Celtic board condemned by Keevins – loyalty is no excuse

Hugh Keevins has supplied another answer to those who dismiss Celtic board criticism as the noise of a few restless supporters.

In his latest Sunday Mail column, published by the Daily Record, he describes a hierarchy who “have no idea how to run a modern club”.

That is a devastating assessment from an established mainstream columnist. Supporters have raised these concerns for years. Now the criticism reaches well beyond the terraces.

I have little time for Keevins. Too often, I find his punditry clownish: sensational claims, theatrical certainty and an apparent determination to remain relevant. His treatment of O’Neill does nothing to change that view.

However, I can reject his performance while recognising the force of his boardroom criticism. Why should the manager answer for the entire institution?

Celtic board criticism reaches beyond the support

Keevins is adding his voice to an existing argument.

David Friel’s Scottish Sun column challenges Celtic’s recruitment and football structure. Chris Sutton has questioned why Michael Nicholson leaves O’Neill facing difficult public questions without visible boardroom support.

Bernard Ponsonby’s PLZ Soccer interview raised concerns about European ambition and leadership. Meanwhile, Charlie Methven’s Business of Sport analysis questioned the business model itself.

These are different voices with different perspectives. Their criticisms overlap on preparation, accountability and direction.

That does not establish unanimous agreement across the media. It does make the suggestion that only disloyal supporters see a problem increasingly difficult to defend.

Supporting Celtic does not require defending its directors

I have supported Celtic for more than 40 years. I have attended games, watched every match I could and invested an enormous part of my life in this club.

Nobody gets to erase that because I criticise Dermot Desmond or Michael Nicholson.

Celtic is an institution with a history, a community and an identity. Its directors hold positions of responsibility within it. Their decisions deserve scrutiny precisely because those decisions affect something we love.

I can want every Celtic player to succeed while questioning recruitment. I can back the team throughout a match and demand better leadership afterwards.

Those positions are entirely consistent.

The phrase “happy clappers” rarely improves this discussion. Supporters who defend the board remain fellow supporters. However, treating every criticism as betrayal closes down debate and gives those in power protection they have not earned.

Loyalty cannot reasonably mean surrendering your judgement.

Domestic trophies cannot excuse European failure

Celtic’s domestic honours deserve recognition. They do not settle every argument about how effectively the club uses its resources.

After three Europa League defeats, Celtic sit 35th out of 36, without a point. Before that came the 5–1 defeat at LASK, surrendering a four-goal aggregate advantage and losing the tie 5–4.

We should expect a credible challenge in this competition. Instead, European nights increasingly bring dread.

The Lisbon Lions’ achievement remains untouchable. The present leadership should answer for how poorly today’s Celtic honours that ambition.

The supporters helped build Celtic’s platform

Celtic’s modern advantage did not materialise through Desmond alone.

Fergus McCann drove the stadium redevelopment. Supporters backed the share issue and have sustained the club through generations of ticket purchases and spending.

That contribution matters whenever fans are told simply to be grateful.

The Celtic board should explain its football strategy, recruitment structure and measures of European progress. Nicholson should communicate. Desmond should face scrutiny.

My support for Celtic is unconditional. My approval of those running Celtic must be earned.