at all, which was quite surprising, apart from a couple of guys had to raise their voices to speak over the noise that was coming from the air conditioning units in the bar at the Jockstein Lounge, but I wouldn’t say it was convivial.

“It was quite formal, it was quite definitely clear that there was a degree of discomfort, and probably from our side as well as theirs, because there’s obviously been a lot of emotion in there the last few weeks, but it was, I guess, without going into the massive amount of detail on it, it was just a real disappointment.

“We looked at it from the perspective that we wanted to to take each question that was posed in the open letter, and effectively that served as the agenda, those seven questions which everybody’s seen and read, and that the board had decided not to respond to, but to be fair to them, they did have responses to each of the questions last night, if you could call them responses, but they were very laboured, very slow to address any actual action.




There was no real commitments, maybe one commitment towards the end which we could pick up on, and it was really a case of, yeah, we think we do everything okay, guys, what’s your problem exactly?

“And it kind of was a recurring theme for the night was, you know, everything’s fine, and we’ve qualified for the group stages 19 times in the last 20 years, what are you worried about in Europe? You know, what’s the transfer policy?

“One of my favourites, which will come in the minutes, I’m sure, but the question around the communication strategy was answered by, ‘we put a statement in the AGM every year, and we also had Paul Tisdale, he did a presentation for 40 minutes at the Fans Forum once’, so that’s the communication football strategy to the wider support, and it kind of went on like that.

“It just felt like, I don’t want to get personal about it, because sometimes these processes need to be depersonalised, but the Chief Executive didn’t look like he was really particularly engaged or prepared for the meeting.

“The Finance Director was definitely more engaged and definitely more articulate in terms of the answers we got, not particularly detailed, but definitely articulate, and I think the challenge for the guys around the table at our side, and it was a big round table, if you want to picture it, we were all sitting around the table together, but the challenge for us was actually got to the point we were trying to get them to understand that we were trying to help them, rather than being adversarial and confrontational in any way.

“It was myself and one or two other guys going, ‘look, do you actually realise what you’re saying here? Do you realise the opportunity you’re missing here? Just give us something we can go back to people with and put their minds at rest that you’re actually in control of the situation’, and it was really difficult, it was like drawing blood of a stone, it was just constant references back to fans forums, the information that’s been provided before, stuff that we’re thinking of, stuff that we’re looking at, stuff that we could maybe communicate a bit better, if only we had a communications infrastructure we could use to do it guys, you know, it was that kind of thing, it was really, it was not becoming of conversations.”

Thompson’s description adds to a growing sense that the meeting, intended to calm tensions between the club and support, has instead highlighted the gulf in understanding between both sides.

His comments echo the tone of the Collective’s official statement, which accused the club of a lack of accountability and claimed “no tangible outcomes” were achieved.

 

My guess is as follows:

Strelec’s agent reached out to us to see if we wanted to buy him. Sometimes an agent will reach out with a deal ready to go and it’s so desirable we’ll just go for it (Nerlinger with Kuhn), other times the amounts won’t be agreed or they will be too high (Strelec, for example).

In that case, what Celtic should do is negotiate in the normal way and either conclude the deal in a day or two, or politely walk away.

Instead what I think happens is we go back to the agent and say something like, “We can’t do £8m, can you see if they’ll take £4m”

So the agent now goes back to the club and tries to see what he can do, they come back and say they want £7.5m and a sell-on. Nicholson now sends an email to ‘the board’ and gets authorisation to offer £4.2m, but it takes like 2 days.

You can imagine he’s also doing this for A.N. Other striker at the same time, so the process is even slower and maybe we finally get movement on one deal so we just ghost the other one since it’s taking so long anyway.

From Slovan’s point of view the process of dealing with us is obviously ridiculous but since it’s all done through the agent, it comes out as, “They’re dealing with agents” as if that’s the delay. The reality is it’s the way Lawwell/Desmond/the board or whoever insist on being updated on every offer and micromanaging ridiculously low offers and modest increases.

 

According to DR....
Essentially the message is, unless it's a fans 'match day' issue - * out and stay in your lane. Gaslighting at its worst.

But Hoops officials hit back with a statement and said: “We acknowledged that the Club is not where we want it to be at the moment, that we have not achieved all of our objectives in the summer transfer window and the Champions League, and that mistakes have been made from which we will learn.

"We recognise the concerns raised, share the frustrations of our supporters and valued the opportunity to hear from supporters last night.

“Our immediate objective is to seek to make progress, without negatively impacting on the team on the field of play, and that we continue to focus on delivering success this season.

“We intend to issue minutes soon, but outputs from the meeting included a commitment to seek to ensure supporter involvement in meetings with Police Scotland regarding the Fairhurst Report, the review and development of supporter engagement processes, and progressing a new safe standing working group.

“The Club offered to continue to meet with supporters’ organisations moving forward and is committed to ongoing dialogue with our wider support.

“We have always engaged in regular discussions with supporter groups and will continue to do so, with the aim of ensuring that we can work collaboratively and positively in the best interests of our team on the pitch and our Club as a whole.”

 

MEETING OF CELTIC FC AND SUPPORTER GROUPS MONDAY 06 OCTOBER 2025 (18.00) CELTIC PARK, GLASGOW Attendees: Club Attendees: Michael Nicholson (CEO) Chris McKay (CFO) John Paul Taylor (Supporter Liaison Officer) Mark Hargreaves (Head of Safety and Security Operations) Kevin McQuillan (Head of Commercial Operations) George Campbell (Head of Legal and Governance).

Supporter Attendees: Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs: · Alan Horne · Ann McElhinney Association of Irish Celtic Supporters Clubs · Gerry McDonnell · Mick Hurley Celtic Disabled Supporters Association · Mark Henderson · Clare Byrne Celtic Fans Collective · Steph McGinn · Paul John Dykes · Kev Toner · Paul Thomson · Paul Quigley · Andy McGregor · Michael Gallagher · Ross Bready · Martin Macauley · Martin Gemmell Celtic Supporters Association · John Andrews · Joe Gallagher Celtic Trust · Paul Wilcox North of Ireland Supporters Clubs · Martin Gilmore · Seamy Darragh
Agenda:
The meeting had no fixed agenda, with the Club welcoming questions from attendees.
Minutes:
It was agreed that joint minutes would be drafted after the meeting and thereafter circulated following approval by the Club and represented Supporter Groups.
Welcome:
MN opened the meeting and thanked everyone for attending, confirming that the Club are aware of issues that supporters have raised and wish to discuss with the Club. Concerns have also been raised with the Club about the potential for impact on the team on the pitch. The Club has arranged the meeting to discuss a way forward. The Club invited the recognised representative supporters’ groups to attend the meeting, as we have done in the past, most recently in relation to the Fairhurst report. The Club received a response this morning with further attendees from the Celtic Fan Collective, and the Club is keen to make progress and to make arrangements work this evening. MN acknowledged that the Club is not in a place where we would want to be and that some recent communications have not been well received by supporters. The Club wants to find a way forward, which allows us to seek to address concerns, while backing the team on the pitch. We respect that everyone is entitled to their view, and we would hope that we can discuss respectfully. We are going to have differences, but the fundamental we all share is that we want success for Celtic and we want the team to win. The Club wants to find a way forward. MN then asked if there were any thoughts on the meeting from the attendees.

Opening Comments from Supporter Attendees:

Representatives of the Supporter Groups agreed with this objective, and the desire for increased fan engagement going forward. PQ expressed the supporters’ desire for a further response to the seven questions that have been published. The creation of the ‘Celtic Fan Collective’, together with the objectives of this group, was explained, with representatives highlighting the support they have received in recent weeks and outlining the diversity of signatories and participants. It was noted that Celtic Fan Collective represents a wide range of individuals and opinions, but that there is a united demand for change amongst the Collective, including in relation to personnel (noting the roles of Chair, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer), strategy and execution, and accountability of the Celtic plc Board to the supporters. The 2025 summer transfer window and the Club Statement which followed was noted as a flashpoint for the Celtic Fan Collective along with the lack of preparedness of the team for European qualifiers (noting that the Club had failed on the last five occasions to qualify via UCL qualifying rounds). The Celtic Fan Collective do not believe that the Club is currently operating in a way which reflects its desire to be “world class in everything we do”. This had led to an expression of unhappiness at the direction and leadership of the Club. It was noted that the fans collective did not feel that a CEO who was perceived to be not communicating with supporters publicly could hold such a position. The Celtic Fans Collective noted that they hoped the meeting would bring about tangible results, and that they were looking to begin good faith engagement with the Club through honest explanation. The Collective reaffirmed their right to protest and made clear that, in the absence of tangible progress, they will continue to advocate publicly for reform and accountability. While many of the fan reps had met with the Club on various occasions over the years, it was noted that this was a new approach and a declaration by supporters that we can’t revert to ‘business as usual’.






Supporter Concerns
MGe highlighted his duty to supporters within their group to further request answers to the seven questions they had put forward and queried why the questions had not previously been addressed.
MN confirmed that the Club was aware of the questions, together with similar correspondence received by email directly to Club colleagues. MN confirmed that the Club did not believe it was appropriate to respond in writing at the time the seven questions were first published. CMcK noted that it is difficult to explain all the variables in written form. MGe asked why Club wouldn’t utilise video and speak to supporters directly instead. Following meetings with supporter organisations on Friday 05 September 2025, it was understood that there was desire for the Club to address supporters’ concerns regarding the transfer window. Club engagement with supporter groups was also discussed more generally, with MN highlighting a number of meetings with supporters’ groups, the Fans Forum and the AGM. Engagement with media on footballing matters was also discussed, with MN confirming that the football manager comments on footballing matters.
MN then addressed the Statement released on behalf of the Celtic plc Board dated Saturday 07 September 2025, which was intended to address some of the specific issues discussed at the preceding meetings. MN and CMcK acknowledged that the Statement was not well received, noting that this further highlights the importance of having these discussions with supporters to provide further context. The meeting also acknowledged more general concerns regarding the tone and delivery of the Statement and how this was viewed by supporters as insulting. MN confirmed that this was not the intention of the Statement. MN reminded CFC that they do not speak for all supporters and confirmed that some supporters defended the Club Statement. When asked why there was no signature on the Statement, MN declared this was normal practice and the Statement was released on behalf of the board.
MN confirmed that the Club was happy to discuss the questions raised to seek to make progress, but some issues (including the removal of directors) are matters for the Board and shareholders. The importance of maintaining confidentiality was discussed, together with the impact of this obligation on the Club’s ability to share confidential information relating to the Club’s business affairs, including individuals and transfers. Supporters Groups confirmed that they sought to understand the Club’s strategy, rather than details regarding specific transfers or reported potential transfers.






Question 1: What is the Club’s long-term footballing strategy, and when and how will this be communicated to supporters?
MN confirmed that the Club’s strategy is clear – the Club aims to be a world class football club in everything we do. This includes footballing success through dominating in Scotland and competing in the UEFA Champions League, based on creation of UCL players through the academy, player recruitment, player trading, technical functions and development of training facilities. The importance of the Club’s self-sustaining business model was highlighted, noting that this has provided the necessary funds to invest into the required facilities and structure, with an example given of the development of the Barrowfield and Lennoxtown training facilities over the preceding 2 years, representing an investment totalling over £20 million. MN noted that this strategy is communicated via the Club’s Annual Report, the Fan’s Forum (adding that the Club’s Head of Football Operations, Paul Tisdale, has presented to the Forum on Football 3 Operations), through on-going dialogue with supporters’ groups and, in part, through the Club’s Statement on 07 September 2025.
CMcK sought clarity from the Supporters Groups regarding their concerns and asking for confirmation if such concerns related to the strategy itself or the execution of the strategy. It was confirmed that both were relevant. Supporters argued that there is a prevailing sentiment within the fanbase that the strategy is Rangers plus one. There is no recognition from supporters of the Club as meaningfully aiming to be world class. MN and CMcK both said “Rangers plus one” this is not the Club’s Strategy.
MGi suggested that the club lacked players to improve the squad. He also noted the challenge around the B team league and the lack of a reserve league. MN noted the points already discussed regarding communication methods, highlighting the recent Chief Executive report in the Club’s annual results, which noted the successes and also acknowledged that the Club did not achieve all of its objectives in the summer transfer window. PQ asked when the Club last achieved its objectives in a transfer window. MN noted that the Club had had success in transfer windows, and accepted that we had got things wrong, but that the Club cannot get involved in commenting on individual players. MN noted that two key concerns had been raised by supporters during the transfer window: timing of transfers and the level of investment relative to cash reserves, and that the Club accepted that its communications on these issues had not been well received.
MN noted that player recruitment is something the Club continually assesses but cannot necessarily share publicly. MN confirmed that the Club had invested in players for the short, medium and long term. Supporters felt short-, medium- and long-term recruitment in theory looked scattergun in practice, citing the 2023 and 2025 summer windows as strong evidence of this. When asked if the Club has identified what went ‘wrong’ during the summer transfer window, MN confirmed that an internal process of review is ongoing, which will focus on what went right and/or wrong and examine this against relevant factors, including the players’ personal career objectives, the selling/buying clubs aims, agents, taxation (Belgium and Germany tax systems were compared with UK) as examples of the variables at play, amongst others.
Supporters acknowledged these various factors but highlighted their opinion that the Club does not complete its business ‘early’ in the transfer window and is therefore not ready for UEFA qualifying matches and sought a response from the Club as to why transfers are not conducted sooner. MN sought to reassure attendees that the Club’s objective is to complete its transfer business as soon as possible in the transfer window (with the examples of Kieran Tierney and Benjamin Nygren highlighted), and to attract the best players available to the Club within that window – and that the Club’s model allows for investment to be made when needed. The Club did not accept that there is a disconnect between the board and the manager or that transfer policy needs a fundamental overhaul.
MGi asked whether the Club would look at using ex-employees in the way that other clubs do (such as Ajax). MN noted that the Club is open to all suggestions.
MN noted that the Club heard the need for better communications. The point was made that it is not just communications that were the problem but the strategy itself. MN noted the performance in the UCL last season as well as the number of trophies that had been won as evidence of the Club’s performance. MGe said the nature of Scottish Football means Celtic have a licence to play in Europe every season, and one of the reasons for Celtic entering Group stages automatically last season was our rivals’ European performances rather than our own. MN disagreed and PQ pressed on whether he felt results in Europe were satisfactory, 4 MN felt they were, referring to qualification for group stage football in 19 out of 20 years. The view was expressed that if the Club thinks that the level of performance is acceptable then that is a concern. The Club maintained that the strategy was broadly working but there are things we can do better.
Supporter Groups noted their concerns regarding the development and/or acquisition of Champions League ‘ready’ players, together with concerns that players are being identified and acquired by the Club’s football recruitment team and thereafter not making their way into the first team squad. MN noted that he cannot comment on specific players, but that the Club looks to the short, medium and long-term for player acquisitions as well as through the academy, and the Club’s objective and strategy is to continue to improve its operations in this respect. The Celtic Fan Collective noted that it was believed that the current First Team squad largely centred around ‘first team ready’ players that were acquired under the Club’s previous manager, and that there was a belief amongst supporters that more recent acquisitions were not of a similar calibre.
Discussions also centred around the question of whether the Club’s strategy is accurate insofar as it refers to the creation of UEFA Champions League players. CMcK highlighted some of the Club’s most successful homegrown UEFA Champions League players and the role that both coaching and facilities at an academy level has in player development, referencing the importance of the Club’s recent Barrowfield redevelopment. The importance of a stable domestic season was also highlighted insofar as this provides opportunities for the First Team Manager to introduce academy players. MN said our performances in Europe last season followed on the application of the Club model over a number of years. MGe said that last year’s performance was an anomaly. A brief discussion took place amongst Supporter Groups regarding comments directed at both former and current players on social media. This factor was understood by MGi to be a consideration in players leaving the Club, other supporters disagreed.





Question 2: Why has there been no investment in critical positions despite repeated pleas from the manager, obvious weaknesses in the squad, and calls from supporters?
It was noted that this question had been discussed as part of the discussion on question 1.








Question 3: What accountability measures are in place for repeated failures in transfer dealings?
Accountability to fans in relation to transfer activity was discussed, with MN noting that the executive and footballing teams are accountable to the Celtic plc board. MN restated the importance of maintaining confidentiality regarding transfer dealings, but noted the desire for further communication regarding strategy and would take this forward.
The Celtic Fans Collective sought commitments from the Club regarding disclosure and transparency of internal review processes and future improvements, and sought to clarify if any individuals will be removed from their position following the summer transfer window. CMcK stated that the Club would not communicate on the detail of individuals’ performance. MN reiterated that it was accepted that the Club did not meet some its objectives in the most recent window, and that the Club would carry out an internal review and implement learnings moving forward. PQ asked whether the Club can take broad lessons and then outline what these are. CMcK stated that the Club will think about how best it can communicate. Frustration was expressed that “we will look at this and come back to you” is the “same old story” and 5 further that it is not just a question of communications, it is a matter of what will change. Whilst specific details regarding review processes and future improvements could not be shared to the extent requested due to the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of Club operations and not prejudicing its position within the market, MN committed to the continued review of fan communications with a view to providing further information to supporters in an appropriate manner.
Discussion then turned to the accountability measures currently in place within the Celtic plc Board. The Celtic Fan Collective noted the tenure of a number of non-executive directors and the election of the Club’s former Chief Executive as Chairman, noting that many within the group believe that this is not appropriate from a Corporate Governance perspective. Other supporters echoed these comments, noting the designated maximum tenure in line with the UK Corporate Governance Code. Supporters also highlighted the importance of independence, asking if it was believed all NEDs remained independent notwithstanding their length of service.
CMcK advised that the Club adopts the QCA Code, which now requires all Board members to stand for election annually at the Celtic plc AGM. MN added that the matter of independence is also assessed by the Board as part of the annual board governance process. He also noted that whilst he recognised some supporters believe individuals have been in their role for too long, there was value in maintaining stability and experience in a sector as volatile as football.
The view was expressed that the last increase in ST prices when the Club has money in the bank and there is a cost-of-living crisis shows there is not meaningful engagement. Also, the manager had criticised the transfer strategy and the Club Captain had said that we need bodies.
Ticket pricing was discussed within the context of wider fan engagement and consultation, with Supporter Group representatives noting that recent UEFA match prices for concession tickets (£45) were unacceptable. The rationale for this pricing was requested. CMcK confirmed that pricing was in-line with both the Club’s pricing for both UEFA Champions League ‘League Phase’ matches and matches against Rangers FC last season. CMcK said this offered value to season ticket holders. CMcK also noted that the Club’s four-match package for Season Ticket Holders is the cheapest UEFA Europa League package in the UK. MGi asked that the Club consider a concession price for Europa League tickets outside the package uptake. CMcK confirmed that the Club will continue to look at pricing and take supporter feedback into account.
RB said that explanations given by the Club at the meeting mirrored information already provided at a fan forum earlier in the year, and this prompted concerns that fan input wasn’t being taken seriously and would undermine representatives when feeding back to their members.
The Collective described this as another example of the Club’s disconnect from its fan base, stressing that working-class supporters should not bear the financial burden of poor board decisions.











Question 4: How do you intend to modernise the Club’s structure to compete in Europe, and why are we consistently unprepared for qualification stages?
MN stated that the Club did not accept the premise of the question. Further, MN noted that the Club had appointed Paul Tisdale as the Head of Football Operations, a new position for 6 the Club, last year, and had also created a new role of Professional Pathway Manager for Darren O’Dea. After Darren O’Dea left, the Club had appointed Shaun Maloney in this role.
Supporter Groups also reiterated their desire for continued communication and engagement so that the wider supporter base understand the steps the Club is taking to develop its strategy, it being noted that some supporters do not believe that current arrangements (e.g. B Team, no reserve league) are suitable, and highlighting the loss of youth players to English teams at a young age. MN noted that this was a good example of the transfer factors discussed earlier, and that the increased movement of youth players to England is linked to Brexit, which led to the UK being ‘locked out’ of European markets, and Scotland locked in a market with England. MN and CMcK explained that these changes had been a factor in developing the new roles of Head of Football Operations and Professional Pathway Manager and to undertake the recent development of the Club’s Barrowfield facility. MN highlighted that these developments all tie into the longer-term strategy to develop players going forward.
The Club were asked to confirm who is responsible for conducting football transfers – including if the Chief Executive and CFO were directly involved in the same. Supporter Groups also sought confirmation as to who ‘values’ players and agrees commercial terms. CMcK explained that a multi-disciplinary approach is taken. This approach is led by the football department who identify players, with the executive team concluding transactions. This was noted by MN as not being unusual within football clubs. JG asked if the football manager sanctioned all signings, MN confirmed that he did. MGe asked why the Manager referred to some signings as ‘club signings’ – MN shrugged his shoulders.
Discussion turned to the valuation of players. MN and CMcK explained how the process operates, and which factors are considered – including the needs of the selling (or buying) Club, the player’s personal desires, time left on the players’ contract etc. When asked about applicable ‘ceiling’ on player costs, MN confirmed that valuations forms part of the overall discussion regarding a player and the evaluation of said player against all relevant factors and relative prices within the wider market.
Supporter Groups questioned the involvement of NEDs within the transfer process. CMcK and MN confirmed that player trading above certain financial values require approval from the Celtic plc Board (with such approval thresholds are standard practice amongst businesses). Supporter Groups questioned how this approval was sought and CMcK confirmed board members would be emailed for final approval but would be aware of the background in advance.
The meeting discussed the Head of Football Operations role and the recruitment thereof, with confirmation sought as to whether a recruitment process was followed and if other candidates were interviewed, whether there was any pre-existing connection between the Clubs’ current Head of Football Operations and any Celtic plc board members and whether the football manager was involved.
CMcK confirmed that the Club spoke with several potential candidates that had been identified but that there was no external recruitment consultancy appointed. MN confirmed that there was no family or business connection between the current Head of Football Operations and Celtic plc board members, but that individuals had crossed paths previously. MN confirmed that the manager supported the recruitment of Paul Tisdale following a consultancy period last summer. CMcK confirmed that Paul Tisdale had worked on a project in which he analysed the Club’s game model with a view to mapping the Club’s playing style and system with a view to using data driven results to identify players who fit the Club’s model.










Tabloid News Story

MGe raised serious concerns regarding the alleged leak to The Sun, and it was suggested this was a grave breach of trust and professionalism. The Club was asked to address this following the summer transfer window, which the Football Manager had commented on publicly. When asked why no formal investigation had been launched. MN noted that allegation was based on an unnamed source allegedly speaking to an unnamed source at the Club. There is a lot of speculation printed in the tabloid press. The matter had been discussed with the Board and with the Football Manager and the matter was closed. CMcK said all board members had been asked about the article, and there was no basis for further investigation. CMcK also mentioned that the newspaper source was a ‘senior figure’ which may not necessarily have been a board member. The Football Manager confirmed that the matter was closed in his next press conference. MN noted that the Board understands the importance of confidentiality. When asked why the Club had not taken legal action against the newspaper, MN confirmed that the Club would not take legal action in relation to speculation and said that the Club was “busy enough as it is”. CFC reps argued that this approach was dismissive of a concern of fans.














Question 5: When will supporters receive the results of the ‘fan survey’ conducted over a year ago, and why have these not yet been released despite being in the Club’s possession for several months?
The meeting discussed the Celtic ‘Fan Survey’ conducted in summer 2024, and the timelines for publication of the same. MN confirmed that a report outlining the outputs of this survey will be released by the Club soon, noting that key issues which the Club wishes to consult on further included supporter engagement and safe standing. The supporters expressed concern that the delay undermines transparency and accountability. The Club indicated the survey would be published in October. KMcQ noted that the volume of data and the number of open ended questions in the survey resulted in an initial set out outputs that were not suitable for public release due to the complexity. The reasons behind this were discussed, together with the need to engage a third party to format the results in a manner suitable for public release. KMcQ confirmed that the final report will seek to ensure that the data is presented in a clearer, understandable and useable format. KMcQ acknowledged that a number of learnings have been taken from the initial Fan Survey, and the Club would take a different approach if it were to conduct such a survey again. These learnings will be taken into consideration when planning any future or similar engagement of this type. The delay in publication was also discussed, with KMcQ highlighting that many of the questions put forward in the Fan Survey are not time-dependant as they relate to stadium infrastructure, match day experience etc. Notwithstanding this, there was an acknowledgement that fan sentiment had changed which may impact people’s views on the Club at this time. KT acknowledged the humility shown by KMcQ in addressing this and supporters expressed this as being entirely different to how other discussions had proceeded and reflected the approach supporters hoped to see when discussing other aspects of the Club.
Dialogue regarding the Fan Survey were also linked to discussions regarding the Club’s Digital Strategy and the development of a club app. It was noted that some of the colleagues involved in the Fan Survey are also involved in such other projects. This gave rise to questions from Supporter Groups regarding resourcing within the Club, and if a lack of resource is, in part, why the Club is seen to be ‘under pressure’ in several areas. MN noted that several projects were being progressed across the Club and confirmed that the Club has been, and is currently, undertaking an operational review to ensure that the correct resources and structures are in place.









Question 6: Why have the results of the Fairhurst Inquiry not been made public, and what action will the Club take to protect supporters from unlawful and disproportionate policing in the future?
The meeting discussed the report produced by Fairhurst in respect of the incident on 16 March. The Report was criticised by MGe on the basis that the language used was ‘soft’ and did not give a fair overview of the incident, nor did it have any clear conclusions. This was compared to the more emotive language used in statements or comments regarding fan behaviour. MN noted these comments and explained that the Club had engaged Fairhurst to collate the feedback from supporters and that the language used in the report was based on the feedback received. The purpose of the report was to pull the feedback together so that the Club could present it to Police Scotland, which is what the Club has done. MN noted that the Club has made it clear that it shares the concerns raised by fans regarding the events of 16 March. MN confirmed that the Club has shared comments directly with Police Scotland and that a meeting has been requested to discuss.
MGe requested that a representative from one of the groups in attendance (FAC rep in particular) join the meeting between Police Scotland and the Club. MH confirmed that this would be requested, but that it would be for Police Scotland to confirm. MN and MH committed to making this request. JA suggested police would be open to meeting with supporters and have expressed desire to do this previously. MGa said there was no need for Club to ask for permission and expected Club to be more forceful with police re fan representation. MGe requested that if Police Scotland decline this that the Club challenge this publicly.
There was a further discussion regarding the specifics of the events on, and leading up to, 16 March, including Police Scotland’s engagement with the Celtic Supporters Club on London Road. JG witnessed the events first-hand and acknowledged the severity of the police actions – he made clear he was not affiliated to GB or any other supporter within the kettle. He also discussed the unprecedented attention his premises had received from Police Scotland in the run up to the weekend. It was highlighted by MM that there has been an uneasy and uncomfortable relationship between the Club and the Police for many years, therefore a fan representative being part of this meeting is important for fans. MN confirmed that one of the Club’s objectives from this exercise is to improve relations between the Club, the supporters, and Police Scotland. 8 MH confirmed the proposed meeting is likely to take place at the end of October. MH will request that Police Scotland permit a fan representative to attend.










Closing

All attendees were thanked for their time. Representatives from several Supporter Groups noted that they will now need to feed back to their respective organisations before outlining any proposed next steps. PQ closed by reiterating fans unhappiness at how the meeting had gone and felt as though responses to almost all queries were unsatisfactory. Discussions were candid and wide-ranging but ultimately failed to produce any concrete outcomes or commitments from the Club. PQ explained that the meeting had been disappointing to fan reps in attendance and that no meaningful progress had been made. CFC would report back to signatory organisations. MN acknowledged the frustrations amongst attendees insofar as the Club was unable to offer direct answers to some questions due to confidentiality. MN reaffirmed the Club’s commitment to reviewing supporter engagement and communication, as well as safe standing and the Fairhurst review. MN reiterated that the Club wants to find a way forward and offered further meetings with supporter

 

That MN line on question 3 that the club executive are answerable to the Celtic PLC Board, where that is true is a very tone deaf line.

It practically jumps off the page, as to say the fans have no authority and why would we answer to them?

 

That Monday didn't produce any tangible positive outcome is and was not a surprise to me at all. But I do have to admit still been surprised at how badly the board handled Monday. I thought they would at least try to bluff their way through it and make all sorts of vague promises. Instead they basically told us run along nothing to see everything is fine. Added in they dismissed the backstabbing hit piece on Rodgers as nothing to see either. I am absolutely done with Desmond, Lawwell, McKay and Nicholson. They have absolutely no creditability at all in terms of running Celtic. They are in fact IMHO dangerous to our future as long as they remain in place Celtic will go nowhere as a clear expect probably backwards.
I don't profess to know what next steps we should be taking as fan base but I know I am done with Celtic until Desmond, Lawwell , McKay and Nicholson are gone. Not a cent will I spend on the club while they remain.

 

I mean at least there an open dialogue and a group they cannot ignore.. like they the way they dismiss the GB..

Its about trying to stay united, they'll definitely try the 'divide & conquer ' route..

Reading the minutes its clear Nicholson doesn't get it, at all.. the European Group stage football line, * off..

 

JG asked if the football manager sanctioned all signings, MN confirmed that he did. MGe asked why the Manager referred to some signings as ‘club signings’ – MN shrugged his shoulders.


MGe said the nature of Scottish Football means Celtic have a licence to play in Europe every season, and one of the reasons for Celtic entering Group stages automatically last season was our rivals’ European performances rather than our own. MN disagreed


The matter had been discussed with the Board and with the Football Manager and the matter was closed. CMcK said all board members had been asked about the article, and there was no basis for further investigation.
When asked why the Club had not taken legal action against the newspaper, MN confirmed that the Club would not take legal action in relation to speculation and said that the Club was “busy enough as it is”.


There is clear issues within our boardroom as if we didn't know that already whether it be self preservation or no appetite to rock the boat, there is a clear chasm between the manager and the board and the quote about European football above MN is delusional if he believes it is not the case.

Reading through the minutes it seems to be they acknowledge their communication is * but any sort of answer to any question raised will be communicated at a later date through said * communication channels