Pat Nevin Did The Right Thing – Now What About Everyone Else Who Went After Celtic?

Everyone who went after Celtic during the extraordinary aftermath of last season’s title victory should now face serious questions.

Pat Nevin has finally apologised for wrongly claiming that Celtic supporters punched Lawrence Shankland during the celebrations at Celtic Park.

He had to apologise. It was the minimum required after making such a serious and inaccurate allegation on national radio.

Nevin is an experienced broadcaster. Therefore, he should understand the damage caused when an unverified claim reaches a national audience.

By the time an apology arrives months later, the original accusation has already shaped public opinion.

That is why this cannot end with Nevin.

Why did so many people go after Celtic?

The speed with which commentators went after Celtic was remarkable.

Serious allegations quickly replaced one of the most dramatic title victories in the club’s history as the main story.

Ally McCoist spoke about people mentioning “corruption” and “cheating” following a controversial Celtic penalty decision.

He presented those words through conversations he claimed to have had with other people.

However, was that simply a convenient method of introducing explosive language without accepting full responsibility for it?

Was he reporting other people’s outrage, or using their alleged comments to express thoughts he also shared?

McCoist’s popular “cheeky chappie” image should not protect his comments from proper scrutiny.

When words such as corruption enter a football discussion, the person introducing them must expect difficult questions.

Tony Bloom later appeared on talkSPORT and claimed Hearts players had been assaulted during the Celtic Park celebrations.

What evidence had been established before those allegations received a national platform?

Jim White appeared to accept Bloom’s account rather than immediately demanding details or proof.

Would such claims against another support have been accepted so readily?

More importantly, why did the correction and subsequent uncertainty never receive the same volume of coverage?

Were Celtic judged through a different lens?

Derek McInnes also helped intensify the atmosphere surrounding Celtic.

He later received an SFA punishment over his comments following a separate Celtic penalty decision, although that sanction entered an appeals process.

Instead of lowering the temperature, McInnes continued to defend his position.

Was that responsible leadership, or another example of outrage becoming more valuable than measured analysis?

Keith Jackson’s so-called missing-minute theory added another layer to the controversy surrounding the title decider.

Yet where was the same energy when questions began emerging about that interpretation?

Kris Boyd’s reactions to favourable Celtic decisions have also become increasingly predictable.

Why does almost every major decision benefiting Celtic appear to produce anger rather than calm analysis?

Is that balanced punditry, or does his emotional connection to the Ibrox club affect how he discusses Celtic?

That question is unavoidable when the pattern appears so consistent.

Similar concerns exist around BBC Scotland.

Its football coverage regularly features former Ibrox players, including Steven Thompson, Billy Dodds and Neil McCann.

Former players are fully entitled to work as pundits. However, where is the comparable range of strong Celtic voices challenging their opinions?

Tom English also attracts regular criticism from Celtic supporters who believe his coverage treats the club with suspicion.

Are all these individual examples merely coincidence?

Or does Scottish football coverage contain a cultural lean that becomes especially visible whenever Celtic succeed dramatically?

That is a legitimate question. Broadcasters should answer it rather than dismissing supporters who notice recurring patterns.

The Celtic board abandoned its own supporters

The weakest response came from Celtic’s board.

While pundits, journalists and club officials shaped the narrative, Celtic’s leadership remained largely silent.

Supporters were later told that silence formed part of a strategy.

What strategy allows accusations against your own supporters to spread without a firm public challenge?

It looked less like strategy and more like cowardice.

The board left ordinary Celtic supporters to examine footage, challenge claims and defend the club’s reputation.

Those supporters did the work their highly paid executives should have done.

Meanwhile, the controversy overshadowed a magnificent Celtic achievement.

The team had secured the league through a thrilling late goal during an unforgettable afternoon.

Yet celebration quickly became accusation, anger and condemnation.

Pat Nevin’s apology cannot reverse that damage.

However, it should force every person involved to examine their contribution.

Were facts established before claims were broadcast? Were Celtic treated fairly? Did old loyalties influence the tone?

Will the same voices apply identical standards when controversy surrounds the Ibrox club this season?

Those questions will reveal whether anyone learned anything.

Nevin has apologised because his claim was wrong.

Now everyone else who went after Celtic should explain whether they still stand by their own words and coverage.