A comprehensive analysis of Monday Night Meeting at Celtic Park

A credible Fan Advisory Board would mark a cultural shift at Celtic

Supporters have long called for a more formal voice in club decisions, and this was something the Celtic supporter groups who attended Monday night’s meeting with the club raised directly with the Celtic CEO.

The creation of a Fan Advisory Board, or something similar, could provide exactly that, a structured forum for two-way dialogue between fans and executives, a bridge over years of frustration, and a real opportunity to shape policy.

Michael Nicholson confirmed that the club is examining such a board as part of a wider review of supporter engagement, taking cues from models at West Ham and Manchester United. At first glance, this is hugely positive. It shows the CEO is willing to learn from best practice and consider new ways to empower fans. If executed correctly, it could become a welcome and lasting part of Nicholson’s legacy.

But supporters are clear-eyed. This cannot be a token gesture or a PR exercise. Timelines, democratic selection, transparency, and genuine influence must be built into the structure. Without these safeguards, any new forum risks being little more than a talking shop, something that looks good in an AGM statement but changes little in practice.

The Fan Collective raised the question of a formal advisory body at the latest meeting with club officials. Paul Quigley asked directly if Celtic had considered establishing one to create structured, two-way consultation and bring fan representatives formally into the club’s governance framework.

Nicholson confirmed that the club was aware of the idea and had been considering it. Supporters pressed for a clear timeline and structure for consultation. The club agreed to come back on this point and linked it to wider questions arising from the Fan Survey, noting that they were examining comparable structures elsewhere.

George Campbell, speaking for the club, explained that the current review includes identifying how similar boards operate at other clubs, who sits on them, how they are elected, and what their Terms of Reference are. West Ham and Manchester United were specifically mentioned as examples under study. The club is seeking direct feedback from those teams to understand how these structures work in practice.

For supporters, that sounds promising. But they have reason to be cautious. Minutes from the same meeting revealed a separate, troubling episode that helps explain why fans want formal oversight.

Supporter representatives raised serious concerns about the infamous tabloid story in The Sun, alleging a leak from within the club. They argued it was a breach of trust and professionalism that merited formal investigation, particularly given that the Football Manager himself had commented on the matter publicly.

When asked why no investigation had been launched, Nicholson said the story was based on an unnamed source allegedly speaking to an unnamed source within the club. He added that speculation was common in the tabloid press, that the issue had been discussed with the board and the manager, and that the matter was now closed.

Finance chief Chris McKay confirmed that all board members had been asked about the article and that there was “no basis for further investigation.” He added that the newspaper source was a “senior figure,” not necessarily a board member, and that the club would not take legal action because it was “busy enough as it is.”

Club officials insisted the board “understands the importance of confidentiality.” But to fan representatives, the response came across as dismissive. A matter that directly affected trust, professionalism, and the integrity of internal communication had been brushed aside on the club’s own terms, without transparency, without external review, and without accountability.

This, supporters argue, is precisely the problem. When the club marks its own homework, fans are left frustrated, and managers undermined.

That context explains why a Fan Advisory Board is not just a nice-to-have. It’s necessary. Supporters want a structured mechanism for scrutiny and dialogue, not selective consultation. They want the ability to raise issues like the alleged leak, communications breakdowns, or transfer strategy concerns in a formal setting, one that demands serious answers, not dismissive ones.

The creation of a Fan Advisory Board would allow that. Done right, it could institutionalise accountability and embed supporter representation in decision-making. Done poorly, it risks becoming another line in an annual report, another symbol of good intentions lost in execution.

Celtic has committed to ongoing research and consultation. Supporters are waiting to see what comes next, deadlines, frameworks, and a clear remit that sets out what powers the Fan Advisory Board would hold, what access it would have, and how its members would be chosen.
If the board includes democratically selected fan representatives, publishes minutes, and feeds into the club’s governance process with genuine transparency, it could help close a decades-long gap between the fanbase and the boardroom.

This is an opportunity for Michael Nicholson to demonstrate that the club can evolve, listening, learning, and leading by example. A credible Fan Advisory Board would mark a cultural shift, one that values shared responsibility and honest dialogue over top-down control.

Supporters know there is much at stake. After years of limited access and corporate opacity, the chance to help shape a permanent channel for fan influence could be transformative. In short, the promise is real. The risk is clear. How Celtic executes this will shape supporter trust for years to come and could also define the legacy of its current leadership.

Niall J

Continues on the next page…Review of Non-Executive Directors Request plus Questions for Celtic AGM…