Friel tears into Celtic board over ambition that exists only in words
From David Friel to Ian Joy, wider scrutiny echoes supporters’ concerns over ambition, access and accountability.
Phillip Cooney 
The latest Celtic board criticism from David Friel in The Scottish Sun should make uncomfortable reading inside Parkhead.
His challenge is straightforward: where is the European ambition behind the boardroom rhetoric?
After another defeat, this time against Celta Vigo, I find myself asking something else. How many people must repeat the supporters’ concerns before those running Celtic accept that the problem extends upstairs?
The criticism has travelled beyond Celtic Park
Friel challenges recruitment, football structure and the gap between Celtic’s stated ambitions and their European performances. His dismissal of Jordan Lotomba’s signing is severe. However, the bigger issue is who assembled this squad and approved its direction.
He is far from alone.
On Business of Sport, former Sunderland and Charlton executive Charlie Methven has challenged Celtic’s financial priorities and leadership. The Sun reported his verdict: “There’s a total mismatch between the fan base and the directors”.
The Daily Record has also carried Methven’s criticism of investment decisions under Dermot Desmond. That is coverage of an outside assessment, rather than the newspaper adopting every accusation. Nevertheless, these questions are reaching a wider audience.
Meanwhile, Sky Sports’ reporting highlighted the communication vacuum back in August 2025. Peterborough owner Darragh MacAnthony urged Celtic to explain their decisions to supporters.
This debate has been building for some time.
Across the Atlantic, CBS Sports Golazo’s Ian Joy has questioned Celtic’s decline. We have also examined Chris Sutton’s latest reaction.
Different voices. Familiar concerns.
The significance of this Celtic board criticism is its reach. A football business podcast, an American broadcaster and Scottish newspaper columns are examining questions supporters have raised repeatedly. None can promise change. Together, however, they make it harder to dismiss the argument as the grievance of one section of the support. The board should answer the substance, whoever asks the question.
Supporters deserve answers, not exclusion
Video Celts now reports John Higgins’ frustration. His concern is longstanding. Speaking on BBC Scotland in December 2025, he described “the whole cloud that’s hanging over the club”.
Supporters understand that cloud. We see a huge stadium and generations of loyalty, yet struggle to identify a convincing football plan.
We are not demanding guaranteed European victories. We are demanding preparation, coherent recruitment and an explanation when those things fail.
Instead, fan media face exclusion. ACSOM documented being shut out of Wilfried Nancy’s unveiling while the conventional press attended. Its October podcast publicity still describes a prolonged ban.
Why should supporters have to rely on approved access routes to hear questions they want answered?
Critical reporting deserves access regardless of the outlet. Fan media deserve fair, transparent accreditation too.
What is the board so afraid of?
Desmond’s influence must face scrutiny
Following the St Andrews tennis-ball protest, Celtic produced a forceful statement and announced sanctions. The club said it supported constructive engagement and condemned intimidation.
But where is the comparable urgency in explaining European regression?
Michael Nicholson and Chris McKay should answer for the strategy they oversee. Martin O’Neill should face football questions, but his reputation cannot become permanent cover for decisions made above him.
Desmond is Celtic’s principal shareholder. He does not own its identity, history or supporters’ loyalty. Neither does Ross Desmond.
The supporters sustain this institution. Their voices cannot matter only when tickets, merchandise and renewals need selling.
Will wider scrutiny move Desmond? Nobody knows. Influence without effective challenge can appear untouchable.
That makes persistent, peaceful pressure essential: questions at shareholder meetings, transparent supporter representation and published objectives against which directors can be judged.
Celtic’s board must explain its failures and change the decisions behind them. The supporters have waited long enough.
