Dermot Desmond Must Attend Celtic’s AGM — No More Hiding Behind His Son or Martin O’Neill

There is one person supporters need to hear from at this year’s AGM, and it is not Martin O’Neill, Michael Nicholson or Ross Desmond.

It is Dermot Desmond.

For too long, supporters have been expected to accept decisions made behind closed doors, statements issued from above and explanations delivered by people who are not ultimately accountable for the direction of this football club.

That cannot continue.

Desmond has enormous influence over the club. If he is prepared to involve himself in major decisions, publicly criticise managers and defend the board, then he must also be prepared to face the supporters and explain those decisions.

The Celtic Fans Collective have now called on him to attend the 2026 AGM in person and answer questions about his role. It is a demand that should be supported by every supporter who wants greater accountability at Celtic.

And this time, he cannot send his son to do the talking for him.

Last year’s AGM was an embarrassment. Dermot Desmond did not attend, instead having his son Ross deliver a statement on his behalf. The meeting descended into chaos, with shareholders reacting angrily to comments about supporters before proceedings were eventually abandoned.

Ross Desmond’s appearance did absolutely nothing to improve the relationship between the board and the support. In fact, it made an already fractured relationship considerably worse.

The Celtic Trust has since called for an apology over the incident, alongside a commitment that it will not happen again.

We do not need another representative reading prepared words from a script. We do not need another statement defending the indefensible. And we certainly do not need Martin O’Neill being placed in front of supporters to absorb questions that should be directed towards the people running the club.

Martin is the manager. He should be answering questions about football, team selection and performances. He should not be expected to act as a shield for the board.

There are some very serious questions. Dermot Desmond needs to answer.

Firstly, the treatment of Brendan Rodgers.

When Rodgers left Celtic in October 2025, the club released a statement confirming his departure, followed by a remarkable personal statement from Desmond himself. He accused Rodgers of being divisive, misleading and self-serving, while defending the board’s recruitment record and insisting the manager had been supported.

Whatever anyone thinks of Rodgers, the way that situation unfolded was extraordinary.

Why did the relationship deteriorate to that point? Why did Desmond feel the need to publicly attack a manager who had delivered successive league titles? What was actually discussed during their meeting, and why did the club allow the situation to become such a public spectacle?

Supporters deserve an explanation that goes beyond another statement defending the board.

Then there is the relationship with fan media.

These people help keep Celtic relevant beyond matchdays. They provide analysis, debate, criticism and a platform for supporters who might otherwise feel ignored.

Yet the relationship between the club and sections of independent fan media has become increasingly strained, with restrictions and a lack of meaningful engagement creating further frustration.

Why does the board appear so uncomfortable with independent supporter voices? Why should critical coverage be treated as a threat rather than an opportunity to engage with the people who care most about the club?

A football club of Celtic’s size should be encouraging discussion, not creating further barriers between itself and its supporters.

The Green Brigade situation also needs to be addressed.

The relationship between the board and our supporters, most identifiable as ultras, has deteriorated to a point where meaningful dialogue appears almost impossible.

Why has the club allowed this relationship to reach such a position? What is the long-term plan for supporter engagement, and why has there been so little progress towards rebuilding trust?

Then we come to the footballing decisions.

The summer transfer window was another major source of frustration.

Martin O’Neill had worked wonders to rescue the previous campaign, delivering the league title and Scottish Cup. Yet the squad required significant strengthening, and the manager himself had reportedly made clear that he needed more signings.

Camilo Durán was the only player we had signed in July, with O’Neill telling the board he was in major need of additions.

The club eventually made further moves, but the question remains whether the recruitment was good enough to meet the ambitions of Celtic supporters.

Why were we so slow to strengthen? Why did we enter another season with obvious weaknesses? And who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the manager has the players required to compete?

The Champions League situation is another issue that cannot be brushed aside.

Celtic have failed to reach the league phase in successive qualification campaigns, missing out in 2025 and again in 2026. The financial consequences are significant, but the sporting consequences are just as damaging.

Celtic should be competing at the highest level of European football. We should be building a squad capable of progressing through qualification rather than repeatedly falling short.

The club’s own financial results show revenue falling from £143.6 million to £111 million in 2025/26, primarily because of the drop from Champions League to Europa League football.

What is the plan to ensure this does not become a recurring problem? What investment is being made to improve our European competitiveness? And what does success actually look like over the next three to five years?

There is also the managerial chaos of the past year.

Rodgers departed, O’Neill returned on an interim basis, and Wilfried Nancy was appointed and then dismissed after just eight matches before O’Neill was brought back again.

Nancy’s appointment lasted barely a month, with six defeats in eight matches. That was a disastrous period, but it was also a reflection of the decision-making taking place above the manager.

Who approved the appointment? What due diligence was carried out? Why did the club believe Nancy was the right person to take Celtic forward, and what changed so dramatically in such a short period?

And perhaps the biggest question of all: why did we reappoint Martin O’Neill permanently?

There is no question that O’Neill deserves enormous credit for what he achieved last season. He helped rescue Celtic from a difficult position and delivered two major trophies.

But was bringing back a 74-year-old manager really the long-term solution? Why did the club not use the summer to appoint a modern manager with a clear philosophy and a plan to develop the squad?

Was it a footballing decision, a financial decision or simply the easiest option available?

Desmond needs to explain that.

Finally, what are the plans for Celtic next season and beyond?

The Celtic Fans Collective has already proposed a resolution calling for the club to publish a three-to-five-year strategic plan. It is a reasonable request.

Supporters should know what the club is trying to achieve, how it intends to compete in Europe, what investment is planned for the squad and infrastructure, and how it intends to repair its relationship with the support.

We cannot keep operating from one crisis to another.

We cannot keep appointing managers without a coherent footballing strategy, waiting until transfer deadlines to address obvious weaknesses and treating supporters as though they are an inconvenience.

And we cannot keep having major decisions explained by people who were not responsible for making them.