The Scottish FA’s decision to impose identical behind-closed-doors bans on Celtic and Rangers for the Ibrox pitch invasion is not justice, it is institutional cowardice masquerading as even-handedness. By treating two fundamentally different sets of conduct as equivalent, the Scottish FA has ignored the very evidence laid out in the Blackbourne Report they commissioned, while allowing Rangers’ operational failures and the criminal behaviour of their ultras to go unpunished.

A Disproportionate Sanction Ignoring the Evidence

Celtic’s statement following the ban was unequivocal, the punishment is “disproportionate”. The club pointed out that it was the away side, with no responsibility for stadium safety arrangements, yet has been hit with the same sanction as the host club whose failings were comprehensively exposed. The Blackbourne Report identified “significant failings” by Rangers as the host club and by Police Scotland, failings that directly contributed to the disorder and created the conditions in which fan behaviour became dangerous.

The report’s found that Rangers’ risk assessment was “near-identical” to that used for a league fixture just seven days earlier, despite 5,600 additional away supporters and the heightened stakes of a cup tie. Their ingress plan for over 8,000 Celtic supporters was described by its own architects as “aspirational”, with no fan-flow calculations carried out and fewer search lanes deployed than for a smaller crowd the previous week. The Celtic Safety Officer was not consulted on the away ingress plan, a fundamental failure of the duty of care owed to visiting supporters.

Yet the Scottish FA’s disciplinary response treats both clubs as equally culpable. This is not balance; it is a betrayal of the evidence. Clearly the investigation and report was nothing more than a stalling tactic and a waste of time & effort.

Rangers’ Operational Failures and the Attack on Celtic Personnel

The Blackbourne Report documented how Rangers’ safety team rated the risk of a pitch incursion as “Unlikely”- a prediction spectacularly disproven within minutes of the final whistle. When the pitch invasion began, additional Public Order officers were delayed because they had to negotiate CBRN barriers, placed there as part of Police Scotland’s own security planning. It took four minutes and twenty-eight seconds for police to establish control, time in which masked Rangers fans armed with poles, missiles, and other weapons came within a “very small margin of a violent mass confrontation” with Celtic supporters celebrating on the pitch. They also attacked Police officers and the club’s own staff as they rampaged across the full length of the pitch.

Crucially, the report also recorded that a Celtic staff member was assaulted during the disorder and footage also showed several Celtic players were targeted by Rangers fans as they ran off the pitch. This was not an isolated incident; Rangers supporters have attacked Celtic personnel on the pitch and on the sidelines in derby games numerous times over the past few years, yet the SPFL and SFA refuse to take action time and time again against Rangers and their criminal ultras group. By imposing an equal ban, the Scottish FA has effectively declared that institutional failures matter less than fan behaviour, even when those failures created the environment in which fan behaviour became dangerous.

The Union Bears: Carte Blanche from Rangers and the Scottish FA

The Blackbourne Report singled out the Union Bears, Rangers’ ultras group, for forcing past stewards and police to reach the pitch. The report described their movement as “reactionary, confrontational, and overtly threatening”. Yet the SFA’s response does nothing to address the structural conditions that allow such groups to operate with impunity. There is no mention of stricter liability for clubs whose supporters engage in organised disorder. There is no call for legislative change to empower authorities to ban individuals or groups from stadiums across Scotland.

Rangers’ refusal to ban the Union Bears for starting the incursion further highlights the complicity of the Rangers hierarchy in everything that the Union Bears do. This includes their recent anti-Catholic banner unfurled before their 1-0 win against Aberdeen at the weekend, which the media are also unsurprisingly silent on. Would they be silent if it targeted any other religion or a minority group? I think not.

Rangers’ Statement: Deflection and Blame-Shifting

Rangers’ response to the Scottish FA’s decision was equally revealing. The club announced a reduction of the away allocation for the upcoming Premier Sports Cup fixture against Celtic to just 300 tickets - a fraction of the 8,000 that attended the Scottish Cup quarter-final. They cited the Blackbourne report and the “current risk” as justification, claiming that a reduced allocation allows “greater individual ticket-holder accountability, stronger ingress controls, enhanced segregation and additional safeguards.”

But Rangers also used their statement to criticise Celtic, claiming that the club had not provided “clear acknowledgement, condemnation or deterrent messaging” following the events of 8 March. This is rich coming from a club whose own safety and operational planning failures were so comprehensively exposed by the Blackbourne report and who have refused to take any action against the Union Bears following the Cup game. Rangers’ statement reads less like an acceptance of responsibility and more like an attempt to shift blame, precisely the kind of deflection that the Scottish FA’s equal ban enables.

The Ticket Farce: A Line in the Sand

With Rangers reducing the ticket allocation for the League Cup tie to just 300 tickets, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. Celtic’s hierarchy need to stand up and be counted. Enough is enough. In my opinion, this whole ticket fiasco needs to end now. Either they go back to the previous ticket allocation of Celtic taking the whole of the Broomloan Stand and Rangers getting the same allocation at Celtic Park, or call it a day and ban away fans from the grounds entirely. Rangers started the ticket farce after bowing down to their militant and rabid fan base after they couldn’t handle Celtic winning time and again at Ibrox; it is time that Celtic ended it once and for all.

The SFA’s Cowardice: A Clear Failure in Leadership and Discipline

While Celtic fans can be blamed for invading the pitch to celebrate, as Rangers fans had done so earlier in the game when they thought they had scored, and the damage done to the seating and graffiti, along with under 100 fans forcing their way into the ground without tickets [another failure of Rangers and Police Scotland’s operational planning], the Scottish FA’s cowardice in refusing to deal with one club more than the other is evident. They will not punish one more than the other despite the report saying otherwise. This is a clear failure in leadership and discipline.

The SFA’s tribunal directed both clubs to stage their next home Scottish Cup games behind closed doors, with a second such sanction looming should there be another incident of “unacceptable conduct.” Both clubs were then told that £100,000, would be payable to their opponents of said game. The reasoning? The Blackbourne report noted that “the post-match pitch invasion by several hundred Celtic supporters was wholly inexcusable. It provoked an immediate hostile response from sections of the home support.” True, but this does not equate to equal responsibility for the conditions that allowed the disorder to occur nor does it factor in that one club [while illegal] entered the pitch the celebrate, the other invaded the pitch to attack them, to assault and do them serious damage all because they just watched their club lose a penalty shoot-out.

By tarring both clubs with the same brush, the SFA has effectively declared that institutional failures matter less than fan behaviour, even when those failures created the environment in which fan behaviour became dangerous. This is not leadership; it is abdication of responsibility and clearly shows that once against the Scottish FA hierarchy are not fit for purpose.

A Watershed Moment Wasted

Mark Blackbourne concluded his review with a stark assessment: “This is Scottish Football’s ‘Wembley 2021,’ a watershed season, where action is greater than words -greater than a report.” He was right. The words are now on the page. The question was whether Scotland’s football institutions had the courage to act on them.

The Scottish FA’s answer is clear, they do not. Their equal ban is not a solution; it is a surrender. It is a decision designed to minimise controversy rather than to maximise safety. It is a refusal to confront the uncomfortable truths that the Blackbourne report laid bare.

The Path Forward: Honesty, Accountability, and Action

What is required now is not more reports, more meetings, more expressions of regret. What is required is honesty, honesty from Police Scotland about their operational failures, honesty from Rangers about their complacency and their failures, honesty from the football authorities about the inadequacy of their disciplinary frameworks and their cowardice and refusal to treat Celtic and Rangers as individual clubs rather than lumping them together as one.

And above all, what is required is accountability of all stakeholders. The Blackbourne review notes that “the majority of stewards and police officers present that day faced the highest level of non-compliance, intimidation, threats and violence from individuals with disorderly and criminal intent and they held the line.” Their actions deserve praise. Their leadership, however, deserves scrutiny and they must be held accountable.

The senior figures who briefed the press within hours of the disorder, blaming the fans while remaining silent on their own failures, should reflect on their own conduct. The Scottish public and the football community deserve better. The ordinary officers and stewards who put themselves in the middle of those scenes deserve better. And the genuine majority of supporters, who came to watch a football match and instead witnessed scenes of chaos and danger, deserve better.

A Betrayal of Trust

The Scottish FA’s decision to ban both Celtic and Rangers equally is not justice. It is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by supporters, by players, by the very institutions they are meant to govern. It is a decision that prioritises appearances over substance, neutrality over accountability, and convenience over safety.

If the next near-miss is not a miss at all, the Scottish FA will have no one to blame but themselves. They had the evidence. They had the recommendations. They had the opportunity to lead. They chose instead to hide behind the illusion of fairness, while the real failures go unpunished, and the real risks remain unaddressed.

What will it take for them to actually take proper and appropriate action?

UEFA’s decision to drop its threatened boycott of FIFA competitions marks not a diplomatic compromise but a strategic capitulation. After weeks of sabre-rattling over Gianni Infantino’s ill-fated FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) proposal to privatise stakes in the World Cup, European football’s governing body has accepted private assurances that such a scheme will not be repeated, precisely the concession it demanded yet initially dismissed as insufficient.

The reality is stark, UEFA blinked first because it feared that pushing its threats to the limit would still leave Infantino with enough votes to win re-election in March, rendering its entire campaign of ultimatums and legal warnings, mere empty posturing.

The anatomy of a bluff

When FFE surfaced following the conclusion of the 2026 World Cup in July, the backlash was immediate and ferocious. UEFA, alongside CONCACAF and other confederations, threatened to boycott all FIFA tournaments until the proposal was not only withdrawn but accompanied by binding guarantees that no similar privatisation attempt would ever be made again. Infantino duly abandoned FFE within days, apologising for “missteps” and insisting the idea was “off the table”. Yet UEFA doubled down, insisting that verbal retractions were insufficient and that only ironclad, written assurances would avert a boycott.

This hardline stance positioned UEFA as the moral guardian of football’s soul - despite their own examples of selling out of the game to prioritise the big 5 leagues - rallying players, politicians, and fans to its cause. Former players lent their voices to the chorus demanding change, while UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy warned against penalising young athletes for governance disputes. The narrative was clear, UEFA would rather sacrifice short-term tournament participation than allow FIFA to commodify the World Cup.

But behind closed doors, a different calculation was underway. The Guardian reported, private discussions between UEFA and FIFA had been ongoing for weeks, with the European body ultimately securing the written guarantees it claimed were non-negotiable. With the Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland just days away, six European nations - England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and hosts Poland - faced the prospect of their young players missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The pressure to relent was immense, not least because a boycott would have alienated the very demographic UEFA claims to protect.

Why UEFA folded

The crux of UEFA’s retreat lies in the March 2027 presidential election. Despite its public rhetoric, UEFA’s leadership, particularly president Aleksander Čeferin, understands that Infantino retains a formidable coalition of support across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, parts of South America and Oceania. Even if UEFA had followed through on its boycott threat, there was no guarantee it would have tipped the balance against Infantino. In fact, a prolonged standoff risked hardening FIFA’s member associations behind their incumbent president, framing UEFA as elitist and disruptive.

Moreover, UEFA’s leverage was always limited. Its threat to boycott FIFA tournaments was a double-edged sword, while it could withhold European teams from events like the Under-20 Women’s World Cup, it could not prevent FIFA from proceeding without them. The tournament would go ahead, UEFA’s absence would be framed as self-inflicted, and Infantino would still collect his votes. The uncomfortable truth was that UEFA had no viable path to force Infantino’s removal through boycotts alone.

The written assurances FIFA provided, though their exact terms remain undisclosed, were sufficient to allow UEFA to save face while backing down. By accepting these guarantees, UEFA can claim it achieved its core demand of a binding commitment that no future privatisation scheme will be attempted. Yet this victory is hollow. The fact that FIFA only issued these assurances after weeks of pressure, and only in private correspondence, underscores that UEFA’s public ultimatum was always a negotiating tactic rather than a genuine red line.

Humiliation for both sides

For FIFA, the episode is another humiliation in a long line of scandals. The very need to issue private guarantees to avert a boycott highlights the organisation’s persistent governance failures and Infantino’s tendency to float radical ideas without adequate consultation. Italy’s football federation (FIGC) became the latest to withdraw support for Infantino this week, citing his “recent initiatives” as incompatible with transparent governance. Yet FIFA’s ability to weather the storm and securing UEFA’s retreat without conceding public ground, demonstrates Infantino’s political resilience.

For UEFA, the cost is reputational. Its leadership gambled that a hardline stance would rally global football behind its cause, only to retreat when the limits of its influence became apparent. The narrative now shifts from “UEFA stands firm against privatisation” to “UEFA backs down after empty threats”. This perception is compounded by the fact that UEFA’s position on Infantino’s removal remains unchanged, Čeferin still believes the FIFA president must resign or face a challenger in March - yet no challenger to Infantino has materialised. But if UEFA could not leverage its boycott threat to extract public concessions, what tools does it have left?

The divide among former players further illustrates the complexity. Some legends rallied behind Infantino, praising his efforts to expand player representation, others called for immediate change. This split reflects a broader truth, that football’s governance is fractured, and no single confederation holds enough sway to dictate terms unilaterally.

The road ahead

UEFA’s retreat does not mean the battle is over. Its executive committee is set to discuss further steps regarding FIFA’s leadership at its Monte Carlo meeting this week, alongside the Champions League draw. The focus will likely shift to building a credible alternative candidate to challenge Infantino in March, rather than relying on boycotts that lack teeth. Yet the episode has exposed the limits of UEFA’s power and its threats ring hollow - without global support.

For now, the Under-20 Women’s World Cup will proceed with European teams intact, a relief for players and fans alike. But the underlying tensions remain unresolved. Infantino survives, for now, but his authority is diminished. UEFA retains its moral high ground in principle, but its credibility as a strategic actor is bruised. The real winners are the private interests that continue to circle football’s biggest properties like vultures, waiting for the next governance vacuum to exploit.

In the end, UEFA’s sabre-rattling was all for nothing. It demanded assurances, received them in private, and backed down - not because its principles were compromised, but because its leverage was illusory. Infantino, for all his missteps, understands the arithmetic of FIFA’s electorate better than UEFA does. And until that changes, Europe’s threats will remain just that, threats.

Celtic’s Champions League collapse against LASK was not merely a bad night at the office. It was the latest and most spectacular consequence of a transfer strategy built on hesitation, financial conservatism and a refusal to prepare properly for the season’s defining challenge - for the second year in a row!

Throwing away a 4-0 aggregate lead to lose 5-1 after extra time is an unforgivable sporting failure. Celtic had one foot in the Champions League league phase, one hand on the associated financial windfall and every reason to believe the tie was already beyond LASK. Instead, the Scottish champions imploded spectacularly, losing 5-4 on aggregate and dropping into the Europa League for the second successive season.

But while the players must carry the shame and humiliation of that performance, the Celtic board must carry responsibility for the conditions that made it possible.

This defeat was not down to an unlucky deflection, a refereeing controversy or a single individual error. It was the predictable outcome of a club that once again entered a crucial European qualifier with a squad that was weakened, unbalanced and visibly short of quality in key areas.

Martin O’Neill’s own assessment was damning: Celtic are “a million miles away from the finished article.” That is not the description of a team that was properly prepared for the biggest fixture of its season. It is an indictment of those who built the squad, sanctioned the recruitment strategy and apparently decided that the Champions League should be treated as a financial trigger rather than a sporting priority.

Peter Lawwell once spoke about Celtic maintaining a cash reserve as a “rainy day fund” for the occasions when the club failed to qualify for the Champions League. Well, Peter, the rain is no longer threatening. It is a monsoon.

Celtic have failed to qualify for the Champions League for the second year in a row. The club has lost the prestige, competitive opportunities and substantial income attached to reaching the league phase. The guaranteed revenue from qualification sits at approximately £40 million conservatively.

Celtic supporters have been told for years that the club must be prudently managed. They have accepted that European qualification cannot be guaranteed. They have accepted that players may be sold when the right offer arrives. They have accepted that Celtic cannot compete with the richest clubs in England and across Europe.

What they have not accepted, and should never accept, is the idea of a £70 million-plus reserve sitting untouched while the first-team squad is stripped of depth and quality.

This summer, Celtic have lost 17 players through sales, expired contracts and the end of loan agreements. They have brought in only four first-team additions. The club’s reported spending on new players is a little over £31 million, while player sales have generated roughly £39 million. On those figures, Celtic have made an apparent transfer profit of around £8 million - without touching the reserve fund at all.

That is not an ambitious rebuild. It is an extraction.

The board has taken a squad that needed significant strengthening, removed a large number of players and replaced only a fraction of them. It then gambled on qualification for a competition that would have provided the money required to complete the squad. That is not prudence. It is negligence.

The LASK defeat, however, cannot be isolated from Celtic’s broader European record. Since successfully negotiating Champions League qualifying against Astana in 2017, Celtic have repeatedly fallen short against Kairat Almaty, AEK Athens, CFR Cluj, Ferencváros and Midtjylland. The club’s recent qualifying campaigns have become a graveyard of missed opportunities, tactical uncertainty and recruitment plans that always appear to be waiting for the next financial event.

Celtic have now suffered six consecutive failures in Champions League qualifying campaigns entered since 2017. That record of failure is too consistent to be dismissed as bad luck or a lack of mentality. At some point, repeated failure becomes evidence of a structural problem. At Celtic, that problem begins in the boardroom.

The club’s leadership has spent years presenting domestic dominance as proof that everything is fundamentally healthy. Celtic win trophies, sell players for large fees and maintain impressive cash balances. On paper, the institution looks robust. But the purpose of being Scotland’s biggest football club is not to produce tidy financial statements. It is to build the strongest possible team and compete at the highest level available. Celtic are not a bank with a football department attached. They are a football club.

Every season, the board appears to follow the same cycle. The squad is judged to be “good enough.” Weaknesses are identified but not addressed decisively. Recruitment is delayed. European qualifiers arrive. The team struggles. The Champions League income disappears. The board then presents the failure as justification for caution, even though caution helped create the failure in the first place. It is a perfect closed loop of accountability avoidance.

Four signings are not a rebuild

There is nothing inherently wrong with the four players Celtic have signed. The issue is whether four arrivals are enough after 17 departures and after the weaknesses in the squad had been evident for months. They are not.

Celtic knew what was required before the transfer window opened. The club knew which positions needed strengthening. It knew that several players were likely to leave. It knew the Champions League qualifiers would arrive before the window closed. It knew that O’Neill required more quality, more athleticism and greater depth to compete domestically and in Europe. Instead, Celtic once again appeared to bring out the plasters to do another patch job.

The team did not need cosmetic additions. It needed an overhaul. It needed players capable of immediately improving the starting XI, credible alternatives from the bench and enough depth to cope with a season involving domestic football and European competition.

Instead, the squad has been reduced to a state where the manager is forced to choose between players who are not ready, players who are not good enough or players playing out of position.

That is why selling Arne Engels and Daizen Maeda before a crucial European tie was so revealing. If Celtic were prepared to sell two of their key players, the replacements should have been identified, negotiated and signed before they left. The fact that the club could sanction the sales without having ready-made replacements tells supporters everything about the hierarchy of priorities.

The transfer market is not an excuse for failing to plan. Celtic have professional executives, recruitment staff, scouts, analysts and financial resources. They are not operating a Sunday league side waiting to see who turns up at training. Even though they played like one last night.

The most damaging aspect of Celtic’s approach was the decision to make meaningful transfer activity conditional on Champions League qualification. The logic was supposedly understandable - qualify, unlock the income and then spend. Fail, and reduce the scale of the investment.

But the entire strategy was circular. Celtic needed a stronger squad to qualify. The board delayed strengthening the squad because qualification had not yet been secured. The team then failed to qualify, and the board now has a ready-made excuse to spend less.

That is the economics of self-sabotage. The club was prepared to make a number of major transfer moves if Celtic reached the Champions League league phase. Raising a simple question - why was the squad not strengthened before the tie?

The LASK collapse was a sporting disaster, but it also exposed the stupidity of treating qualification as a prerequisite for building a team capable of qualification. If the club’s strategy was to wait until the outcome of the tie before finalising deals, then the board knowingly accepted the risk of entering the match underprepared. Celtic were not merely caught by circumstances. They chose the circumstances.

A club with Celtic’s resources - which dwarfs LASK’s - should be making its best effort to qualify, not calculating how little it can spend before qualification becomes guaranteed.

Celtic supporters are often told to admire the club’s financial strength, to be satisfied by their domestic dominance. They are shown cash reserves, healthy balance sheets, profitable transfer dealings, and the domestic trophies won.

But money that is never invested in the team and domestic trophy success is not Champions League football. It does not defend a lead in Linz. It does not replace a departed midfielder. It does not give a manager the attacking options required when a European tie begins to unravel.

There is no prize for being the richest club in Scotland if the money is withheld when it matters most. The rainy-day fund was established for moments like this. It was not created so that executives could boast about the size of the reserve while supporters watch the squad deteriorate. Use it.

Spend it on quality. Spend it on players who improve the team. Spend it on depth. Spend it on the manager’s requirements rather than on another round of carefully worded explanations about sustainability and market conditions.

Celtic have lost the Champions League income. That loss is real. But the answer cannot be to retreat further. The answer must be to ensure the Europa League campaign is taken seriously and that domestic dominance is protected. There is still time to act. The transfer window remains open until September 3. The club can still recruit the players O’Neill needs. But it must do so with urgency rather than theatre.

The board cannot hide behind the manager

The players and management team were responsible for the collapse on the pitch. They failed to manage the game, protect the lead and respond to LASK’s pressure. But the board cannot hide behind the players’ and manager’s failure.

A manager should not be required to produce a perfect European performance with an incomplete squad. He should not be forced to watch key players depart without a replacement ready. He should not be told that reinforcements will arrive only if qualification is secured, while being judged on whether he can qualify with inadequate resources.

O’Neill made mistakes in Austria. The substitutions, the lack of fitness, the defensive retreat and the loss of attacking threat must be examined. Yet the board’s errors began long before the first whistle.

The manager is working with a weakened squad and a recruitment process that moves at snail’s pace. He is then left to absorb the consequences when the strategy collapses. That is not leadership. It is scapegoating by design.

Dermot Desmond, Michael Nicholson, Chris McKay, Brian Wilson and the wider executive structure must now answer serious questions. Why were so many players allowed to leave without adequate replacements? Why was recruitment delayed? Why was a transfer profit prioritised over squad development? Why was the rainy-day reserve not used? Who decided that Celtic could enter another Champions League qualifier without a finished team? Most importantly, who is accountable?

Celtic supporters have repeatedly been asked to show patience. They have been told to trust the process, trust the strategy and trust the people running the club. But trust is not an unlimited resource.

Supporters must now draw the line in the sand. Enough is enough. The response to last night from supporters should be organised, peaceful and financially clear. The continuation of the ‘Not a Penny More’ boycott, supporters must refuse to finance this board’s complacency - and call for a boycott of Europa League ticket sales.

No supporter should be condemned for wanting to attend matches if they so wish, but the lack of bums on seats will hammer home the vote of no confidence in the Celtic hierarchy - broadcast worldwide. Celtic is a community and European nights are part of the club’s identity. But the board fail to understand that fan loyalty cannot be endlessly weaponised against the people who own the emotional heart of the institution. Supporters cannot be expected to pay premium prices for replica shirts, tickets and hospitality while being told there is not enough money to build a competitive squad.

The message is simple, if the club wants the revenue, it must show the ambition. The choice is not between supporting Celtic and criticising the board. Criticism is one of the ways supporters support the club. Silence, at this stage, would be interpreted as permission. And this board has already been given too much permission.

No more excuses

Celtic did not fail because the club lacks money. It failed because the money was not converted into a strong enough squad. It did not fail because the Champions League was impossible. It failed after building a four-goal aggregate lead against LASK. It did not fail because the manager had no time to prepare. It failed because the board did not prepare the squad.

For years, Celtic’s leadership has treated ambition as a slogan and prudence as a governing ideology. It has made supporters grateful for domestic success while quietly normalising European underachievement. That must end now.

Use the reserves. Strengthen the squad. Give Martin O’Neill the players required to compete properly in the Europa League and dominate domestically. Do not tell supporters that the failure to qualify for the Champions League means transfer plans must change. The failure to qualify is precisely why the plans must be accelerated. There is absolutely no point sitting on tens of millions in the bank for a rainy day and then refusing to spend the money when the storm actually arrives.

And if Dermot Desmond and his board still refuse to open the flood gates then they must be purged from our club once and for all.

Before a ball was kicked in Linz on Tuesday night, the Raiffeisen Arena fell silent. LASK observed a minute’s silence for the Celtic supporter who died during the first leg at Celtic Park. It was a dignified, human gesture from a club and a fanbase who understood that football, at its best, is bigger than results. What followed from Celtic, however, was an act of sporting self-sabotage so complete, so baffling, that it made that tribute feel like a cruel prologue to a night of humiliation.

Add as a Preferred Source on Google

This was not a narrow defeat. This was a capitulation. From 4-0 up on aggregate and cruising to the Champions League, Celtic collapsed to lose 5-1 after extra time and 5-4 on aggregate, surrendering their place in Europe’s elite competition for the second year in a row. The scale of the reversal is not just painful; it is damning. And when the dust settles, the questions are not about bad luck or refereeing decisions. They are about mentality, fitness, tactics, recruitment, and a board that has once again gambled with the club’s future and lost.

A game plan that invited disaster

Martin O’Neill returned to Celtic Park as the man who could steady the ship, but in Linz his game plan looked like it had been designed in a different era of football. The first leg had been won with intensity and a willingness to attack space; the second leg was played as if the tie was already won.

After Callum McGregor’s deflected strike put Celtic 4-0 up on aggregate, the team’s posture changed. Instead of managing the game with controlled possession, they sat back and invited pressure. Instead of pinning LASK back with a high line and aggressive pressing, they sat deeper, allowed Moses Usor and Samuel Adeniran to run at them, and gave Robert Ljubicic and Sascha Horvath time to pick passes. The first LASK goal came from a slack backpass from Benjamin Nygren; the second from Ljubicic being afforded “far too much time and space on the edge of the area”; the third from a sweeping Adeniran strike from range. These are not freak goals. They are the predictable consequences of a team that has decided, consciously or not, that they had done enough and that survival is the plan.

O’Neill’s post-match admission that “we should have been out of sight by half-time” only underlines the tactical failure. If you are not out of sight when you are four goals up on aggregate, your game management is broken. The manager’s honesty - “that’s my team and that’s my responsibility” - is welcome, but it does not absolve the strategy that allowed LASK to complete a rout.

A mentality that folded under pressure

The most damning indictment of this Celtic side is not the goals they conceded, but the way they behaved once the momentum shifted. For a club that prides itself on grinding out results in the biggest games, the collapse in Linz was a crisis of character.

Callum McGregor’s post-match words were brutal because they were true: “We got what we deserved. We were passive all night. We looked scared to go and win the game.”

That is not the language of a team that was unlucky; it is the language of a team that lost its nerve, that bottled it. When LASK pulled one back before half-time, Celtic should have responded with a period of controlled possession, a tactical foul, a yellow card, anything to slow the tempo. Instead, they conceded again two minutes into the second half and never regained control.

The body language told the story. As soon as LASK got within one goal on the night, Celtic looked physically spent and mentally defeated. There was no foot on the ball, no calming influence, no leader willing to turn the game down a notch. In the biggest moments, when the Champions League was still there to be taken, no one took responsibility. And it was inevitable that LASK were going to get the goal to qualify for the league phase of the competition.

Fitness and fundamentals

This collapse was not just mental; it was physical. The drop-off in intensity between the first 30 minutes and the remainder of the match was stark. Celtic started brightly, took their chance, and then looked like a team that had not prepared for the possibility of a fight.

The basics were missing from front to back. Defenders made slack backpasses. Midfielders were posted missing or gave away cheap possession. Attackers failed to hold the ball up or win fouls in dangerous areas. When LASK attacked relentlessly in the second half, Celtic were “unable to place a pass or clear their lines with any conviction”. That is not bad luck; that is poor conditioning and poor preparation. What were Celtic doing all weekend, did they actually use it to prepare for the LASK game? It would probably have been better to have played against St.Johnstone.

In extra time, when the tie was effectively a one-off shootout, Celtic were the ones who looked oncec again leggy and second-best. Adeniran’s 109th-minute rocket was the culmination of a night in which LASK were the fitter, sharper, more committed team. For a club that demands maximum effort in every game, this was a failure of the most basic kind.

The continued misuse of key players

One of the most frustrating aspects of this defeat was the continued deployment of players in positions that do not suit their strengths. O’Neill shoe-horned Yang Hyun-jun in at left wing - when we had a natural left winger in Tounekti sitting on the bench [not that he did anything when he came on]. We played Duran on the right when we have a right winger in Hassan sitting on the bench. Hogh clearly isn’t a target man, but that’s what he was deployed as last night and every ball that was sent his way was promptly picked up by LASK to launch another attack.

Yang did create the assist for McGregor’s goal, but for the rest of the night he was exposed defensively, contributing to the sense that Celtic were playing with a structural imbalance.

Similarly, Camilo Duran, who had been outstanding in the first leg with two goals, was not used to maximum effect in the second. Whether through injury, fatigue or tactical choice, his influence was muted when Celtic needed a spark. The sense that O’Neill is still trying to force square pegs into round holes is deeply concerning.

A board that gambled and lost

None of this exists in a vacuum. The collapse in Linz is the latest chapter in a story of recruitment and planning that has left Celtic perpetually one or two steps behind. The board’s failure to strengthen the squad significantly ahead of this tie is glaring. In a season where the financial and prestige stakes of Champions League qualification are higher than ever, the club once again gambled on a thread bare squad, on players out of position, and on the hope that the job from the first leg would be enough.

It was not. The result is another Europa League campaign, another £20 million-plus blow to the club’s finances, another humiliating defeat, and another season of playing catch-up in the transfer market. O’Neill’s post-match comment that “if you could qualify for the Champions League there would be players wanting to come on that basis. That’s not going to be the case” is a damning indictment of the board’s strategy. They have gambled on the future and lost, and the players and fans are left to pay the price.

What now?

Celtic will learn their Europa League fixtures on Thursday and return to domestic action against Falkirk at the weekend. But the damage from this night will linger on. The club will once again face uncomfortable questions about recruitment, about the culture that allowed such a collapse to happen, and once again face rising fan unrest which will ultimately hit ticket sales for the Europa League games. O’Neill must find a way to restore belief, but belief without better players and a better plan is just wishful thinking.

For the fans, the pain is acute. They watched their team throw away the tie of the season, watched a dignified tribute to a lost supporter followed up by a night of shame and humiliation. The players and manager have apologised, but apologies are not worth the paper they are printed on. Only action will do that. And after Tuesday night, action is the one thing Celtic must deliver, because just now they are a club that is forever remembered not for what it achieved, but for what it threw away when it comes to European football.

Former Celtic and Scotland manager Gordon Strachan believes the club’s measured approach to recruitment will help Martin O’Neill’s side become more consistent this season.

Celtic were pushed all the way last season and required a final-day victory over Hearts to secure the Scottish Premiership title. However, the club have made an encouraging start to the new campaign, while their 3-0 win over LASK in Champions League qualifying on Wednesday night has strengthened belief around Parkhead.

Celtic remain strong favourites in the football betting odds to retain the Premiership title, but Strachan believes progression in Europe could be the factor that settles the club and its supporters.

Strachan defends Celtic’s transfer policy

Celtic have faced criticism over the past few seasons over their recruitment, but Strachan insists the club are right to take their time rather than spend recklessly.

The former Celtic boss believes the financial consequences of poor decision-making can be severe, particularly in a game where inflated transfer fees and wages can quickly place clubs under pressure.

“No, it’s due diligence,” Strachan said when asked whether he was concerned by Celtic’s slow start to the transfer window.

“Only a few clubs can spend in a certain way. If spending is reckless and player wages become ridiculous, you could put your club at risk. It’s been shown with other clubs in Scotland and England.

“If you do not do your homework properly, you can not only end up not winning trophies but losing your club.”

Strachan also rejected the suggestion that Celtic’s recent transfer business had been underwhelming. He pointed to the money generated from player sales, including the reported £22 million fee for Arne Engels, alongside the departures of Kyogo Furuhashi and Daizen Maeda.

“Celtic’s speed is right, as the four signings they’ve made are smashing signings,” he added.

“People talk about Celtic’s business not being that great. Engels is off for £22 million. Kyogo and Maeda also went for good money, so the money they bring in from players is truly phenomenal.”

Strachan believes Celtic must remain disciplined and ensure every new arrival fits the club’s existing structure and recruitment model.

He warned that outside pressure should not force the club into making deals that do not make sense, even if supporters are demanding immediate action.

“What Celtic have to do, like any professional, is do it without listening to the outside noise,” Strachan said.

“They’ve got to be brave enough to take more time and make sure that the deals that come in are suitable to Celtic and the model they have got.”

Celtic have won their opening two matches of the league season, but Strachan believes the Champions League will be the defining challenge.

“The timing’s right because they’ve won two games so far, but the big one for them now is the Champions League,” he said. “If they get through to the Champions League, not a word will be uttered.”

No need for boardroom changes

Celtic’s boardroom has faced sustained criticism from sections of the support, with fans calling for significant changes in the way the club operates.

Strachan, however, does not believe a change of leadership is necessary. He argued that Champions League football would do more to calm tensions than any major restructuring at boardroom level.

“There are only certain people that want change at the club,” Strachan said. “Other people are quite happy with the victories last season.

“I’d say it’s performance in the Champions League now that would settle everybody down.”

The former Scotland manager also pointed to the type of European occasions Celtic supporters have missed in recent seasons.

“I remember when Ange was there and they lost a few goals but had good attacking performances against top sides,” Strachan said.

“That’s what Celtic supporters are missing. They’re missing the games against Manchester United, Barcelona, matches like that.”

Celtic can reach the last 16

Strachan accepts that there is a limit to how far Celtic can realistically compete in the Champions League, particularly once they face the wealthiest clubs in European football.

Nevertheless, he believes Martin O’Neill’s squad could challenge for a place in the last 16 if the club complete further recruitment and avoid a repeat of last season’s injury problems.

“There’s a point where you can compete and there’s a point when you get to the mega teams where it’s nearly impossible to compete,” he said.

“I think when Celtic have finished the transfer window and it’s all settled then they have a good chance of getting to the last 16.”

Strachan believes injuries to Alistair Johnston, Cameron Carter-Vickers and Jota had a major impact on Celtic’s European campaign last season.

“You’ve got to remember last year at Celtic, Johnston, Carter-Vickers and Jota were all injured,” he said. “That’s three big players to go missing and people don’t take that into consideration.”

He also urged Celtic to retain their key players during the qualifying campaign, with Alistair Johnston attracting interest from clubs in England, before his injury picked up in the 5-1 win over Kilmarnock.

“If they can keep a hold of Johnston, especially as they try to qualify for the Champions League, or maybe until January, that would be a bonus,” Strachan said.

“But I would understand if everybody in Britain wants him as their right-back.

“If Celtic get another one or two players in and make it through to the Champions League, that would be great.”

The new Fantasy Premier League season is here, which means it’s time to settle one very important question - Can you beat me over the course of the season?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you now have the chance to challenge me and other readers of this blog, in our own FPL league.

Join the challenge

Whether you’re an experienced FPL manager who spends hours studying fixtures, xG data and predicted line-ups, or someone who simply picks the players you like and hopes for the best, you’re welcome to join.

You’ll have 38 gameweeks to prove that your transfers are sharper, your captain choices are smarter and your bench is less useless than mine.

Join today

Create your squad, choose your name and join the league before the season gets under way on Friday night.

Sign Up Now

A year ago, Celtic were staring at another summer of “what if?” after a penalty shootout exit in the qualifiers. Tonight, at a bouncing Celtic Park, the mood was wholly different after a ruthless 3-0 first-leg win over LASK, thanks to two Camilo Durán stunners and an equally impressive Benjamin Nygren opener, giving Celtic a commanding lead going into the second leg in Austria next week.

Twelve months on from that gut-wrenching qualifying defeat, tonight’s performance felt like a statement of intent. Where uncertainty once lingered, there was now control; where chances once evaporated, they were taken with cold precision. Even when you factor in the early scares that Celtic suffered from LASK, The 3-0 scoreline flattered no one. It reflects a Celtic side that moved the ball with purpose, pressed with intelligence, and punished LASK when it mattered.

Martin O’Neill’s summer recruitment has added steel and a cutting edge to our attacking threat - something we were missing last year, and all four of the new signings stood out. Kasper Høgh may not have scored, but he was a constant nuisance. His movement dragged LASK’s back line out of shape, his link up play with Nygren and Durán helped provide the chances that the duo finished superbly, and his willingness to run beyond the last defender kept the Austrians guessing all night.

Mika Baur was effortless in midfield alongside Callum McGregor. He broke up play, recycled possession quickly, and gave an aura of calmness that Celtic needed at times in the middle third without ever looking hurried.

Camilo Durán is already looking like the best Colombian to play for a Scottish side in this history of our game. His first was a sumptuous volley from the edge of the box; his second, a composed finish after slick interplay with Nygren and Høgh. Four shots on target, two goals, and a presence that unsettled LASK from the first whistle.

Haissem Hassan, introduced for Durán late on, was an immediate threat. With more game time under his belt, he will terrorise defences across Scotland and in Europe; even in that short spell he showed pace, directness and an eye for the final ball.

While Duran will take all the plaudits, a special mention has to be given out to Colby Donovan who put in a shift and a half tonight. Comfortable in one-v-one situations, brave in the air and calm when LASK tried to play through him, he embodied the confidence of a veteran defender that rarely looked troubled.

There is still a second leg in Austria, and LASK will give Celtic a dight. But with a three-goal cushion and the knowledge that they can score on the road, Celtic go to Linz with the advantage. Martin O’Neill will see his side over the line and into the promised land of Europe’s elite club competition.

A year ago, penalties and pain. Tonight, control and command. If this is the new normal for Celtic, keep it coming.

A repeat of the disorder we saw at Ibrox last season is not inevitable, but only if Scotland finally takes matchday safety out of the hands of the conflicted interests Rangers and Police Scotland.

The news that Rangers will host Celtic at Ibrox in the Premier Sports Cup quarter-final, only months after disorder marred the Scottish Cup tie between the same opponents at the same venue, should not be treated as routine football business. It should be treated as a live safety test for Scottish football’s governance, policing, and club accountability.

The independent review into the March 8th disorder at Ibrox didn’t pull its punches, it described the events as a “significant failure of planning, communication and matchday safety” and warned that several moments came within a very small margin of becoming a violent mass confrontation with the potential for fatalities. Yet, as things stand, the same system of actors - Rangers, Police Scotland, contracted security firms, and the clubs’ own internal safety structures - is being asked to plan and police the next Glasgow derby cup tie at Ibrox with no binding external authority to overrule them when risk assessments are downgraded or when operational decisions prioritise convenience over safety.

That is not acceptable. The League Cup quarter-final must be planned and overseen by an independent body with real teeth, a body that can set minimum standards for staffing, segregation, and police presence; that can compel the disclosure of information on known risk groups; and that can hold Rangers, their security contractors, and Police Scotland to account for every decision taken before, during, and after the match. Anything less repeats the failures that produced the Ibrox disorder in the first place.

What went wrong at Ibrox and why it matters now

The independent review, led by consultant Mark Blackbourne, commissioned by the Scottish FA, makes clear that the disorder was not simply the result of a few “bad apples” rushing the pitch after Celtic won the penalty shootout. It was the product of systemic weaknesses in planning and risk assessment that left the matchday operation exposed when emotions spiked.

Key findings included:

• The initial risk assessment underestimated the unique challenges posed by a large away allocation at Ibrox, the first such fixture en masse since 2018.

• Planners failed to appreciate how quickly emotions could escalate after a penalty shootout, despite the obvious flashpoint that such a climax represents.

• There were disagreements over supporter routes, concerns about turnstile arrangements, insufficient crowd segregation, weaknesses in ticket checking, and inadequate contingency plans for forced entry.

• The report highlights that a “crushing incident was a real and foreseeable risk” due to non-compliant ultra-group fans surging past police and stewards.

• Most chillingly, the review notes that the four minutes and 28 seconds it took police to re-establish control on the pitch was a period in which “life-threatening violence” was possible.

In other words, the disorder was not an unforeseeable bolt from the blue. It was the foreseeable outcome of a planning process that did not treat the fixture with the seriousness it demanded.

Both Rangers and Celtic now face disciplinary charges under the Scottish FA’s Rule 37 on “good order and security” and “unacceptable conduct”. That is a necessary step, but it is not sufficient. Sanctions after the fact do not prevent the next failure in real time. The question for the League Cup tie is not only “who will be punished?” but “who will be in charge?”

The League Cup context - fewer guarantees, more risk

The ticketing context for the League Cup quarter-final adds another layer of risk. Under Scottish Cup rules, the away club could request up to 20 per cent of available tickets, a provision that helped Celtic receive more than 8,000 seats at Ibrox in March. League Cup regulations, however, contain no equivalent guarantee. That means the away allocation could be cut dramatically, concentrating more home supporters in and around the stadium while reducing the formal space for away fans.

Smaller away allocations do not eliminate risk; they can amplify it. They increase the likelihood of angry disgruntled fans gathering outside the stadium, complicate exit routes, and intensify the pressure points where rival groups might meet. If the away support is squeezed into a smaller footprint while the overall emotional charge of a Glasgow derby cup tie remains the same, the margin for error shrinks further.

This is precisely the moment when an independent safety authority is most needed, when commercial and competitive incentives might push clubs and police towards minimal compliance rather than best practice. Without a body that can set and enforce best practice standards for away allocations, segregation, and staffing levels, the League Cup tie risks becoming another cost-cutting exercise dressed up as operational prudence.

Policing, double standards, and the Trongate shadow

Police Scotland’s Operation Moonglint has made 37 arrests to date in connection with the Ibrox disorder, with injuries reported among police and stewards. At the same time, detectives have issued multiple CCTV appeals and identified 83 people they wish to speak to over the Trongate disorder following Celtic’s title win, with two police officers sustaining injuries and three civilians requiring medical attention. Media coverage has highlighted aggressive police tactics during the Trongate investigation, including TV crew “ride-alongs” and forceful entry methods that look more like drugs raids on Pablo Escobar than public-order investigations.

The contrast is stark. On one side, there is a high-visibility, high-intensity policing posture towards Celtic fans associated with Trongate, amplified by media access and dramatic enforcement imagery. On the other, there is widespread frustration that the same level of investigative zeal has not been directed at those who attacked officers, stewards, Celtic players and officials, and a Rangers club official inside Ibrox, including members of the Union Bears ultra group identified in reporting as initial perpetrators of the pitch invasion.

The independent review does not exonerate any group; it criticises ultra groups on both sides and describes their behaviour in terms more often associated with organised crime than spontaneous fandom. But the perception - and, for many fans, the lived experience - is that enforcement is selective. That perception corrodes trust. It makes cooperation with police less likely. It encourages a narrative in which one set of fans is treated as inherently criminal and another as indulged until things spiral beyond control.

For the League Cup tie, that dynamic is dangerous. If Celtic fans believe they will be treated as the primary threat regardless of behaviour, and if Rangers fans believe that only the most egregious conduct will be pursued, both groups have less incentive to align with safety instructions. An independent body cannot solve cultural bias overnight, but it can impose transparency by publishing risk assessments, staffing plans, and post-match reviews so that decisions can be scrutinised and, where necessary, challenged.

Why stewards are not enough and why police presence must be meaningful

The independent review is clear that stewards, however numerous, are not a substitute for properly resourced police operations in high-risk fixtures. Stewards are not trained for crowd management, they are not trained to deal with coordinated surges, missile-throwing, pyrotechnics, or violent confrontations involving weapons. The report’s description of ultra groups behaving like “organised crime groups” underlines the mismatch between the threat and the tools available to private security staff.

At Ibrox in March, police officers and stewards struggled to restore order as Rangers fans ran the length of the pitch to attack celebrating Celtic fans, fireworks were thrown, and missiles flew. The review’s warning that life-threatening violence was possible in the minutes before control was re-established is not hyperbole; it is an operational assessment.

For the League Cup quarter-final, that means:

• Police Scotland must not plan to the bare minimum. The “minimum necessary” posture criticised in the wake of Ibrox cannot be repeated when the stakes are this high.

• There must be a visible, mobile, and rapidly deployable police presence capable of intervening before small incidents escalate into mass confrontations.

• Protection for players and club officials must be treated as non-negotiable. The March disorder saw Celtic staff and players attacked after the penalty shootout; that cannot be allowed to happen again - even though it has happened many times at Ibrox over the years without the authorities and Rangers themselves dealing with it.

• Contingency plans must include clear protocols for pitch invasions, including immediate suspension of play if safety is compromised and pre-agreed routes for evacuating vulnerable individuals from the field.

To suggest that hundreds of stewards can substitute for this level of policing is to ignore the lessons of March. Stewards are part of the solution; they are not the solution.

The case for an independent matchday safety authority

The core argument is simple, the agencies with the most to lose - reputationally, commercially, and competitively - should not be the only ones setting the rules for high-risk fixtures. Rangers, as home club, have a direct interest in maximising capacity and minimising disruption. Police Scotland faces resource pressures and political scrutiny. The Scottish FA and SPFL want the competition to run smoothly and avoid reputational damage. All of these incentives can, in certain circumstances, align against the most conservative, safety-first approach.

An independent matchday safety authority or a significantly strengthened and formalised Safety Advisory Group with statutory powers, could:

• Set binding best practice standards for high-risk fixtures, including minimum police numbers, segregation distances, and staffing ratios for stewards and security firms.

• Require clubs to share information on known risk groups, including membership lists where legally permissible, and ensure that this intelligence is acted upon rather than filed away.

• Approve or reject operational plans, with the power to demand changes before a match is given the green light.

• Conduct real-time oversight on matchday, with the authority to halt or delay kick-off if conditions are not met.

• Publish post-match reviews that name failures and assign responsibility, making it harder for clubs and agencies to hide behind vague statements about “a small minority”.

The independent review already points in this direction. It criticises the current sanctions regime as “too modest, too deferred and too inconsistently applied to alter the behaviour of the clubs, groups and individuals they are designed to deter”. It also notes the vacuum left when recommendations from Glasgow City Council’s Safety Advisory Group were overturned at a senior level within Police Scotland, and it welcomes the idea that the status of Safety Advisory Groups should be formalised and strengthened.

That is the blueprint. What is missing is the political will to implement it before the next Glasgow derby tie, not after the next inquiry.

What Celtic fans can and should do - without absolving anyone else

For Celtic fans attending the League Cup quarter-final, the advice must be pragmatic and unsentimental. Support the team. Celebrate the win if or should I say when it comes. Wind up the opposition all you want. But do not rely on systems that have already shown they can fail.

Practically, that means:

• Be aware that stewarding, despite the numbers, are not fit for purpose in a fast-moving disorder scenario.

• Understand that police tactics may be heavily skewed towards controlling away fans, regardless of who initiates trouble.

• Avoid unnecessary flashpoints: large, coordinated displays that could be misread as provocations; congregating in known tension zones; or lingering in restricted areas after the final whistle.

• Keep moving with the flow of the crowd when exiting, and follow the safest exitroutes even if they are longer.

• Record incidents where possible, but prioritise personal safety over documentation.

• And god forbid, refrain from blessing yourselves too aggressively, for an enraged David Tanner will spit blood your way.

None of this is intended to let Rangers, their security firm, or Police Scotland off the hook. It is an acknowledgment that, until an independent body with real authority is in place, fans must act as if the system is fragile, because the independent review says it is.

Accountability cannot wait for the next disaster

The Scottish FA’s independent review into the Ibrox disorder is one of the most damning documents ever produced on matchday safety in Scottish football. It lays bare failures of leadership, planning, and coordination that left police officers “petrified” and brought the sport to the brink of a mass-casualty incident. It also exposes a disciplinary architecture that clubs and fans alike have learned to game - complain about the other side’s supporters, resist responsibility for your own, and accept that sanctions will be modest and delayed.

The League Cup quarter-final at Ibrox is not just another Glasgow derby. It is the first major test of whether Scottish football has absorbed those lessons. If the same actors are allowed to plan and police the match with no independent oversight, the answer will be no. If, instead, an independent body is empowered to set and enforce safety standards, to demand transparency from clubs and police, and to hold all parties accountable in real time, then there is a chance that the next chapter in this story will be about prevention rather than inquiry.

The choice is not between “tough on fans” and “soft on disorder”. It is between a system that learns from near-misses and one that waits for a catastrophe to force change. Given what the independent review has already revealed about Ibrox in March, Scottish football does not have the moral right to wait any longer.

Add as a preferred source on Google

As Rangers prepare to walk out to what is expected to be a less-than-capacity crowd at Ibrox this afternoon for their League Cup tie against holders St Mirren, another storm is brewing over a refereeing decision in a Celtic game. Much to the angst of Rangers fans - and those Hearts fans still hurting from last season’s “bottle job” - many would rather howl at the moon than support their team through its worst start to the season - winless in four games and knocked out of the Europa League under their great white [Ronseal Lodge Orange] Protestant saviour, Derek McInnes.

Celtic travelled to Tannadice on Saturday to face Dundee United in their League Cup tie, running out 4–0 winners. But there was debate among pundits after the match, echoed by Dundee United manager Jim Goodwin himself, over Celtic’s second goal, scored by new boy Camilo Durán in the 24th minute.

The incident occurred when Kasper Høgh, sliding under challenge, clearly handled the ball in the build-up before Durán finished from close range. VAR reviewed the goal but upheld referee Steven McLean’s on-field decision to allow it, leaving Dundee United incensed and sparking wider discussion about the interpretation of the handball law.

After the match, Goodwin was openly frustrated by the VAR decision to allow Celtic’s second goal, describing it as “extremely frustrating” and calling for “common sense” to prevail in such situations.

However, when there is a rulebook, common sense does not come into the equation -as Goodwin well knows. Before every season, clubs, players, and managers meet with the chief referee to hear about new laws implemented in the game, giving them prior warning before the season kicks off - just as Willie Collum did this year, including speaking to fans groups.

Now, you would be forgiven if you thought this ruling had been implemented over the summer, with players and managers still trying to get their heads around it. Even the Scottish FA’s website highlights an explanation in relation to the Høgh and Durán incident, which was jumped on by pundits and disgruntled, paranoid, conspiracy-theory Rangers fans alike. It states:

“Handball Law 12: The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick – The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm.”

Taken literally, that handball ruling would rightly see Durán’s goal ruled out and a free kick awarded to Dundee United. No one is disputing that. The only problem is that specific ruling was made in August 2019 and has been updated since.

In August 2021, two years after the ruling that pundits like Ewen Cameron and Michael Stewart referenced in their dog-whistle argument, IFAB made a rule change in relation to an “accidental handball in the immediate build-up to a goal”.

IFAB ruled: “If an attacking player’s accidental handball immediately precedes another player scoring, the goal will now be awarded, when last season it was likely to have been ruled out.”

It begs the question - why are we being subjected to pundits on our match coverage who don’t know the rules of the game? Michael Stewart clearly smelled blood and went for the jugular, only to make himself look like a laughing stock as soon as Willie Collum sent an explanation to the Premier Sports studio following the conclusion of the Celtic–Dundee United game. No amount of backtracking and whataboutery over the Falkirk game could hide the smug look being wiped off his face on live TV.

So now that we categorically know the goal was correctly allowed to stand under the current handball regulations - which have been in place for five years already - we can agree that the current handball rulings are complex and open to interpretation. While the rule of law was followed in regard to the Celtic goal, the ruling in the Falkirk game should be looked at further. But there’s no traction around a “Falkirk robbed of a legitimate goal” narrative for the journalists, pundits, and bitter, hurting Rangers and Hearts fans. So they decided to make arses of themselves by complaining, criticising referees, and decrying a “big bad Fenian conspiracy” to award Celtic a goal they duly deserved and scored without breaking any laws.

But Celtic being awarded a goal after the referee followed the rules of the game doesn’t matter to a fanbase like Rangers Football Club - a club whose former incarnation was liquidated after cheating Scottish football over an 11-year period by tax-dodging and buying players. Former Ibrox supremo David Murray admitted they would not have realistically been able to afford them without the tax dodge and side letters winning titles and trophies they really should have been stripped of.

So it makes perfect sense that Rangers, and latterly Hearts fans, complain about a handball or two while ignoring the greatest period of match-fixing in the history of Scottish football.

However, we all know the true reasons behind their claims of conspiracies and referees in favour of Celtic. They watched their club play the first four games of the season without a win and have surrendered the title already. They have seen Celtic score 10 goals and concede just once in their first three games of the season - and they can’t handle Celtic continuing to dominate the Scottish game without the Rangers’ strategy of tax dodges, side letters, and favourable bank loans from the owner’s best pal inside the Bank of Scotland.

If Rangers can’t beat Celtic to the title, they claim that Celtic cheated, that everyone was against Rangers and if that doesn’t gain traction, they then use the pain and suffering of abused children for their own agendas - while ignoring the crimes of their coaching staff and cover-ups by their own board and management teams.

So as Rangers take to the field at 4pm on Sunday, hopefully their fans will now come to terms with a law that was passed five years ago, realise that there is no “big bad Fenian conspiracy”, and give their team all the support they desperately need at this moment in time.

Because after spending £60 million on 28 players in the space of one year, sitting five points behind league leaders Celtic in ninth place, they need all the help they can get.

Rangers’ sudden withdrawal from the Couhaib Driouech transfer is being presented as a routine “failed medical”, but reports in the aftermath suggests a more complicated breakdown involving disputed injury timelines, short-term availability concerns, and a late ownership veto that undercut the club’s recruitment process. That picture has now been sharpened by the season-ending ACL injury to striker Youssef Chermiti, a blow that has clearly reshaped Rangers’ priorities and how they spend for the remainder of the window.

Driouech had travelled to Manchester and underwent medical examinations, with reports stating that he had passed those checks [as reported by the Rangers Review], with no long-term concerns deemed prohibitive. The player then travelled to Glasgow to take in the Ibrox side’s Europa League second leg qualifier against Jagiellonia Białystok as they lost 3-2 on aggregate.

Hours later, Rangers withdrew from the deal for the PSV winger, citing a thigh muscle tear identified in scans which would result in an estimated six-week absence. PSV on the other hand maintained the player had only a minor knock and would be out for around a week.

Dutch outlet ED reported that the final decision to cancel the transfer came from Rangers’ owners, stopping a deal that had already been arranged by senior football executives Gretar Steinsson and Dan Purdy.

The medical itself does not appear to have been a clear-cut “fail”, the collapse of the deal has centred on differing assessments of the immediate availability of the player.

A season-defining blow

The context around all of this changes dramatically when you factor in striker Youssef Chermiti season ending anterior cruciate ligament injury in their defeat to Hibernian last weekend. The injury came just hours after the club revealed it had rejected a bid from Galatasaray for the Portuguese striker, and with said injury that effectively ended any hope of Rangers’ hierarchy selling the striker to balance the cheque book. Rangers are already looking at a replacement for Chermiti with a £7.4m bid for Portland Timbers forward Kevin Kelsy reportedly been made. Money that would have been spent on Driouech for sure. They have also brought in former Hearts and Livingston full back James Penrice on loan from AEK Athens for around an initial £400,000 - with an option to buy at the end of the season - a position that they needed to strengthen given the lack of back up to the now injured Tuur Rommens and the injury to Ben Godfrey earlier in the campaign as well.

So it looks as thought the Driouech deal collapsing was more to do with the Ibrox side looking for a way out of the deal to fund a replacement for Chermiti, than actually worried about the time of his return to full fitness. Coupled with the reality of a winless four game start, and a failed Europa League qualifier - the natives are already restless - booing the team off the pitch in all four games, turning their daggers and pitchforks towards Derek McInnes and Andrew Cavanagh. So it makes sense to Rangers to pull the plug on another midfielder when they need a striker who scores goals unlike their currently fit strikers of Miovski and Naderi.

That all helps to explain why a deal for the PSV winger initially framed as a priority signing would be abandoned at the last minute.

Why the narrative matters as much as the injury

Andy Newport at the Daily Record, described as the paper’s dedicated Rangers correspondent, ran the “failed medical” exclusive hours after Driouech was pictured at Ibrox following reports he had passed his checks. That sequencing matters because it allows the club to frame the collapse as prudent medical diligence rather than a reversal on signing their priority target.

The timeline, however, raises obvious questions. If Rangers knew about a “minor knock” before Driouech travelled - which they did - why proceed to finalise details and then abruptly pull out after he was seen at the ground? Why is there such a stark divergence between a six-week prognosis from Rangers and a one-week outlook from PSV, especially when the player’s long-term medical status was reportedly acceptable? And why, if this was purely a medical issue, did Dutch reporting point to an ownership-level veto that overruled the recruitment team’s work? The simplest explanation that fits the facts is not a rogue scan, but a change of priorities at the top once the reality and the cost of their Europa League exit set in - it was all about saving face.

The Europa League shadow as Rangers’ exit rewrites transfer policy

Rangers’ exit from their Europa League qualifier, leaving their participation in Europe - with another play-off round to go in the Conference League - and associated revenue in doubt, appears to have been an early trigger for tighter spending.

After spending £60 million on roughly 27 players in the last 12 months and a winless start to the new season, the sums are simple for the 49ers and John Cavanagh shifting quickly from “back the manager’s priority target” to “stop the rot”.

Chermiti’s injury accelerated that shift, with a key forward now out long term and European money looking uncertain, the ownership’s risk tolerance for additional multi-million-pound commitments narrows further. Driouech was identified as a priority for McInnes to add pace and creativity after a sluggish start, senior recruitment figures had already arranged the deal before the owners’ late intervention undermined their authority and, by extension, the manager’s. Now they are having to react and find a striker to plug the gap and use the money that was earmarked for Driouech to do that.

Money, identity and the “bigger club” delusion

Rangers’ spending has not translated into competitiveness as the club’s hierarchy had hoped. The club has poured significant funds into the squad over the last 12 months yet remains dependent on favourable financial structures and loans to keep pace, while domestic results don’t back up the rhetoric coming from the Ibrox club and their supporters.

The Driouech episode, now viewed alongside the Chermiti ACL injury, exposes the tension between a hierarchy that wants to act like a continental operator, making big moves and backing a manager publicly, and an ownership group that, when confronted with losing out on Europa League revenue, a poor start, and a season-ending injury to its striker, reverts to cost control and narrative management.

The result is a club that looks increasingly like a money pit with a superiority complex - big spend, big talk, yet results to match up to their self-image.

For McInnes, the Driouech collapse is more than a missed signing; it is a signal that his recruitment priorities can be overridden at the last minute, even as he loses his first-choice striker for the long term. For the board, it is an admission that European revenue - and the fear of losing the last scraps of the Conference League - trumps the manager’s stated needs, while the Chermiti, Godfrey, and Rommens injuries force an urgent, reactive pivot towards a new forward and defensive cover.

For supporters, it is another reminder that Rangers watch Celtic set the pace once again, and are reacting to that rather than looking at their long-term strategy and planning. In that light, the Driouech “failed medical” is less a medical story and more a symptom of a club continuing to reconcile its spending, its perceived status, and its results, all while coping with an injury that has fundamentally altered the shape of the transfer window.

Celtic’s decision to sanction Arne Engels’ £22 million move to West Ham United less than 24 hours after unveiling Mika Baur is a baffling piece of short-termism that undermines the club’s stated ambition to compete in the Champions League.

While the fee is significant and the player’s desire to move south of the border was clear, the timing - on the eve of the two-legged play-off against LASK - exposes a board prioritising the balancing of the books over sporting ambition.

Ambition, Investment, and the Baur Signal

Less than 24 hours ago, the signing of 22-year-old German midfielder Mika Baur from Paderborn for up to £8 million was framed as a statement of intent. The narrative was compelling that Celtic were no longer content to merely stay one step ahead of Rangers; they were building a squad capable of qualifying for the Champions League and testing themselves against Europe’s elite. Baur’s arrival, alongside Camilo Duran, Kasper Høgh, and Haissem Hassan, suggested a coherent plan to refresh the spine of the team while retaining much of its core. Even if some of them wanted away.

Yet, within hours of Baur’s unveiling, the club approved the sale of Arne Engels, a key first-team midfielder, to West Ham United for £22 million plus add-ons. The optics are evident once again from Celtic - a “statement signing” immediately followed by the departure of a proven performer ahead of the most important fixtures of the early season.

The Case for Patience: Why the Board Held All the Cards

There is no denying that Engels was keen on a move to England. West Ham had submitted multiple bids, with the player’s personal terms reportedly agreed well in advance. But Celtic were not in a position of financial desperation to accept the bid. The club’s accounts, even after the summer spending, did not require another immediate sale following the departure of Daizen Maeda to Ipswich Town.

More importantly, the club held all the leverage. West Ham’s interest was not going to vanish if the deal concluded after the LASK ties. Selling key players before the Champions League play-off is risky and undermines the squad’s chances of success - as Celtic found out to our cost last season. The board could have waited until the qualifiers were complete, thanked Engels for his services, and wished him well at his new club - without jeopardising the team’s European campaign.

The Sporting Cost: Weakening the Midfield on the Eve of Battle

Let’s get this straight, Engels was not a fringe player. He isn’t someone we can sell and not see the gap left by his departure. Since his £11 million arrival from FC Augsburg in summer 2024, he has made 93 appearances and scored 17 goals, becoming a mainstay in Celtic’s midfield. His departure leaves a void that cannot simply be filled by an unproven prospect in Baur, no matter how promising.

Mika Baur may yet prove to be a top-drawer midfielder at Celtic - even better than Engels in the long term. But no credible and ambitious organisation replaces a key midfielder with an unknown prospect on the eve of their biggest game of the season.

The Financial Logic vs. Sporting Reality

The board’s rationale is clear, £22 million is a significant fee, and it helps offset the £30.6 million spent on four new signings this summer - along with the £8 million sale of Daizen Maeda earlier in the window. But this logic ignores the financial stakes of the Champions League. Qualification brings not only prestige but also substantial revenue - far exceeding the £22 million that Celtic have secured from the Hammers.

If Celtic are knocked out of the Champions League because the midfield is weaker without Engels, the board’s decision will be viewed as a catastrophic misjudgement. The short-term financial gain pales in comparison to the long-term sporting and financial consequences of missing out on Europe’s premier competition.

A Further Pattern of Mismanagement

This is not the first time Celtic’s board has been accused of prioritising finances over sporting success and it won’t be the last. The pattern is concerning - invest in new talent, then sell established performers before crucial fixtures to balance the books.

The timing of Engels’ sale - less than 24 hours after Baur’s unveiling - suggests a lack of strategic coherence. If the board truly believes in the club’s Champions League ambitions, why weaken the squad before the qualifiers? The decision smacks of panic rather than planning.

Trust Eroded

For the fans, the message is clear that the board’s ambitions do not align with their own. Supporters want to see Celtic compete in the Champions League, not just qualify for it.

The board may argue that they had no choice, that Engels’ desire to move and West Ham’s persistence forced their hand. But the evidence suggests otherwise. Celtic could have waited. They should have waited. The fact that they did not speaks volumes about their priorities.

The Path Forward: Engels Replacement & Strategic Clarity

The damage is done. Engels has reportedly passed his medical in London, and West Ham are preparing to announce their latest signing. The focus must now shift to finding further additions to strengthen a side that is still lacking in numbers.

Celtic need to act swiftly in the transfer market to secure a replacement midfielder. Names like Gvidas Gineitis, Miguel Chaiwa, Niko Sigur, and Ermin Mahmic have been mentioned, but the club must ensure that any new signing is ready to contribute immediately.

More importantly, the board must provide clarity on their strategic vision. Are Celtic a selling club, or a competing club? The two are not mutually exclusive, but the timing of sales matters. If the board truly believes in the club’s Champions League ambitions, they must demonstrate it through their actions - not just their words after the fact.

The Bottom Line

Arne Engels’ sale to West Ham United is a £22 million gamble that could risk Celtic’s Champions League spot. The board’s decision to sanction the move before the LASK ties is a clear mismanagement of the club’s sporting and financial interests.

The fans deserve better. The manager deserves better. The players deserve better. And the club’s ambitions deserve better. If Celtic are to compete in the Champions League, they must start by competing in the transfer market with the same ambition they claim to possess. Anything less is a betrayal of their roles as custodians of the club.

The board’s next moves will determine whether this is a temporary misstep this season or a continued pattern of mismanagement that we have come to see over the years.

As for Arne Engels, I wish him well at West Ham. He still had a huge amount to offer Celtic and could have stayed on a further year to develop further with added experience in the Champions League - but the lure of football in England along with the wages on offer is hard to resist and who can blame the 22 year old.

In the grand theatre of Scottish football, where moonbeams and the banter years have been prevalent for decades, Rangers chief executive Jim Gillespie delivered a masterclass in storytelling that even the writers of Game of Thrones would find fantastical. His latest line? That Derek McInnes, the man currently presiding over a winless start to the season - including elimination from the Europa League qualifiers by a Polish side whose name sounds like a wifi password - is in fact a “Klopp-style manager.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The same Derek McInnes who, after four competitive games, has yet to secure a victory and who has admitted his squad is “not ready” for Europa League football, is being billed as the Scottish answer to Jurgen Klopp.

Gillespie’s logic, as declared at the Rangers shareholders’ meeting earlier this week, is beautifully simple. There are, he explained, two types of managers: Klopp-types and Guardiola-types. The former are aggressive, front-foot, chance-creating, goal-scoring machines. The latter are, presumably, the ones who make their players pass the ball sideways 47 times before scoring from a corner.

“Derek McInnes is a Klopp-style manager,” Gillespie declared, with the confidence of a man who has just discovered that water is wet. He cited McInnes’ “great season at Hearts,” his “Scottish experience,” and the fact that he has managed over 500 games as evidence of his Kloppian credentials. What he did not mention is that Klopp’s teams are known for their high-intensity pressing, relentless energy, and ability to turn defeats into comebacks. The total opposite of a McInnes Rangers side.

If Gillespie’s comparison was a work of fiction, the Europa League qualifier against Jagiellonia Bialystok was the cold hard truth exposing Gillespie’s comments as nothing more than the ramblings of a drunk uncle at dinner. Rangers, despite spending between £60-70 million on players in the last year, were dumped out 3-2 on aggregate by a team whose name has spawned more memes than trophies.

The Polish side, seemingly aware of the comedic gold their name provided, leaned into the joke on social media after the match. Meanwhile, McInnes, in a post-match interview that was a ‘masterclass in damage limitation’, admitted that his team was “not ready” for Europa League football. This is the footballing equivalent of a chef admitting the oven isn’t hot enough after serving raw lasagne.

Veteran journalist Graham Speirs captured the mood perfectly: “Listening to Derek McInnes tonight I get the distinct impression that, after 9 new signings, he feels he is mired in playing mediocrity.” It’s a sentiment that will resonate with Rangers fans, who have watched their team transition from “built for Europe” to “not quite ready” in the space of four games.

Gillespie’s laughable claim that McInnes is a Klopp-type manager raises an obvious question - if McInnes is so Kloppian, why does his football look more like a Sunday league team? Klopp’s Liverpool were known for their “heavy metal” football, a term that conjures images of thunderous tackles, lightning-fast counter-attacks, and crowds singing “You’ll Never Walk Alone” at full volume. McInnes’ Rangers, by contrast, are known for their “heavy booing” football, a style characterised by defensive errors, missed chances, and crowds booing at full time - if any remained.

The comparison also ignores the fact that Klopp’s success was built on a foundation of data-driven recruitment, a clear tactical identity, and a squad that believed in his vision. McInnes, meanwhile, has inherited a squad that spent £50 million on players last season and a further £20 million this season but still looks like it’s missing a few key components. Rangers and missing links - no pun intended!

Who would have thought it takes more than being staunch enough, it takes more than a suit and brown brogues, it takes more than ‘getting a club’ to be a successful manager.

Gillespie also revealed that McInnes had been on Rangers’ “contingency” list since April. “We have always got a list of managers who we believe fit our squad and game model,” he said, with the air of a man who has just discovered that planning ahead is a thing.

The appointment process, he added, was thorough. “No one gets a free ride. You don’t get a job at Rangers unless you’ve gone through a thorough process and we believe we have the right person for that role.” This is the same thorough process that resulted in McInnes being hired simply because he was a former Rangers player, he gets the club and its traditions, and not to mention he finished above them in the league last season.

Meanwhile, Rangers fans, have not been slow to react. The booing at Ibrox after the Jagiellonia match was not just a sign of frustration; it was a verdict. A consistent one this season in fact and yet it has only taken four games for the Rangers fans to turn on Ronseal’s favourite shade of wood paint - Protestant Blue.

The sarcasm is palpable. McInnes, the man who was supposed to bring Kloppian energy to Ibrox, is now the man who admits his team is not ready for Europe. Gillespie, the CEO who promised a “Klopp-style manager,” is now the man who has to explain why his Klopp-style manager looks more like Ted Brasso than Jurgen Klopp.

The McInnes appointment, and Gillespie’s insistence on the Klopp comparison, says as much about Rangers’ ambitions as it does about their reality. The club wants to be seen as a European force, a team that can compete with the best, a team that can challenge for the Premiership title. But the reality is that they are a team that struggles to meet the ambitions of a support and board suffering from a Napoleon complex.

This is not to say that McInnes cannot turn things around. He is a manager with a proven track record in Scottish football, and he still has the backing of the board for now. But the Klopp comparison is a laughable stretch.

In the end, the Klopp comparison is less about McInnes and more about the need for honesty. Rangers fans deserve a manager who is judged on his own merits, not on a comparison to one of the greatest managers of his generation. They deserve a CEO who acknowledges the challenges ahead, rather than one who tries to spin a winless start as the beginning of some sort of Kloppian revolution.

As for McInnes, the pressure is on. He has admitted his team is not ready for Europe. Now he has to prove that they has what it takes still to challenge for the Premiership title and qualify for the UEFA Conference League. And if he can’t, then Gillespie’s Klopp comparison will go down as one of the most side splitting pieces of corporate storytelling in Scottish football history.

In the meantime, Rangers fans can take solace in one thing, Derek McInnes truly is one of them.

The banter years continue.

There are times when a football club’s transfer window becomes more than a collection of incomings and outgoings. It becomes a statement of intent, a declaration of ambition and, occasionally, an attempt to reset the relationship between a club and its supporters.

Celtic’s summer recruitment of Camilo Duran, Kasper Hogh, Mika Baur and Haissem Hassan certainly feels like one of those moments.

For too long, Celtic supporters have watched transfer windows unfold with a familiar mixture of frustration, anxiety, anger, and resignation. There have been too many summers when obvious weaknesses were left unresolved, too many occasions when Champions League qualification was treated as an aspiration rather than a strategic necessity, and too many windows in which the club appeared to confuse financial prudence with sporting direction.

This summer, however, Celtic looked to have acted differently - albeit late in the day.

The £11 million-plus acquisition of Kasper Hogh from Bodø/Glimt has shattered the club’s transfer record, overtaking the fee paid for Arne Engels. The Danish striker arrived with an impressive record, including 54 goals and 22 assists in 103 appearances for the Norwegian club, as well as six Champions League goals during Bodø/Glimt’s run to the last 16 last season.

That is not a speculative signing made in the hope that a player might eventually become important. It is an investment in a player expected to make an immediate difference and after just two games he has done just that with his hattrick last weekend against Kilmarnock.

Celtic have also paid around £6 million for former Qarabag forward Camilo Duran, while Haissem Hassan has arrived from Real Oviedo in a deal worth an initial £6 million, potentially rising to £10 million. Mika Baur, meanwhile, has been secured from Paderborn today for a reported £6.8 million after Celtic eventually met the German club’s valuation.

Taken together, these are statement signings. They are statement signings because Celtic have identified positions of need and recruited players who appear capable of improving the starting XI. They are statement signings because the club has demonstrated a willingness to spend serious money rather than simply recycle modest fees on projects. Most importantly, they are statement signings because they suggest Celtic have finally recognised that domestic dominance alone is no longer enough.

The target must be bigger.

Celtic are pursuing a sixth consecutive league title this season. That should be celebrated, but it should not be presented as the limit of the club’s ambition. Winning the Scottish Premiership is the minimum requirement for a club of Celtic’s resources and stature. It is not an insult to the rest of Scottish football to say that; it is simply an acknowledgement of the competitive and financial reality in which Celtic operate.

The club’s real challenge is to convert domestic superiority into European relevance. That means reaching the Champions League league phase. It means giving the manager a squad capable of navigating the qualifying rounds, dealing with injuries and suspensions, and competing against opponents whose financial resources and squad depth are considerably greater. It means moving away from the annual cycle of hoping that a few individual moments, favourable draws and late-window additions will be enough.

Hogh’s Champions League experience is particularly significant. His goals against clubs such as Atlético Madrid, Inter Milan, Sporting Lisbon and Manchester City demonstrate that he has already performed on the biggest stage. That does not guarantee he will reproduce those numbers at Celtic, but it does suggest that this is a player familiar with the intensity, tempo and demands of elite European football.

Celtic have often recruited players with potential, which remains an important part of any sustainable strategy. But a team attempting to qualify for the Champions League needs more than potential. It needs proven quality, physical readiness and players who are not overawed by the occasion. Hogh, Duran, Baur and Hassan appear to represent a shift in that direction.

Duran add greater threat to the forward line. Hassan offers another attacking option and the possibility of greater pace and unpredictability in wide areas. Baur brings energy and dynamism to midfield. Hogh, meanwhile, gives Celtic a major focal point and a striker who should be expected to carry a significant scoring burden.

This is not merely about adding numbers to the squad. It is about raising the standard of competition within it. Players who previously expected to start every important game must now fight to retain their positions. Squad players must prove that they can contribute consistently. The manager has more tactical options, and Celtic should be better equipped to respond when matches become difficult.

That is what ambitious recruitment is supposed to achieve.

It is perfectly reasonable for Celtic supporters to praise the club for these signings. Indeed, refusing to do so would be unfair. The club has spent heavily, moved for players who were not necessarily available at bargain prices and shown a level of ambition that has been conspicuously absent in previous transfer windows.

The Hogh deal alone represents a major financial commitment. The club-record fee sends a clear message to the squad, the supporters and Celtic’s domestic rivals. The combined investment in Duran, Hassan and Baur reinforces that message. That deserves recognition.

Supporters who have criticised the board should not be accused of inconsistency because they welcome good decisions. Holding executives accountable and acknowledging progress are not contradictory positions. In fact, both are essential if a club is to improve.

The fans were right to demand better. They were right to question the club’s transfer strategy. They were right to protest against what they saw as a lack of accountability, poor communication, stale governance and an absence of long-term planning. They are also right to say this is better.

The Celtic Fans Collective’s “Not Another Penny” campaign called for supporters to boycott merchandise and matchday food and drink as part of wider protests against the Parkhead hierarchy. The grievances included repeated European failures, the transfer strategy, ticketing, the condition of the stadium, fan engagement, the academy, the lack of investment in the women’s team and the matchday experience.

There is no concrete proof available to establish precisely how effective that boycott was financially. It would be wrong to claim that the protest alone forced the club to spend money this summer. Football clubs make decisions for a range of reasons, and transfer planning is rarely the result of one factor.

But the protest still mattered. It mattered because it communicated the depth of supporter dissatisfaction. It mattered because it challenged the assumption that Celtic fans would continue to purchase everything placed in front of them regardless of how the club was run. It mattered because supporters were asking a basic question - if Celtic can spend significantly when European qualification is at stake, why did it take so long to address glaring weaknesses?

The answer cannot simply be that the money was always there.

The danger now is that four impressive signings become a convenient excuse to close the book on the past. They must not. Celtic’s recent recruitment drive does not erase the mismanagement that led supporters to protest in the first place. It does not provide evidence of a long-term football strategy. It does not explain why the club has operated without a clearly defined head of scouting, head of football operations or director of football.

A modern football club should not depend on individual personalities, short-term improvisation or the hope that a manager can compensate for structural weaknesses. Recruitment should be coordinated through a clear football department. Scouting should be properly resourced. The club should know what kind of players it wants, which markets it intends to work in and how each signing fits into a coherent sporting model. Most importantly, there should be continuity.

Celtic cannot afford to reinvent their football strategy every time there is a change in manager or a new crisis in the transfer market. The club needs a framework that survives those changes. It needs people with the expertise and authority to make decisions based on footballing evidence rather than simply reacting to events.

The four new arrivals may all succeed and I really do that they all do. They may help Celtic win six titles in a row and reach the Champions League league phase. They may become some of the most important signings in the club’s recent history. But even if that happens, Celtic will still need to explain why this kind of recruitment was not in place years ago. A good transfer window cannot be the entire strategy. It must be evidence that a strategy finally exists.

That is why the decision not to retain Marcelo Saracchi remains difficult for many supporters to understand. The Uruguayan left-back made a positive impression during his loan spell at Celtic, contributed to a league and Scottish Cup-winning campaign and appeared to offer experience, athleticism and balance in an area where the squad requires depth.

Yet Celtic did not appear to pursue a permanent agreement, despite the fee eventually involved. Saracchi has now completed a move to Houston Dynamo from Boca Juniors for a reported fee of approximately £1 million.

There may have been footballing, contractual or financial reasons for Celtic’s decision. There may have been concerns that supporters are unaware of. But from the outside, it was a missed opportunity. If a player has already adapted to Scottish football, performed for Celtic and can be acquired for a relatively modest fee, the club should at least be able to demonstrate that every effort was made to retain him.

Instead, Saracchi’s departure has reinforced an uncomfortable perception - Celtic can sometimes spend heavily on players from abroad while allowing a player who already knows the club and the league to leave without a whimper.

The potential arrival of Chelsea youngster Landon Emenalo on a reported season-long loan may provide cover at left-back, with Kieran Tierney first choice, it could prove to be a good bit of business. But a loan is not the same as permanent squad building. Celtic must be careful not to confuse short-term cover with long-term planning.

The interest in a new goalkeeper is also understandable. Viljami Sinisalo and Ross Doohan are currently the only first team goalkeepers, but Celtic are reportedly looking to sign a third option, with Hajduk Split’s Niko Sigur and Torino’s Gvidas Gineitis being touted. But the priority has to be quality, not simply signing a player to make up numbers.

Celtic do not need to sign players for the sake of maintaining momentum on social media. They need players who improve the team and fit the manager’s requirements. That principle must apply beyond the four headline arrivals.

The recruitment drive is only the first step in repairing the relationship with the fanbase. The club must now match its spending with structural reform. That means stronger governance. It means genuine fan engagement rather than occasional meetings convened only when protests become impossible to ignore. It means investment in infrastructure, from the stadium to the academy and women’s team. It means an improved matchday experience for supporters who pay increasingly significant sums to attend games.

Celtic’s atmosphere should be one of the club’s greatest competitive advantages. It should not be undermined by poor communication, neglected facilities or a feeling that supporters are treated merely as a revenue stream.

The board must also address the continuing calls for Michael Nicholson, Chris McKay and Dermot Desmond to leave their positions. The question is not whether every criticism levelled at them is fair. The question is whether the current leadership has what it takes for the next phase of the club’s development. Trust cannot be demanded. It has to be rebuilt. And yet

These signings create an opportunity for Celtic to change the conversation. For the first time in several transfer windows, the club has given supporters something substantial to discuss beyond disappointment. Hogh’s arrival has generated excitement. Duran, Baur and Hassan suggest that Celtic are no longer content to rely on a thin squad and domestic momentum. The prospect of Emenalo joining adds further depth and flexibility.

This is how a major club should behave when it has European ambitions. But enthusiasm must not become complacency.

The board cannot now point to four expensive signings and tell supporters that their concerns have been answered. Supporters were not protesting because they wanted one busy summer. They were protesting because they wanted competence, ambition, transparency and a sustainable football operation. Those demands remain.

Celtic should be praised for finally acting like a club determined to compete in the Champions League. The four new arrivals are genuine statement signings, and they offer the manager a much stronger platform from which to pursue a sixth consecutive league title and a place in Europe’s lucrative elite competition.

But the board must understand the distinction between making progress and completing the job.

The signings are the beginning of the repair, not the conclusion of it. They can help Celtic win matches, trophies and European qualification. They cannot, by themselves, fix the governance of the club, restore supporter confidence or replace a missing football structure. Celtic have finally shown ambition in the transfer market. Now they must show the same ambition away from the pitch.

Only then will these four signings represent more than an impressive summer of spending. Only then will they become the foundation of a properly planned, modern and ambitious Celtic.

There is a contradiction at the heart of Celtic Football Club’s relationship with its supporters.

On one hand, Celtic presents itself as a club built on community, identity, history and belonging. It celebrates the passion of its supporters, the songs, the displays, the traditions and the global reach of the Celtic family. The club’s commercial machine is built around that emotional connection. Every new shirt, season-ticket campaign, European night and heritage product depends on supporters feeling that Celtic is not simply a football team, but part of who they are.

On the other hand, those same supporters are increasingly being treated as if they are an inconvenience, a hindrance, a headache, a thorn in the side of the board, as the enemy.

Fan bloggers, podcasters, vloggers, independent journalists, social-media creators and ordinary supporters who have spent years promoting the club are being pushed further and further away. Access to matches, interviews, training sessions, player appearances, club legends and official facilities is tightly controlled. Opportunities that were once available to independent fan media are now once again reserved exclusively for the club’s own platforms and traditional media organisations.

The commercial logic behind this is obvious. Celtic operates in a relatively small domestic market. It cannot compete financially with the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga or the largest clubs in Europe. Every commercial opportunity matters. Every piece of content has potential value. Every interview, image, video and exclusive access opportunity can be used to drive traffic, subscriptions, sponsorship, advertising, merchandise sales and engagement with Celtic’s own digital channels.

That reality is understood by anyone who has worked in e-commerce or digital media. I have worked commercially online for around two decades [not OnlyFans!] and spent much of the past ten years in senior e-commerce roles. I have worked with limited budgets, stretched resources and demanding commercial targets. I have also worked in environments where funding was more plentiful. I understand the need to maximise revenue, protect intellectual property, build first-party audiences and make sure investment in content delivers a return.

What I cannot understand is the apparent belief that the best way to maximise Celtic’s commercial potential is to lock out the very people who have spent years creating content around the club - it is a commercial gold mine.

Control Is Not the Same as Strategy

There is nothing wrong with Celtic developing its own media operation. The club should have a strong website, a compelling app, an improved Celtic TV platform, a podcast network, a modern Celtic View and a first-class social-media operation. It should own and control its key commercial assets. It should be able to monetise premium interviews, behind-the-scenes footage and exclusive access. It should create content that generates income and strengthens the relationship between the club and its global support.

That is normal modern sports-business practice.

The problem arises when ownership becomes exclusionary. The club’s internal media operation should not have to exist at the expense of the wider Celtic content ecosystem. Indeed, it should be using that ecosystem to extend its reach, increase its output and deepen its relationship and engagement with supporters.

Celtic’s own media team, regardless of its talent and commitment, is limited by the same constraints faced by every media organisation. There are only so many staff available. They have a limited budget. There are only so many hours in the working day. A small number of employees cannot attend every event, research every story, interview every former player, produce every video, record every podcast and engage with every section of a global fan base.

That is where fan media should come in. Independent fan creators are not competitors, they can be an extension of the club’s reach. They can produce content for audiences that official channels struggle to reach. They can offer different tones, formats and perspectives. They can tell stories with a familiarity and emotional connection that is often difficult for corporate communications departments to replicate.

A blogger writing about Celtic’s next opponent can serve a different purpose from a formal club preview. A podcast featuring a former player can offer a more relaxed and personal conversation than an official interview. A fan video from a European away day can capture the atmosphere in a way that a polished promotional package cannot. A supporter discussing the history of the club can connect with an audience that the club cannot replicate.

The answer to this variety should not be to suppress it to exclude it. The answer should be to collaborate with it.

Celtic are more than capable of commissioning fan-media contributors to create work for the Celtic View, Celtic Player, the official website and the club podcast. It could establish a formal creator network, with clear standards, agreed fees, editorial guidelines and access arrangements. It could invite respected independent outlets and creators [that rules me out btw] to contribute previews, analysis, interviews, historical features and supporter-led content.

That would not weaken Celtic’s brand. It would give the brand more life, it would strengthen it.

A Missed Commercial Opportunity

The failure to work meaningfully with fan media is not only a cultural mistake. It is a commercial mistake.

Modern digital marketing is built around content, community and trust. Audiences are more likely to engage with voices they recognise and believe in. They are increasingly sceptical of content that feels overly polished, heavily controlled or designed solely to sell them something. The most successful brands understand that people do not just want to be spoken to. They want to participate, they want to engage in it.

Celtic has an sizeable community of supporters who already possess the skills required to produce high-quality content. Some are writers, photographers, filmmakers, broadcasters, designers, historians, analysts, and social-media specialists. Many operate websites, podcasts, YouTube channels, newsletters and social accounts with highly engaged audiences.

These people have invested their own time and money in covering Celtic and promoting the club.

They have travelled to matches, bought equipment, paid for hosting, built websites, edited footage, recorded podcasts, designed graphics, researched history, and created content without any guarantee of financial reward. Their work has helped Celtic remain part of the daily conversation between matches. It has promoted the club to supporters who may live thousands of miles from Glasgow. It has kept former players, historic moments, social issues and supporter stories in circulation, and brought their stories to new generations of Celtic supporters.

For Celtic to treat these people as an inherent threat is commercially short-sighted, it is negligent in my opinion.

The club already understands the value of reach. It pays for advertising, sponsorship activation, influencer campaigns and digital distribution. Yet the Celtic support has created one of the most powerful organic marketing networks in World football let alone Scottish football. Supporters share content because they care about the subject. They recommend podcasts because they trust the presenters. They watch interviews because the person asking the questions understands the culture of the club.

That reach cannot simply be replicated by buying advertising on Google or Meta.

There is also a difference between a creator making money from Celtic content and Celtic losing money. The two are not automatically connected. If an independent podcast sells tickets to an event with a former Celtic player, that does not mean Celtic has lost a commercial opportunity. If a fan channel produces a video interview, that does not necessarily reduce demand for Celtic Player. If anything, it may introduce new people to the club’s official platforms.

Not every piece of content needs to be owned by Celtic to benefit Celtic.

That is a basic principle of modern marketing. Brands routinely work with creators who maintain their own identities and audiences. They understand that credibility is often stronger when a message does not come directly from the corporate account. They understand that collaboration can produce greater reach than centralised communication. Celtic should understand this too.

Fans Could Transform the Merchandise Model

The same issue is visible in Celtic’s e-commerce operation. When the club launches a new kit or merchandise collection, it needs strong photography, video, social content and marketing material. The conventional approach is to hire professional models or agencies and produce polished campaign assets. There is a place for that. But there is also a huge opportunity to involve supporters directly.

Why not invite ordinary Celtic fans to model the latest kit? Why not work with fan influencers, families, supporters’ groups, disabled supporters, older fans, young fans and people from different communities who support Celtic around the world? Why not show Celtic club merchandise being worn by the people who actually buy it?

The appeal of Celtic merchandise is not dependent on it looking good on a Size 10 model. Supporters are not buying a shirt because the person wearing it has the right jawline or a profile that is photogenic. They are buying it because it represents Celtic Football Club.

A campaign featuring genuine supporters is more powerful than a generic studio shoot. It shows the shirt being worn at Celtic Park, in supporters’ clubs, on the streets of Glasgow, at family gatherings and in communities across the world. It shows what the product means to people.

Supporters would be more than willing to participate in such campaigns. Many would do so for a modest fee, new merchandise, match tickets, hospitality, or simply the experience of being invited behind the scenes. The commercial cost would be manageable, while the emotional value would be considerable.

More importantly, the campaign would communicate a message that Celtic currently appears to be losing - supporters are not merely customers.

They are part of the product’s meaning.

A fan-led merchandise campaign could generate content across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, X, the official website, and on print advertising. It could include short interviews, photographs, fan stories and user-generated content. It could encourage supporters to share how they started following Celtic, who introduced them to the club and what particular shirts or moments mean to them.

That is not just advertising. It is community-building. And community-building drives commercial loyalty.

The Past Shows What Is Possible

When I first launched Scotzine back in 2006, the site grew from a blog into a platform with access to men’s and women’s matches across the divisions in the Scottish game , including the national team. We operated in the same press areas as journalists from the Daily Record, the Scottish Sun, BBC Scotland, STV, Sky Sports and other established organisations.

That period was not perfect. There were standards to meet and relationships to manage - some toes were stepped on, others didn’t like our presence in the same room as them. But the existence of fan media in those environments represented an important shift in how football journalism was understood and where it was heading.

The old assumption was that meaningful football coverage could only be produced by people working for established newspapers or broadcasters. Independent creators challenged that assumption. We showed that people could build audiences, produce informed work and contribute to the national football conversation without sitting inside a traditional newsroom.

That inevitably made some established media figures uncomfortable and threatened. Fan creators were dismissed as hobbyists, amateurs or “fans with typewriters”. The implication was that enthusiasm automatically disqualified people from being serious journalists or broadcasters. But the growth of fan media since those days has demonstrated that audiences cared about more than institutional authority. They care about knowledge, personality, access, consistency and authenticity.

Some fan outlets were better than others, just as some newspaper articles and television packages were better than others. The important point was that the old monopoly had been broken.

Traditional media organisations noticed. In some cases, they have tried to adapt. In others, they attempted to imitate the independent model. Websites linked to large organisations began presenting material in a style that resembled fan blogging, using informal tones and supporter-focused content to attract audiences. When that strategy was exposed, the distinction between professional media and fan media became even more blurred.

The financial pressure on traditional journalism also led to one media group to a acquire successful independent platform. The purchase of The Terrace podcast by Newsquest illustrated the value that could be created by a small team working independently. Craig Fowler and the wider Terrace team had built something with its own identity, audience and cultural relevance before it became a television programme on the BBC.

That is the lesson Celtic should be learning.

Independent fan media can create valuable intellectual property. It can build trust and communities that larger or more corporate organisations struggle to manufacture. It can develop formats and voices that later become attractive to broadcasters, publishers and commercial partners.

Instead of trying to prevent that development, Celtic should be asking how it can participate in it.

The Allegations Around Fan Media

Recent comments made publicly by John Hughes on twitter about Celtic’s alleged treatment of the ACSOM podcast and Paul John Dykes have intensified concerns among some supporters.

Hughes claimed that people connected to the club had contacted former players in an effort to discourage them from working with Dykes and ACSOM if they wanted to work with Celtic in the future. He also criticised the club’s handling of former Celtic player Didier Agathe, who had reportedly been brought from all the way from Bangkok at ACSOM’s expense for a supporter event organised by Dykes, before being involved in Celtic’s own Flag Day activities and podcast.

Those are serious allegations. The fact that such claims are being made publicly is itself significant.

It points to a relationship that has broken down so much between fan media and the club, that the club is using access and relationships as tools of control. It contributes to the wider perception that Celtic does not merely want to manage its own media operation, but wants to prevent independent voices from operating at all.

If everything that I am hearing is accurate, the conduct described is deeply troubling. A football club using its influence to pressure former players not to participate in independent events would go beyond sensible brand management. It would look like an attempt to restrict the legitimate activities of people who have built businesses and communities around their support of Celtic Football Club.

There is a clear difference between protecting commercial rights and undermining independent creators.

Celtic is entitled to decide where its own players appear. It is entitled to control access to club facilities. It is entitled to set accreditation rules, protect sponsorship agreements and refuse to endorse events. It is entitled to decide whether a former player can appear in official content during a particular campaign.

It is not entitled to expect supporters to accept decision-making without question. Nor should it assume that any criticism of the club is an act of disloyalty. The club should respond to concerns directly and transparently rather than allowing rumours and allegations to fill the vacuum. Silence may be convenient in the short term, but it creates a damaging long-term narrative.

Criticism Is Not Betrayal

Celtic’s hierarchy may be particularly sensitive to criticism from fan media because independent outlets are often willing to cover subjects that official channels cannot.

A club’s media operation has a legitimate purpose. It is designed to promote the organisation, celebrate its successes, communicate with supporters and support commercial priorities. Hence why it is nicknamed Pravda by some. It is not supposed to operate as an independent watchdog.

Fan media serves a different function. It can praise the club, but it can also question decisions. It can investigate supporter concerns, discuss ticketing, examine commercial policies, challenge communications and scrutinise the behaviour of executives. That independence is not a weakness. It is one of the reasons people listen.

A healthy club should be capable of tolerating criticism from its own support. Indeed, criticism can be commercially useful. It can identify problems before they become crises. It can reveal where customers are frustrated. It can highlight gaps in communication. It can show the club how decisions are being received outside the boardroom.

The instinct to silence criticism is not a sign of strong leadership. It reflects a lack of confidence in the ability to answer it. To face it.

Celtic supporters are not naive. They understand that the club is a business. They understand that revenue matters, that the club must compete and that commercial operations require discipline. They also understand that Celtic’s financial strength comes from them. They buy season tickets. They purchase merchandise. They subscribe to services. They travel to matches. They pay for hospitality. They watch content. They share posts. They recommend the club to their families and friends. They sustain Celtic through loyalty that is often passed from one generation to the next.

The relationship cannot be reduced to a transaction in which the club takes the money and the supporter accepts whatever level of engagement follows.

A Better Model Is Available

Celtic does not need to abandon control. It needs to replace heavy gatekeeping with structured collaboration.

A sensible fan-media strategy can include:

• A transparent accreditation system for independent fan media outlets based on clear standards rather than personal relationships.

• Regular access opportunities for recognised bloggers, podcasters, vloggers and digital publishers.

• A creator partnership programme with agreed fees, usage rights, editorial expectations and disclosure rules.

• Commissioned features for Celtic View, Celtic Player, the official website and the club’s podcast platforms.

• Interviews with current players, women’s-team players, academy players, club staff, former players and club legends.

• Fan-led merchandise campaigns featuring supporters rather than relying exclusively on professional models.

• Opportunities for independent creators to attend selected training sessions, media days and community events.

• A formal complaints and appeals process when accreditation is refused or withdrawn.

• Regular meetings between the club and representatives of fan media and supporters’ groups.

• Clear separation between legitimate commercial rights protection and attempts to suppress criticism.

This approach would protect Celtic’s brand while allowing the wider supporter ecosystem to flourish.

The club could also offer a licensing system for independent creators. A podcast or video channel could be granted official permission to use selected imagery, interview players or produce sponsored content under agreed conditions. Celtic could share in the commercial upside without demanding total ownership of every idea.

That is how modern partnerships work.

The club should also recognise that access does not always need to be expensive. A ten-minute interview with a former player, a visit to a training session or a short appearance in a fan-led video could generate hours of content across multiple platforms. The club’s own team could coordinate access while allowing creators to handle production and distribution.

This would increase output without requiring Celtic to carry every cost internally. It could also produce better content.

Supporters who have followed Celtic for years know what questions matter. They understand the references, the history and the emotional context. They can ask a former player about a particular European night, a controversial moment, a dressing-room relationship or a supporter tradition in ways that feel natural rather than scripted.

Official media has value. Independent media has value. The two should not be treated as mutually exclusive.

Celtic’s Greatest Asset Is Its Community

The most frustrating aspect of Celtic’s current approach is that it appears to ignore the club’s greatest commercial advantage.

Celtic does not have the broadcasting income of an English Premier League club. It does not operate in a domestic market comparable to Spain, Germany or Italy. It cannot simply spend its way into the global spotlight. Its advantage is its identity and its worldwide support.

That support is not a passive audience waiting for official content. It is a network of writers, broadcasters, photographers, historians, filmmakers, musicians, designers, influencers and storytellers. It is an informal media operation with thousands of contributors and millions of potential viewers. It is already creating content every day, often at no cost to the club.

The sensible response would be to nurture that network.

Celtic should be making supporters feel closer to the club, not more distant from it. It should be inviting them in, listening to them, and giving them reasons to believe that their contribution matters. It should understand that commercial loyalty is strengthened when people feel respected.

Treating all criticism as hostility, all fan media as competition and all independent access as a threat will only push more supporters away.

The board are custodians of Celtic Football Club. They are not the club. The players, managers, executives and owners will change. The supporters remain. They are the continuity. They are the reason the brand has value in the first place.

Celtic can continue trying to control every conversation, every image and every interview. It can devote time and energy to deciding which former players may speak to which podcasts. It can keep building walls around the club while insisting that it represents an open and inclusive community.

Or it can recognise the reality of modern football.

The future belongs to collaboration. It belongs to creator partnerships, supporter-led campaigns, independent storytelling and genuine two-way communication. It belongs to clubs that understand the difference between protecting commercial rights and protecting themselves from criticism.

Celtic does not need to surrender its media operation. It needs to broaden it.

It needs to welcome fan media back into the fold, not as a favour, but because doing so makes sound commercial sense. It needs to give independent creators a seat at the table, not because they are always right, but because they are part of the Celtic community. It needs to stop behaving as if supporters are the enemy.

The club’s media team cannot do everything. The club’s commercial department cannot reach everyone. The club’s official channels cannot replace the trust built by independent voices.

Celtic already possesses the most valuable content network at its disposal. It is called the Celtic support. The worst commercial decision it can make is to keep locking it out.

There is a familiar rhythm to Scottish football’s failures. First comes the disappointment. Then the admission. Then the urgent language. The governing bodies speak of a “reset”, a “new beginning” or a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”. A review is commissioned. A working group is assembled. A summit is announced. People are invited to discuss the “current reality” of Scottish football.

Then, eventually, the report arrives.

Its recommendations are welcomed. Its findings are described as compelling. Its conclusions are accepted in principle. And then the Scottish FA picks through the document like a child in a sweet shop, taking the bits it likes, leaving the expensive or politically awkward recommendations behind, and congratulating itself for having shown leadership.

Now we are being invited to watch the same show all over again.

The Scottish Football Association is to hold what it calls a “critically important” summit with all Scottish Professional Football League clubs at St Andrews on 4 September. The meeting will be hosted by chief executive Ian Maxwell and chief football officer Craig Mulholland, and will focus on the “current reality” facing Scottish football, the development of homegrown talent and the creation of new revenue streams for clubs.

The timing is revealing. Scotland has once again failed to emerge from the group stage of the World Cup. This was our first appearance at the finals since 1998, and yet the experience ended in the same familiar way - disappointment, recrimination and a sense that Scottish football had arrived at the grandest stage and looked out of their depth.

So the response from Hampden is not a programme of action. It is a meeting. Not a binding commitment. Not a radical restructuring. Not a plan with targets, deadlines, funding guarantees and consequences for failure.

A summit.

The summit industrial complex

Scottish football has become addicted to the language of reform while remaining terrified of reform itself.

Every few years, the same problems are rediscovered by a new collection of officials. The game lacks a coherent player pathway. Young Scottish players do not receive enough first-team football. Clubs are financially constrained. Facilities are inadequate. Governance is fragmented. Commercial opportunities are underdeveloped. The relationship between the SFA, the SPFL, clubs, schools and grassroots football is disjointed.

None of this is new. None of it requires another day away from the office in a pleasant hotel with a fancy dinner and a few drinks to wash it down with.

The McLeish review identified many of these problems more than 15 years ago. It was followed by the SFA’s “2020 Vision”, which established a series of ambitious objectives for developing and modernising the game. The Scottish FA itself presented the review as a foundation for progress, yet later assessments found that many of its recommendations had not been implemented.

That is the real Scottish football tradition, not failure to identify the problems, but failure to act when the solutions demand money, courage or a confrontation with powerful vested interests.

The authorities know precisely where the weaknesses lie. They have known for years. They have commissioned reports, appointed committees and invited politicians to speak gravely about the national game. They have generated enough recommendations to fill Hampden’s corridors from the boardroom down to the pitch.

What they have not generated is the political will to implement the recommendations that might genuinely disrupt the existing order.

It is easy to agree that Scottish football needs more homegrown players. It is easy to talk about “pathways”, “models”, “opportunities” and “stakeholder engagement”. It is much harder to impose rules that force clubs to give meaningful minutes to Scottish players, particularly when those clubs would prefer to buy cheap imports, loan players from England or gamble on an experienced journeyman.

It is easy to say facilities matter. It is much harder to find the millions required to build them.

It is easy to say clubs need more revenue. It is much harder to reform a league structure, improve the television product, modernise the commercial strategy and distribute money in a way that might upset the largest clubs. Especially when the broadcasters see Scottish Football as nothing more than schedule fillers in between showing English Premier League games, EFL games, and Women’s Super League games.

It is easy to say the game needs change. It is much harder to change the people and institutions responsible for blocking it.

The report that became a menu

The most poisonous aspect of this process is the selective implementation of reform.

A review is commissioned under the pretence that the truth will be followed wherever it leads. But once the findings are delivered, the recommendations become a menu. The SFA chooses the politically convenient options while quietly discarding anything that would require serious investment or threaten the privileges of those already in control.

That is not reform. It is institutional cherry-picking.

The McLeish review contained proposals around governance, facilities, talent development, finance and the structure of the professional game. It called for a more coherent national approach, better links between different levels of football and a stronger framework for identifying and developing players. Some progress was made. Some recommendations were accepted. But the total transformation promised never arrived.

The reasons were predictable. The money was not found at the required scale. Powerful clubs retained their influence. Competing organisations protected their territory. The system adapted just enough to claim progress without doing enough to produce a different outcome.

The result is that Scottish football can point to the existence of reviews as evidence of seriousness while pointing to the lack of implementation as someone else’s responsibility.

That is the trick.

The SFA can say it has listened. Clubs can say they have contributed. Politicians can say they have engaged. Consultants can say they have produced a framework. Everyone can leave the room feeling that something has happened.

Meanwhile, the player pathway remains broken.

Homegrown talent cannot survive on warm words

The summit will apparently “discuss opportunities” around homegrown talent and hear from clubs that have “optimised their elite talent development model”. That phrase alone should make every supporter suspicious.

“Optimised elite talent development model” is the kind of language that sounds impressive in a presentation and means absolutely nothing in a dressing room.

Young players do not need another PowerPoint presentation. They need a genuine pathway into senior football.

They need coaches who are trusted to play them. They need reserve and youth structures that are connected to the first team. They need clubs to be rewarded for developing them rather than punished for the occasional mistake made by an inexperienced player. They need a national system that stops treating the age of 18 as the point at which responsibility for development mysteriously disappears.

The findings discussed in recent Scottish football reviews have been damning. Scotland has qualified for only one of 39 possible UEFA Under-19 and Under-21 European Championships since 2000, while the number of Scottish players receiving opportunities at the highest levels of European football has declined. The transition from academy football to senior football is not functioning properly.

That should not trigger another polite conversation or another fine dining get together masquerading as a summit. It should trigger emergency action.

One obvious measure would be the introduction of a properly designed domestic homegrown-player rule. Scotland previously had a requirement involving Under-21 players before it was abandoned around the creation of the SPFL in 2013. A new system could be phased in, monitored and adjusted, but the principle should be unavoidable - clubs must be required to develop and use homegrown players.

Not because every Scottish player is automatically good enough. Not because quotas magically manufacture elite footballers. But because the current system gives clubs too many incentives to avoid the risks associated with developing young players.

At present, youth development is often treated as a charitable activity, something clubs should be praised for doing, but never required to prioritise. Managers are judged on their next result. Directors are judged on their next transfer window. Young players are judged on their first mistake.

That structure guarantees short-termism.

A domestic quota would not solve everything, but it would force clubs to plan. It would make youth development a central sporting and commercial responsibility rather than an optional extra. It would also align domestic football with the reality clubs already face in European competition, where locally trained players must be included in squads.

The clubs will object. They will warn of unintended consequences. They will demand exemptions, delays and flexibility. Some of those concerns may be legitimate. But if every meaningful proposal is abandoned because someone might be inconvenienced, then Scottish football will remain exactly where it is.

The money excuse

The SFA will also use the summit to discuss increasing revenue streams for clubs. Again, the issue is real. Scottish clubs operate in a difficult financial environment. The domestic game is relatively small, commercial income is limited, and many clubs exist under constant pressure to balance sporting ambition with financial survival.

But the financial argument has become an all-purpose excuse for inaction. When clubs are asked to invest in youth development, they say they cannot afford it. When they are asked to improve facilities, they say they cannot afford it. When they are asked to give young players a chance, they say the pressure to win makes it impossible.

Yet the same clubs continue to spend money on short-term recruitment strategies that often deliver little resale value and even less long-term benefit.

The argument is not that clubs should be careless with money. It is that Scottish football has failed to build a system in which investment in young players is treated as a financial necessity rather than a luxury.

A player developed at a Scottish club can become a first-team player, a source of transfer revenue and a reason for supporters to feel connected to the team. A succession of mediocre imports produces none of those things. It simply moves money around while leaving the underlying weakness untouched.

Scotland cannot outspend England, Germany, Spain or Italy. It cannot compete with the financial power of the richest clubs in Europe. But it can make better use of the resources it has.

That means investing in coaches. It means improving pitches and facilities. It means creating meaningful competitive football for players aged 16 to 21. It means developing a national strategy rather than leaving every club to improvise.

And it means accepting that some of the money currently spent on temporary fixes must be redirected into permanent infrastructure.

If the answer to every proposal is that clubs cannot afford it, then the question must be asked, what is the point of the governing body?

Who is responsible?

The Scottish FA cannot continue to present itself as an innocent observer of Scottish football’s decline.

It is not merely a referee standing on the touchline while clubs make independent choices. It is the governing body of the national game. It sets rules, controls structures, distributes resources, appoints officials and claims responsibility for the strategic direction of football in Scotland.

When the system fails repeatedly, the people at the top cannot respond as though they have just arrived to investigate the scene.

Ian Maxwell has been chief executive since 2018. Mike Mulraney has been Scottish FA president since 2023, and the association’s own board lists both men among those responsible for making key decisions within Scottish football.

This is not a criticism of their personalities. It is a criticism of their record and of the institutional culture they represent.

Maxwell may be an experienced administrator. Mulraney may be a committed football man. Craig Mulholland may bring valuable experience from Nottingham Forest and Rangers, including work with talent pathways and academy structures. The SFA describes his new role as one responsible for shaping football development and performance across Scotland.

But appointing a new official does not amount to a new strategy.

The problem is not that Scottish football lacks intelligent people. It is that it lacks leaders willing to impose difficult decisions on those who benefit from the status quo.

A transformative leader would not simply invite the clubs to discuss the future. They would tell the clubs what is going to happen, when it is going to happen and what will happen if they refuse to cooperate.

They would publish the full evidence. They would set measurable targets. They would attach funding to delivery. They would identify who is responsible for each recommendation. They would publish annual progress reports. They would make failure visible. Most importantly, they would accept that reform will anger people.

There will be resistance from clubs. There will be lobbying from vested interests. There will be arguments about competitive balance, cost, tradition and practicality. That is what happens when change is real.

If the SFA is unwilling to face that conflict, then it should stop pretending that it is leading.

Burn it down, or keep rearranging the deck chairs?

Scottish football does not necessarily need to burn every structure to the ground. But it does need to stop protecting structures that have demonstrably failed.

The current model has produced a national team capable of occasional qualification but not consistent progress. It has produced too few elite players. It has left clubs financially fragile. It has allowed governance to become fragmented and defensive. It has turned reform into an endless cycle of meetings, reports and delayed decisions.

The September summit will succeed only if it ends with commitments that cannot be quietly buried.

There should be a published timetable for introducing a domestic homegrown-player requirement. There should be a funded national development plan. There should be minimum standards for academy provision, coaching and facilities. There should be a clear pathway linking grassroots football, schools, academies, lower-league clubs and the national teams.

There should also be consequences. If clubs fail to meet agreed standards, they should not simply be invited back to have another chat. If the SFA fails to deliver its own commitments, its leadership should be held accountable. A governing body that cannot implement its own strategy cannot claim to have a strategy.

The question is no longer whether Scottish football needs change. That question was answered years ago. The question is whether those currently in charge are prepared to deliver it.

Ian Maxwell and Mike Mulraney may sincerely believe they can guide Scottish football into a better future. But belief is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. Another senior appointment is not enough. Another summit in another fancy hotel is certainly not enough.

The country has already had its reviews. It has had its reports. It has had its consultations, working groups, strategic plans and grand declarations. What it has not had is decisive leadership.

Scottish football does not need more people explaining the crisis. It needs someone willing to confront the clubs, challenge the boardrooms, spend the money and impose the changes that everyone claims to support until those changes become inconvenient.

If the September gathering produces another set of carefully worded ambitions, it will be remembered for what it is, a public-relations exercise dressed up as leadership.

But if it produces binding reform, proper investment and a homegrown system with teeth, then it might finally mark the beginning of something worthwhile. The choice should be obvious.

The danger is that, by the time the next summit arrives, Scottish football will still be discussing the same problems - only with a new set of presenters, a new logo and another generation of Scottish players wondering why nobody ever made room for them.

Whether Martin O’Neill was genuinely stunned to learn that 14 players have departed Celtic this summer is almost beside the point. What matters is the stark reality now facing the club, with only three new recruits - Camilo Duran, Kasper Hogh, and the re-signing of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain - Celtic’s hierarchy is once again gambling with the club’s European qualification hopes on a threadbare squad.

Now that it’s confirmed Celtic will face Austrian champions LASK in the Champions League play-off tie, it is imperative that between now and the 13 August squad registration deadline, the board must stop dithering, end their penny-pinching transfer signing tactics, and bring in first-team ready reinforcements to avoid another embarrassing exit like last season.

A Squad Bleeding Experience and Depth

The scale of the exodus is staggering, yet the number also gives a false narrative. Yes, there were 14 departures, but only seven were genuine first-team contributors. Despite this however, their collective loss leaves gaping holes across the pitch. Kasper Schmeichel’s injury-enforced retirement was always one player that was heading out of the door as his contract ended this summer. Benjamin Arthur’s loan return to Brentford - despite Celtic’s reported attempt to sign him permanently - deprives the defence of a promising young talent and back-up to a defence who could be stretched very thin if injury strikes the likes of Cameron Carter Vickers again. Julian Araujo’s return to Bournemouth, and Tomáš Čvančara’s injury-curtailed loan spell ending with a return to Borussia Mönchengladbach further erode the squad’s backbone.

Perhaps most damaging of all is the departure of Daizen Maeda to Ipswich Town. A cult hero at Celtic Park, Maeda was not just a fan favourite but a tactical linchpin in Celtic’s attacking press and wide play. His exit has already been noted by opposition defenders in the Scottish Premiership, many of whom must have breathed a huge sigh of relief to see the back of him. Meanwhile, Kelechi Iheanacho’s contract ending and move to Bursaspor and the decision not to pursue a permanent deal for Saracchi from Boca Juniors - despite a clear need for left-back cover behind Kieran Tierney -continues to highlight a pattern of ineptitude with this board. Adding to the confusion are worrying reports that Celtic are considering bringing back Greg Taylor from PAOK, a move that feels more like stop-gap signing rather than strategic planning.

The European Stakes: LASK and the Clock Ticking

Celtic’s Champions League play-off tie against LASK is not just another fixture; it’s a gateway to the lucrative league phase and a test of the club’s ambition among Europe’s elite. UEFA’s rules are unforgiving, the 25-man squad must be registered by 13 August, with only two additional players allowed up until the day before the first leg. This narrow window leaves little room for error with 10 days remaining to get players in. Every day spent haggling over transfer fees or waiting for bargains is a day lost in preparing for a tie that demands peak physical and tactical readiness.

The risk is not theoretical. Last season, Celtic’s squad depth was stretched thin across four fronts and it not only cost us our place in the league phase of the Champions League, but it nearly cost us the league also. This season, the danger is magnified. A serious injury or loss of form in key positions could derail not just European hopes but domestic ambitions as well.

The Transfer Strategy: A False Economy

Celtic’s board has long prided itself on a model of sustainability, but there’s a fine line between careful planning and penny-pinching. Recent reports suggest the club has been lowballing transfer fees for targeted players, a strategy that risks alienating selling clubs [as it has previously done so] and allowing rival suitors to swoop in. This approach is not just short-sighted; it’s self-defeating. In the high-stakes environment of European football, hesitation and penny-pinching can cost far more than the price of a player.

With less than two weeks until the play-off tie, Celtic must act decisively to strengthen the squad.

The board must also resist the temptation to rely on youth or unproven talent in such a critical period. While developing young players is commendable, European football demands experience and resilience. The cost of failure - both financially and in terms of club prestige - is too high to gamble on potential alone.

The Clock is Ticking

The deadline of 13 August is a countdown to potential disaster or triumph. Celtic’s hierarchy must recognise that the current squad, as it stands, is not equipped to compete on four fronts. The board’s reluctance to invest decisively in the transfer market is not just a financial decision; it’s a clear lack of forward planning and mismanagement.

Fans have every right to demand ambition. The club’s European aspirations are not just financial, it is about prestige, about facing the best that Europe has to offer in an ever increasing competitive landscape. The board’s current strategy of hoping for the best while spending the least amount of money is a recipe for disappointment. A narrative that we have seen time and time again.

Ambition or Decline

Celtic stands at a crossroads. The board can continue to gamble on a depleted squad, hoping that luck and resilience will see them through, or they can act decisively to reinforce the team before the deadline. The choice is clear - invest now, or risk not only further alienating an already hostile fan base, but also a place among Europe’s elite and the finances that come with it.

The message to the hierarchy is simple - stop fannying about, end the transfer fee lowballing, and get the necessary bodies in to strengthen the squad. The clock is ticking, and the price of inaction is far higher than the cost of a few strategic signings. Celtic’s European dreams and the club’s Premiership title depend on it.

When a few thousand Celtic fans flooded Glasgow’s Trongate after last season’s title win over Hearts, some of the scenes that followed were ugly. Bottles were thrown. A couple of Police officers were injured. Residents and businesses disrupted. No one should pretend otherwise.

But the narrative now being pushed by at least one senior officer in Police Scotland – and dutifully recycled by willing elements of the Scottish press – is not just wrong. It is a dangerous misstatement of who is actually responsible for public order on the streets of Scotland’s cities. And it looks increasingly like an attempt to deflect from a Police force that has already been found wanting in its duties at the highest-profile fixture in Scottish football.

The Incident They Keep Talking About

On 16 May, after Celtic beat Hearts to clinch the Premiership, an estimated 3,000 supporters gathered in the Trongate and Glasgow Cross area. Officers in riot gear were deployed after missiles, including glass bottles, were thrown at police as they assisted with a medical emergency. Two officers sustained injuries; multiple arrests were made; CCTV is still being reviewed; and Police are now issuing photos of fans they want to speak to in relation to the disorder on the day.

Police Scotland’s own statements acknowledge the essential fact - the disorder occurred outside the stadium, on public streets, where the club’s operational control ends and the police’s begins.

The “Fanzone” Excuse

Yet Assistant Chief Constable Mark Sutherland has repeatedly insisted that Celtic FC must be “more accountable” and take “greater responsibility” for what happens when fans gather in the city centre. He has called for “urgent discussions” with the club, football authorities and Glasgow City Council to “achieve a solution that improves public safety”, suggesting the club “failed to plan” a safe celebration.

The implication is clear, if only Celtic had organised an official fanzone or title party, the scenes in Trongate would not have happened.

This argument does not survive contact with reality.

Celtic’s legal and practical duty is to stadium safety. Match-day planning, crowd control inside the ground, the stadium’s footprint, and cooperation with police on stadium operations are the club’s domain. Streets, squares and pavements are not.

Police Scotland’s statutory role is to prevent and stop crime on public thoroughfares. If fans behave criminally in the Trongate, it is the police – not the football club – who are charged with preventing it, intervening, and making arrests.

An “official fanzone” is not a legal requirement for any football club. Clubs are not obliged to create alternative party venues to absorb spontaneous gatherings. Even if they did, there is no guarantee it would stop fans from congregating elsewhere, nor does it transfer policing responsibility from the state to the club.

Police Scotland and Mark Sutherland cannot credibly argue that a football club’s failure to host a street party absolves the police of their duty to police the streets. Even if they try to do so.

The SFA’s Damning Verdict on Police Scotland

This latest attempt to scapegoat Celtic takes on a different colour when set against the recent independent SFA review into the disorder at the Scottish Cup quarter-final between Celtic and Rangers at Ibrox in March. That report did not hold back.

Its findings were stark:

• Pre-match planning failures. The review identified a 10-day delay in finalising the 8,042 away-ticket allocation, only one multi-agency meeting, and inadequate deployment of officers. There was no plan for ticketless fans attempting entry by doubling-up, forgery or forcing gates.

• Inadequate policing levels and risk assessment. The report noted that “neither Rangers FC nor Police Scotland had key leads on the ground with experience of managing an away allocation of 8,000 Celtic supporters at Ibrox”. Institutional knowledge had not been maintained.

• Police “petrified” and officers left exposed. The review described officers as “petrified” of policing another game at Ibrox, and highlighted a “near miss” that could have escalated into life-threatening violence.

In short, the independent review found that Police Scotland failed in its duties pre-match, during the match, and in the immediate aftermath.

Yet, despite the report now being published in full, Police Scotland has still not issued a substantive public statement accepting those findings or outlining how it will implement the report’s recommendations. But it was quick to pin the finger of blame within hours demanding urgent action against the football clubs - getting that out there before the review hung the blame rightfully around those stakeholders responsible and the individuals responsible for their own misconduct.

The timing is conspicuous. As scrutiny grows over Police Scotland’s handling of high-risk fixtures, the narrative shifts from “what went wrong at Ibrox?” to “why didn’t Celtic organise a fanzone in the Trongate?”

The Herald’s “Exclusive” That Wasn’t

Into this mix steps the Herald’s Political Editor, Andrew Learmonth, with an article suggesting Celtic “failed to offer a viable alternative” to a street party – framed as a fresh revelation, an exclusive, based on a newly released Freedom of Information request.

Except we all heard this exact same script back in May. The same ACC Mark Sutherland, the same complaints about Celtic and Glasgow City Council, the same “fanzone” narrative.

So why resurface it now? A few uncomfortable questions arise:

• Is this genuinely new information, or a repackaged version of May’s statements? The substance matches what was already widely reported at the time.

• Is the Herald’s circulation so challenged that it needs to re-run two-month-old police criticism as a “recent” FOI-driven exclusive? If so, it’s a thin news hook masquerading as investigative journalism.

• Does repeatedly framing Celtic as culpable for street disorder serve a narrative more than it serves public understanding? The effect is to normalise the idea that a club is responsible for policing its fans miles away in the city, which is simply not how accountability works.

None of this excuses the behaviour of those who committed criminal acts. But it does demand honesty about who is responsible for preventing it.

Mark Hargreaves and the Silence from Celtic Park

There is another silence that deserves to be named. Mark Hargreaves, Celtic’s Head of Safety, Security and Operations, is a former Chief Superintendent of Police Scotland and Assistant Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. He knows the inner workings of Police Scotland and their Football Operations better than almost anyone in Scottish football currently.

So why has he not spoken out?

Why has he not publicly defended Celtic’s operations on the day of the title win, clarifying where the club’s responsibility begins and ends?

Why has he not highlighted the Scottish FA report’s findings on Police Scotland’s failures at Ibrox, and challenged the force’s attempt to shift blame onto Celtic for Trongate?

Why, in the face of his former employers bad-mouthing and trying to pin the blame on his current employers, is he remaining silent?

Why aren’t the Celtic board rolling him out in front of the media to defend the club and its operations?

His silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.

Hargreaves is uniquely placed to set the record straight, to explain that clubs are not responsible for policing city-centre streets; to challenge the “fanzone” narrative as a deflection from police failures; and to demand that Police Scotland be held to account for the shortcomings identified in the Ibrox review.

Instead, he allows his former colleagues to tar Celtic with the actions of a minority – many of whom, were probably not even at the match in the first place – while his own club absorbs the reputational damage.

The Bottom Line

Celtic FC’s responsibility ends at the stadium turnstiles and around the stadium footprint. What happens on Glasgow’s streets is a matter for Police Scotland and the city’s public authorities. Fans who commit crimes should be identified, charged and punished. But attempts to blame a club for not providing an “official” alternative to street disorder misstate the law, misallocate responsibility, and mislead the public.

And when the same story is wheeled out by the Herald’s Political Editor as if it’s new, it’s reasonable to ask - is this journalism, or just a tired narrative in search of a negative headline?

More urgently, when an independent Scottish FA review has already found Police Scotland wanting in its duties at Ibrox, the force’s latest attempt to scapegoat Celtic looks less like a genuine concern for public safety and more like a desperate distraction from its own failings.

Maybe they should look inwards before trying to pass the buck and point the finger of blame elsewhere first.

Celtic Football Club has done it again. Faced with growing unrest, visible protests, and supporters literally staying away from pre-season fixtures in their tens of thousands, the board has issued a glossy, carefully worded statement on “supporter engagement”.

It announces a new Head of Supporter Engagement, a rebranded Fans’ Forum, a consultation on something called Celtic Connect, and a string of promises about digital transformation and matchday experience. On paper, it sounds progressive. In reality, it is more of the same. Talk, process, and consultation, with none of the hard decisions that fans are actually demanding.

The truth is simple, the time for talking is long gone. What Celtic’s supporters are calling for is not another forum, another liaison officer, or another online survey. They are calling for a fundamental shift in who runs the club, how they are held to account, and what ambition looks like in the boardroom. And until that happens, no amount of “engagement” will quell the anger that has been building for years.

A familiar script, dressed up as reform

Read the club’s statement closely and the pattern is unmistakable. The language is full of soft, non‑binding commitments: “we aim to continually look at ways to improve”, “we are committed to refreshing”, “we will take the Fans’ Forum on the road”. There are new roles and new groups, but no new power. There is consultation, but no obligation to act on the results. There is dialogue, but no mechanism for fans to say “no” to decisions they fundamentally disagree with.

This is not supporter empowerment; it is supporter management. The club is creating more channels through which fans can speak, while carefully ensuring that none of those channels can meaningfully constrain the board. And at the same time further dividing the supporter base and the groups that represent them. The new Head of Supporter Engagement, however well‑intentioned, is a management role, not a fan mandate. Celtic Connect is a forum, not a governing body. The Fans’ Forum, even “on the road”, remains advisory.

For a fanbase that has spent years attending meetings, filling in surveys, and raising concerns that then seem to vanish into a black hole, this is not reassuring. It is exhausting. It is more of the same.

The protests are not about niceties. They are about power.

The recent boycotts of pre‑season friendlies against Middlesbrough and AC Milan were not about poor communication or a clunky app. They were a deliberate, collective signal that a significant portion of the support no longer believes the current leadership is capable of delivering the club they want to see. Supporters turned their backs because they feel treated as cash cows, not stakeholders. They see a board that talks about “shared objectives” but makes decisions that, in their view, reflect caution, complacency, and a lack of footballing ambition.

When fans say “enough”, they do not mean “please talk to us more”. They mean: “We do not trust you to run this club in the way it deserves.” That is a political statement, not a customer service complaint. Not a suggestion box entry.

Yet the club’s response is framed as if the problem were simply one of process - more meetings, more digital updates, more structured dialogue. It ignores the substance of the fans’ grievance, that the people at the top are not the right people, and that the structures that keep them there is part of the problem.

The real issue is who runs Celtic, and in whose interest?

At the heart of the unrest is a question the board refuses to engage with is Celtic Football Club run primarily as a football institution with global ambitions, or as a financially conservative asset managed by accountants, bankers, and lawyers? For many supporters, the current leadership ofMichael Nicholson, Chris McKay, and the enduring influence of Dermot Desmond and his nepo baby son Ross - epitomises the latter.

These are not neutral figures. They are associated, in the minds of many fans, with:

• A transfer policy that feels reactive rather than visionary.

• A reluctance to invest aggressively in football infrastructure and squad depth.

• A governance culture that prioritises risk management over footballing ambition.

• A perception that family influence and internal networks outweigh merit and fresh thinking.

No amount of “engagement” will fix that if the same people remain in place. You cannot consult your way out of a crisis of confidence in leadership. At some point, the question has to be asked, are these the right people to steer Celtic through the next decade?

Fans who call for Nicholson, McKay, and the Desmonds to step down are not being unreasonable; they are applying the same logic that would be applied to any underperforming board in any other organisation. When trust is gone and results are not convincing, change at the top is the obvious remedy.

What genuine reform would look like

If Celtic truly wanted to reset its relationship with supporters, it would not start with a new job title. It would start with power.

Genuine reform might include:

• Fan representation on the board, elected by a recognised supporter body, with real voting rights on key issues.

• Clear, published metrics for football ambition - investment levels, squad targets, infrastructure plans, with regular public reporting.

• An independent review of governance, with fan input, leading to concrete changes in how decisions are made and who makes them.

• A timetable for leadership renewal, bringing in people with proven track records in modern football operations, not just finance and law.

None of this appears in the club’s latest statement. Instead, we get a Head of Supporter Engagement and a consultation on a fan forum. That is not reform; it is window dressing.

The danger of mistaking process for progress

The risk for Celtic is that the board convinces itself that this is enough. That by ticking the “engagement” box, they can move on while the underlying discontent continues to simmer. But protests do not disappear because a club launches a new app or takes a meeting on the road. They disappear when people believe the system is working in their interest.

Right now, too many supporters believe the opposite, that the system is designed to protect a small group of decision‑makers from accountability. Until that changes, every new initiative will be viewed through the lens of cynicism. Every “we hear you” will be met with “then prove it”.

The hard truth the board must face

Celtic is bigger than any individual on its board. Its history, its identity, and its future belong to the supporters, those on the board are mere custodians nothing more. When a critical mass of those supporters says the current leadership is no longer fit for purpose, the responsible response is not to offer more meetings. It is to listen to the substance of that demand and act accordingly.

That means having the courage to consider real change at the top. It means accepting that Michael Nicholson, Chris McKay, and the Desmond family’s grip on the club’s direction no longer serve Celtic’s best interests. It means opening the door to people with the ambition, expertise, and hunger to build a Celtic that matches the passion of its support.

Anything less is just talk. And after years of talk, Celtic’s fans have made it clear - they want action.

Football has always been more than a sport. It is a global language, a shared passion that transcends borders, classes, and cultures. From the streets of Glasgow to the favelas of Rio, from the parks of Manchester to the pitches of Tokyo, the beautiful game belongs to the people. Yet, under the stewardship of FIFA President Gianni Infantino, that ownership is being systematically stripped away. The latest proposal, to sell minority stakes in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors, is not merely a business decision. It is a fundamental betrayal of everything football stands for.

At the heart of this controversy is a plan that would see up to 20% of a new commercial entity, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), sold to venture capitalists and private equity firms. The valuation? A staggering $20 billion. The anchor investor? Thrive Capital, led by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner and son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump. That this deal is being orchestrated by a man whose family ties reach into the highest echelons of American politics should alarm anyone who cares about the integrity of the sport - albeit not surprising given the relationship between Infantino and Trump. It is no coincidence that Trump’s shadow looms over this transaction - directly or indirectly, the fingerprints of his inner circle are everywhere.

A Non-Profit in Name Only

FIFA was founded as a non-profit organisation with a clear mandate - to develop football globally and ensure that all funds raised are reinvested into the game. That mission has clearly been eroded over decades, but the current proposal marks a point of no return. Under Infantino’s plan, the soul of football will be commodified, packaged, and sold to investors whose primary concern is not the welfare of the sport but the return on their investment.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. FIFA continues to present itself as a guardian of the game while simultaneously negotiating with venture capitalists to extract maximum profit from its flagship tournaments. The organisation’s own statement describes the plan as a way to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has.” But whose opportunity? Certainly not the fans who fill stadiums, not the grassroots clubs that nurture young talent, and not the smaller national associations that rely on FIFA’s development funding. This is about enriching a select group of investors and, by extension, the FIFA executives - including Infantino - who stand to benefit from lucrative deals.

The figures involved are obscene. The proposed $4.2 billion initial investment would value FFE at $20 billion, with each of FIFA’s 211 member federations promised a one-off $20 million payment if the deal goes through. Infantino has set a September 19 deadline for members to accept this “singular and unique funding opportunity.” But this is not generosity; it is bribery - pure and simple. Support this proposal and we will give you a one-off payment of $20 million. It is an attempt to buy the support of federations that might otherwise question the ethics of selling the World Cup to private equity.

The Ticket Price Scandal: A Preview of What’s to Come

If anyone doubted that privatisation would lead to higher costs for fans, the 2026 World Cup has provided a grim preview. Ticket prices for the tournament reached levels previously unimaginable in football.

The backlash was immediate and fierce. The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) filed a formal complaint with the European Commission, accusing FIFA of exploiting its position “to enforce exorbitant ticket prices and ambiguous, unfair purchasing conditions and processes on European supporters.” The complaint outlined six distinct abuses, including allegations of bait advertising - deemed illegal under EU consumer regulations - related to the subsequent release of cheaper tickets that were “so limited” that the advertised price was “not genuinely available.”

The situation became so toxic that the attorneys general of New York and New Jersey launched an investigation into FIFA’s ticketing practices. Jennifer Davenport, the attorney general of New Jersey, described the ticket purchasing experience as a “gauntlet of confusion, fake scarcity, and exorbitant prices.” FIFA was subpoenaed to submit internal documents, and the investigation is examining claims of “artificial price inflation” and “misleading fans.”

Even more egregious, FIFA was forced to cancel some legitimate tickets that had been sold below the expected price point, citing a “pricing inaccuracy.” In other words, fans who managed to secure tickets at what they thought were fair prices had them revoked because FIFA realised it had undercharged. This is not merely incompetence; it is a symptom of an organisation that views fans not as supporters but as revenue streams to be maximised.

How Could Private Investors Will Milk the World Cup

The ticket price scandal is just the beginning. If Infantino’s plan goes through, private investors will have every incentive to extract even more value from the World Cup and other FIFA competitions. Here are some of the ways they could do it:

Dynamic Pricing on Steroids: The 2026 World Cup already saw FIFA use variable pricing models that sent ticket prices soaring for most matches. Private investors would take this to the next level, using algorithms to adjust prices in real-time based on demand, much like airlines and hotels. A group-stage match between two popular teams could see prices double or even triple overnight. The final could become accessible only to the ultra-wealthy.

Exclusive Hospitality Packages: Investors could create ultra-premium experiences -private boxes, meet-and-greets with players, VIP lounges - with price tags reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more. These packages would be marketed to corporations and high-net-worth individuals, effectively creating a two-tier system where the richest fans get the best access while ordinary supporters are relegated to the upper tiers or watching on the TV.

Merchandising Monopolies: The World Cup already generates billions in merchandise sales. Private investors could negotiate exclusive deals with brands, forcing fans to buy official products at increasingly inflated prices. Imagine a scenario where only Adidas or Nike products are allowed in stadiums, and all other brand products are aggressively policed.

Broadcasting Rights Auctions: The sale of broadcasting rights is already a major revenue stream for FIFA. Private investors could push for even more aggressive auctions, potentially limiting access to matches for viewers in certain regions if they cannot meet the asking price. Streaming services might be forced to pay billions for exclusive rights, leading to higher subscription fees for fans. Or even making every game at the World Cup pay-per-view.

Naming Rights and Sponsorship Overload: Stadiums, training facilities, and even sections of the pitch could be sold to sponsors. The World Cup final could be rebranded as the “Donald J. Trump World Cup Final”. Every moment of the tournament would be an advertisement, eroding the authenticity of the competition.

Data Monetisation: Investors could exploit fan data collected through ticketing apps, websites, and social media. This data could be sold to third parties for targeted advertising, further eroding privacy while generating additional revenue. If they aren’t do this already?

Club World Cup Expansion: The newly expanded Club World Cup is another cash cow. Private investors could push for more teams, more matches, and more tournaments, diluting the prestige of the competition and impacting on domestic competitions worldwide, while maximising profits. Ticket prices, sponsorship deals, and broadcasting rights would all be ramped up.

UEFA’s Hypocrisy: The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

When UEFA issued its scathing condemnation of FIFA’s plan, declaring that “the soul and governance of football are not assets to trade” and that “the World Cup is not FIFA’s to sell,” the irony was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Here was an organisation that has spent decades selling out the beautiful game, now pretending to be its moral guardian. The audacity is staggering.

UEFA’s criticism of FIFA rings hollow when you consider what the European body has done to its own competitions. The Champions League, once a tournament where champions from every corner of Europe could dream of glory, has been transformed into a closed shop for the wealthy elite. The big five leagues - England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France - have been handed more guaranteed spots not because they produce better football, but because they generate more money from advertising, sponsorships, and television broadcast deals.

The numbers tell the story. Under the reformed Champions League format that kicked in from 2024, the top leagues received four guaranteed slots each, while champions from smaller nations were forced to navigate a treacherous qualifying maze with even fewer spots available. The allocation for champions from the 10th to 12th ranked leagues was diminished, and the number of spots available for teams from other leagues - those who must survive multiple qualifying rounds - was cut from five to four. This was not about sporting merit; it was about maximising revenue for UEFA’s biggest markets.

The European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL), representing 24 domestic leagues across Europe, slammed the changes at the time, calling them “detrimental to domestic soccer” and warning they would “increase the gap between the wealthiest clubs and the rest.” The EPFL accused UEFA of handling the process in an “unacceptable” manner for an organisation that professes to be the guardian of European football. But UEFA pressed ahead anyway, because the money was too good to ignore.

The new format, which expanded the competition from 32 to 36 teams, created 100 additional matches per season - all designed to generate more broadcast revenue. UEFA general secretary Theodore Theodoridis openly admitted that there would be a “significant increase” in broadcast revenue, with the competition adding four midweek dates exclusively for Champions League matches and scheduling games on Thursdays for the first time. This was not about improving the quality of football; it was about squeezing more money out of every available slot.

Meanwhile, the champions of smaller leagues - the actual winners of their domestic competitions - were left scrambling for scraps. Teams from Scotland, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, and dozens of other smaller nations found themselves forced to jump through hoop after hoop, surviving multiple qualifying rounds just for the chance to compete in the group stage. Most never made it, eliminated by teams from bigger leagues that had failed to qualify through their domestic performance but were handed places through UEFA’s coefficient rankings.

The coefficient system itself is a racket. Two of the additional Champions League spots are designated for the highest-ranked teams according to UEFA’s five-year coefficient rankings, based on past performance in European competitions. This means that a team finishing fifth in the Premier League can leapfrog the actual champion of a smaller nation, simply because of historical performance. It is a system designed to entrench the elite and shut out the outsiders.

The financial distribution model is equally skewed. Under the current system, clubs in UEFA competitions receive the majority of the total revenue pot, which stands at €4.4 billion (£3.8 billion; $5.1 billion). The top five nations - England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France - have historically received the lion’s share of this money, while smaller leagues get a fraction. UEFA has pledged to spread some surplus to lower-ranked clubs and leagues, but the fundamental imbalance remains.

The hypocrisy of UEFA’s position cannot be overstated. When FIFA proposes selling a minority stake in its commercial operations, UEFA suddenly becomes the moral arbiter of football’s soul? The pot is not just calling the kettle black - it is accusing the kettle of being dirty while covered in soot itself.

UEFA sold out football long ago. The Champions League is no longer a competition for champions; it is a cash machine for the elite. The Europa League and Conference League are consolation prizes for teams that failed to qualify for the real money. Domestic competitions are devalued, with weekend fixtures squeezed to accommodate UEFA’s midweek extravaganza. And ordinary fans? They are priced out of attending matches, forced to watch on pay-per-view streams, and treated as revenue streams rather than supporters.

When UEFA says “the soul of football is not FIFA’s to sell,” what they really mean is “we already sold it, and we don’t want competition.” UEFA has been selling the soul of European football for decades, one Champions League reform at a time. They have shat all over the ordinary fan, one exorbitant ticket price and one paywall at a time. And now they stand in judgment of FIFA, pretending to care about the very principles they abandoned years ago.

The reality is that both UEFA and FIFA are cut from the same cloth. Both organisations have prioritised revenue over sporting integrity. Both have favoured the wealthy elite over the grassroots game. Both have treated fans as customers to be monetised rather than supporters to be valued. The difference is that FIFA is at least being upfront about its intentions. UEFA pretends to care while continuing to enrich its biggest markets.

The Grassroots Betrayal

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Infantino’s plan is its impact on grassroots football. FIFA has long claimed that its commercial success benefits the entire football ecosystem, from the World Cup down to local youth leagues. But the reality is that the vast majority of FIFA’s revenue is concentrated at the top, with only a small fraction trickling down to development programmes.

Under the new plan, private investors will demand returns on their investment. That means more money will be siphoned off to pay dividends and ‘administration’ fees, leaving less for grassroots development. The $20 million payments to member federations is a one-off bribe, it’s not a sustainable funding model. Once the money is spent, the structural problems will remain.

Meanwhile, the cost of participating in football will continue to rise. Youth clubs will struggle to afford equipment, facilities, and coaching. Talented young players from disadvantaged backgrounds will be priced out of the game. The dream of football as a meritocratic sport, where ability matters more than wealth, will become even more distant.

UEFA’s own record on grassroots development is equally poor. The organisation claims to invest in grassroots football, but the vast majority of its revenue goes to elite clubs and competitions. The Champions League generates billions, but how much of that money reaches the local parks and youth academies where the next generation of players learns the game? The answer is not enough.

The Path Forward

The fight against FIFA’s privatisation plan is not just about stopping a bad deal. It is about reclaiming football for the people who love it. Fans, players, clubs, and associations must unite to demand transparency, accountability, a return to football’s founding principles - principles that both FIFA and UEFA have long abandoned - and the sacking of Infantino and his inner circle.

UEFA’s threat of a boycott is a powerful lever, but it must be backed by concrete action. National associations must refuse to ratify the deal. Players’ unions must speak out against the commodification of their sport. Supporters’ groups must organise protests and campaigns to raise awareness. The players themselves must speak out.

While we try to hold FIFA to account, UEFA must also be held to account. The organisation cannot claim to be the moral guardian of football while continuing to structure its competitions to favour the wealthy elite. The Champions League must be reformed to give genuine champions from smaller nations a fair chance. The revenue distribution model must be overhauled to ensure that money reaches grassroots football, not just the boardrooms of elite clubs.

The media also has a role to play. Journalists must continue to investigate and expose the true nature of Infantino’s plan, the involvement of Kushner and Thrive Capital, are Trump’s grubby fake tanned little hands all over this, and the potential consequences for the game. But they must also hold UEFA to account for its own sins, exposing the hypocrisy of an organisation that pretends to care about football’s soul while selling it off piece by piece themselves.

A Call for Revolution: Removing Infantino and Rebuilding FIFA

The time for polite criticism has passed. Gianni Infantino must be removed from office immediately, and his re-election blocked. National federations and football associations around the world have a moral obligation to vote against him, to suspend him from his duties pending a full investigation into his private dealings with Donald Trump and his inner circle, the Qatari Royal Family, and the Saudi Royal Family.

This is not merely a conflict of interest, it is a web of corruption that threatens the integrity of the entire sport. The proposed $20 billion deal is just the latest chapter in a pattern of self-dealing that stretches back years. Infantino has consistently prioritised money and political connections over the welfare of football.

National federations must act now. They should demand that FIFA’s Ethics Committee launch an immediate investigation into Infantino’s financial dealings, his relationship with private investors, and the potential conflicts of interest arising from his ties to the Trump family. But FIFA’s Ethics Committee cannot be trusted to police itself. The investigation must be independent, transparent, and led by an external body with real teeth.

Interpol should be called upon to lead this investigation. The scale of the alleged corruption, the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, and the potential for financial crimes across borders make this a matter for international law enforcement. If there is evidence of bribery, money laundering, or other criminal activity, those responsible must face justice - not internal disciplinary hearings that result in token fines and suspended bans. Unlike the downfall of former FIFA President Sepp Blatter, who was brought down by the US Department of Justice and Swiss Authorities - the DOJ cannot be trusted given the fingerprints of Trump’s corrupt minions being all over the organisation now.

Infantino must be suspended from his duties as FIFA President with immediate effect. He cannot be allowed to continue lobbying member federations to accept his privatisation plan while under investigation. The September 19 deadline must be ignored, and the deal must be blocked until a full inquiry is completed.

Rebuilding FIFA: A Football United Nations

But removing Infantino is only the first step. FIFA itself must be fundamentally reorganised. The current structure, where a single president wields enormous power and makes deals with private investors behind closed doors, is untenable. FIFA must be transformed into a true Football United Nations, where all 211 member states have an equal voice and no single nation, association, or individual can dominate the organisation.

The new FIFA should be governed by a main Football Council, composed of representatives from all member nations, serving fixed terms. This council would make collective decisions on major issues like tournament hosting, commercial deals, and rule changes. No single president would have the power to unilaterally negotiate billion-dollar deals with venture capitalists.

Council members would serve staggered terms, with a maximum tenure of, say, three or four years. After their term, they would rotate off the council, making way for new representatives from their region. This would prevent the entrenchment of power and ensure that fresh perspectives are constantly brought to the table. No more presidents-for-life. No more cosy deals negotiated in secret.

The Football Council would be supported by specialised committees focused on specific areas - competitions, finance, ethics, grassroots development, and human rights. Each committee would include representatives from different continents, ensuring that decisions reflect the diversity of world football.

Crucially, all major decisions would require a supermajority vote - say, two-thirds of the council. This would prevent any single bloc of nations from dominating the agenda. The big national associations would not be able to steamroll smaller nations. The wealthy Gulf states would not be able to buy influence. Every member would have a genuine say.

There should even be places for Fan & Player Representation in the council - with their members voting to elect a representative every three or four years also.

Transparency would be baked into the system. All meetings would be minuted and published. All financial transactions would be audited and made public by an independent body. All commercial deals would be subject to open bidding and competitive tender. No more secret meetings with venture capitalists. No more sweetheart deals with political allies.

The revenue distribution model would also be overhauled. Instead of concentrating wealth among a small elite, FIFA’s income would be distributed equitably among all member nations, with a significant portion ringfenced for grassroots development. The World Cup would remain FIFA’s flagship tournament, but its profits would be used to develop football globally, not to enrich investors.

Hosting rights would be awarded through a transparent, merit-based process. Human rights records, infrastructure quality, and fan accessibility would be key criteria. No more World Cups in countries where workers are exploited, where women are oppressed, or where fans cannot afford tickets.

A Movement, Not Just a Proposal

This is not a call for reform. It is a call for revolution. Football belongs to the people, not to presidents, investors, or royal families. The current system has failed. Infantino must go. FIFA must be rebuilt from the ground up.

National federations must lead this movement. They must refuse to ratify the privatisation deal. They must demand an independent investigation into Infantino’s dealings. They must support the creation of a new FIFA, governed by a Football Council where every nation has an equal voice.

Players’ unions must speak out. They must refuse to participate in tournaments organised by a corrupt, privatised FIFA. They must demand that their representatives be included in the new Football Council.

Supporters’ groups must organise. They must protest, campaign, and make their voices heard. They must remind FIFA and UEFA that without fans, there is no football.

The media must continue to investigate and expose. They must hold both FIFA and UEFA to account. They must give a platform to the voices of ordinary fans, not just the executives who have betrayed them.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

The future of football is at stake. If Infantino’s plan goes through, the World Cup will become a playground for venture capitalists, accessible only to the wealthy.

But there is another future. A future where football is governed by the people who love it. Where the World Cup is a celebration of the global game, not a cash machine for investors.

That future is possible. But it requires action. It requires courage. It requires football to stand up and say enough is enough.

Infantino must go. FIFA must be rebuilt. And the beautiful game must be returned to the people before it is too late.

The Independent Review into the events at Ibrox on 8 March 2026 has delivered a devastating verdict on Scottish football’s disciplinary architecture. It read, “Sanctions are too modest, too deferred and too inconsistently applied to alter the behaviour of the clubs, groups and individuals they are designed to deter.”

This is not a failure of individual cases or isolated incidents. It is a systemic collapse. The disciplinary framework exists to reverse the upward trajectory of unacceptable conduct. The evidence of this review is that, in its current form, it is not doing so.

But here is the uncomfortable truth that the review dances around, this is not an accident. The current disciplinary framework’s inadequacy is the direct result of a deliberate choice by Scottish clubs, a choice they have consistently reaffirmed over more than a decade. It is the product of collective self-interest masquerading as principle, of hypocrisy dressed as practicality, of clubs who want opposition fans punished while refusing to accept responsibility for their own.

A Framework Designed to Fail

The review identifies nine damning observations about the Scottish FA and Scottish Professional Football League frameworks. The Scottish FA has not imposed a single immediate crowd restriction as a first-response measure in the 2025/26 season. Every venue closure sanction was suspended. The Scottish FA’s maximum immediate financial penalty applied in 2025/26 would not deter a club operating at any professional level. The SPFL’s cash equivalent for suspended ticket reductions is of similarly low consequence.

The Scottish FA applied the full three-limbed charge - prevention, identification, and sanction - in only one of its three 2025/26 cases. The other two were limited to the prevention duty alone. By contrast, the SPFL applied the three-limbed charge consistently across its proceedings. The Scottish FA must match that consistency, but the review stops short of explaining why it hasn’t.

Most revealing is the review’s observation that a charge of unacceptable conduct brought by the Scottish FA in a cup competition and a charge brought by the SPFL in a league fixture are treated as separate proceedings with no mechanism for one to compound the other. This is structurally inadequate. A club carrying a suspended sanction in one competition that commits an equivalent offence in another should not have its later charge treated as a first breach. The frequency of misconduct is the relevant fact, not the competition.

The review notes that “the continued independence of the Scottish FA and Scottish Professional Football League sanctioning regimes produces an outcome that is neither coherent nor credible.” This is diplomatic language. The reality is that the disciplinary framework is a two-headed monster, each head capable of ignoring the other, each head empowered to block meaningful reform, each head serving the interests of its member clubs rather than the integrity of the game.

The 2013 Vote on Strict Liability

In June 2013, Scottish clubs voted against implementing stricter regulations to combat hooliganism, racism and sectarianism. The proposals included longer player suspensions, points deductions, and stadium bans. Members decided against the introduction of automatic sanctions. Then-SFA chief executive Stewart Regan admitted the plan had been “too onerous” and that “to move to strict liability from where we are now was quite a leap.”

The SFA president called the result “disappointing.” Anti-sectarian charity Nil By Mouth responded with a devastating assessment that still resonates today: “Football was asked to stand up and be counted, and was found wanting. It certainly sends out the wrong sort of message, not just in Scotland but around European football.”

A BBC Sport Scotland survey revealed that just three of the 42 SPFL clubs supported strict liability: Partick Thistle, Queen of the South, and Annan Athletic. Fourteen clubs were against, seventeen would not comment, and eight - including Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, and Kilmarnock - did not respond at all.

SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster’s response to the survey was revealing in its naked self-interest: “Strict liability doesn’t work anywhere in the world. If you start to make away clubs responsible for their fans, very quickly you will see away clubs stopping selling tickets to the away fans.” This is the logic of convenience, not principle. The argument is not that strict liability is ineffective as a deterrent; it is that clubs might be inconvenienced by having to sell fewer tickets. Safety, accountability, and the integrity of the game are secondary considerations.

Article 28.10: The Get-Out Clause

Even if the Scottish FA were to implement strict liability - and there is no indication that it will - its own Articles of Association would allow the SPFL to opt out.

Article 28.10 states: “The provisions of Articles 28.1 to 28.9 (both inclusive) shall not apply in the case of any match played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Professional Football League, unless the board of directors of the Scottish Professional Football League shall request the Board to invoke the powers granted to it under these Articles.”

This is a structural get-out clause. The SPFL can simply decline to request the introduction of the SFA’s disciplinary powers. Given that only three SPFL clubs were in favour of strict liability in 2019, the likelihood of the SPFL board voluntarily subjecting itself to stricter sanctions is remote.

The review acknowledges this problem without fully addressing its implications. It notes that “the continued independence of the Scottish FA and Scottish Professional Football League sanctioning regimes produces an outcome that is neither coherent nor credible.” But it does not explicitly tackle the fundamental obstacle that the SPFL clubs have the power to block any meaningful reform. The review’s recommendations are directed at the Scottish FA, but the SPFL can simply ignore them.

The Hypocrisy of Complaints

The disciplinary framework’s inadequacy is compounded by the hypocrisy of clubs who complain about opposition fans’ behaviour while refusing to accept responsibility for their own supporters.

The review notes that “the volume and variety of incidents documented across seasons 2024/25 and 2025/26 - pyrotechnics, objects thrown, pitch incursions, anti-social behaviour and targeted intimidation of players and officials - is not a statistical fluctuation. It is a trend.” Every club has been affected. Every club has complained. Every club has demanded action.

Yet when the opportunity to create meaningful deterrents arose - including strict liability, immediate stadium closures, and points deductions - the vast majority voted against them. The reason is clear, clubs do not want to face fines and potential stadium bans for the actions of their own fans. They want the benefits of passionate support without the consequences of disorder. They want opposition fans punished while their own supporters are indulged.

This is turkeys voting for Christmas. Clubs want opposition fans punished for misconduct, but they refuse to accept the consequences when their own supporters transgress. The current “reasonably practicable” defence allows clubs to avoid sanctions by arguing they took adequate steps, regardless of whether those steps were effective. This creates a perverse incentive structure where clubs have minimal motivation to confront or curtail their Ultra groups.

The Offensive Behaviour Act: Criminalising Emotions, Not Solving Problems

The review’s criticisms of the disciplinary framework must be understood against the backdrop of the Scottish Government’s own legislative failures. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act (OBFA) of 2011 was a piece of reactionary SNP legislation designed to criminalise fans rather than address root causes.

The Act created offences concerning “offensive behaviour” in relation to regulated football matches, with a broad definition that included “behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.” This vague and subjective standard allowed prosecutors to target fans for emotional reactions rather than actual harm. Thousands of charges were brought under the Act, with the total number of charges under Section 1 (Football) fluctuating between 65 and 287 annually.

The Act was eventually repealed due to significant public and political pressure, but its legacy remains, a punitive approach that criminalised fans rather than holding clubs accountable for failing to manage their supporters. The Scottish Government and football authorities have consistently preferred to blame individual fans for systemic failures, rather than confront the clubs that profit from their attendance.

The review’s recommendations - immediate sanctions, section closures, financial penalties scaled to revenue - represent a different approach. They are club-focused rather than fan-focused. They recognise that the primary responsibility for supporter conduct lies with the clubs that profit from their attendance. But they face the same obstacles that defeated strict liability in 2013. Clubs do not want to accept responsibility. They will continue to complain about opposition fans while refusing to confront their own.

Selective Enforcement: The Celtic-Rangers Divide

The review’s framing of the two clubs’ approaches to discipline is revealing, though it stops short of drawing the uncomfortable conclusions.

Celtic has taken meaningful action against the Green Brigade. The review notes that Celtic imposed a banning order on approximately 200 identified members of the Green Brigade for the period November 2025 to April 2026, preventing access to Celtic Park and away match tickets. This was a club-imposed restriction that, while imperfect in implementation, demonstrated a willingness to confront difficult issues. The review also notes that Celtic “openly discussed the group’s intended drums and seating locations” at pre-operational meetings - this is evidence of responsible planning, not complicity. Celtic were upfront about the challenges posed by their Ultra group and sought to manage them within the framework available.

Rangers’ relationship with the Union Bears is qualitatively different. The review describes how Rangers, “through season ticket allocations, have agreed to position Union Bears members centrally within the lower tier of the Copland Stand.” This placement afforded the group “the most direct and unimpeded access to the pitch, and the greatest capacity to influence crowd behaviour at moments of high tension and emotion.” The review does not explicitly criticise this arrangement, but the implication is clear, Rangers has facilitated the Union Bears’ access to the most sensitive area of the stadium.

The contrast is stark. Celtic has sought to restrict its Ultra group; Rangers has facilitated its access and influence. The review’s treatment of the two groups as equivalent - both described as operating “like organised crime groups” - omits this fundamental difference. It allows Rangers to avoid scrutiny of its role in facilitating the Union Bears’ activities, while Celtic is implicitly blamed for the Green Brigade’s conduct.

The hypocrisy extends to Rangers’ complaints about Celtic’s actions. When Celtic demanded the banning of Union Bears members from the May 10th derby match last season, Rangers complained to the football authorities. A club that has not taken meaningful action against its own Ultra group for invading the pitch on March 8th objected when the opposition club did so.

The Review’s Recommendations: Necessary but Not Sufficient

The review’s recommendations are sound in principle. REC01A calls for immediate sanctions as the default first-response, financial penalties scaled to club revenue, consistent application of the three-limbed charge, and a published escalation tariff. REC01D proposes a rolling three-year escalation tariff. REC02 recommends a Joint Safety and Security body with independent oversight.

But the review does not adequately confront the fundamental obstacle, the clubs will block meaningful reform because meaningful reform would cost them money and restrict their operations. The review notes that “the Scottish FA, as the primary regulatory body responsible for the governance of supporter conduct at Scottish Cup and all other Scottish FA-governed fixtures, and as the commissioning body for this Report, is best placed to assume a lead position in opening structured dialogue with the Scottish Professional Football League.” This is a polite way of saying that the SFA needs to persuade the SPFL to accept reforms that the SPFL clubs have repeatedly rejected.

The article 28.10 get-out clause remains. The SPFL can simply decline to request the introduction of the SFA’s powers. The clubs that voted against strict liability in 2013 will not suddenly embrace it in 2026. The structural misalignment between the SFA and the SPFL is not a technicality; it is a fortress built by clubs to protect themselves from accountability.

Words Without Action

The review’s final observation is that “action is greater than words - greater than a report.” This is correct. But the report itself is words. The action required - meaningful disciplinary reform, immediate sanctions, club accountability - has been consistently rejected by the clubs that would need to implement it.

The Scottish Football Association has the power to lead, but it has consistently chosen to consult. It has the authority to impose sanctions, but it has consistently chosen to suspend them. It has the mandate to reform, but it has consistently chosen to negotiate. The result is a disciplinary framework that is structurally aligned on paper but operationally misaligned in practice.

Until clubs are prepared to accept responsibility for their own supporters’ conduct, the disciplinary framework will remain inadequate. Until the SPFL is prepared to subject itself to the same sanctions as the Scottish FA, the structural misalignment will persist. Until clubs stop complaining about opposition fans while refusing to confront their own, the hypocrisy will continue.

The review’s recommendations are necessary. But they are not sufficient. The problem is not a lack of good ideas or sound proposals. The problem is a lack of political will among the clubs that control the game. The problem is a disciplinary framework that exists to serve the interests of its member clubs rather than the integrity of the game or the safety of its players, staff, and supporters.

Scottish football has been here before. The Bowen Report after the 2016 Scottish Cup Final disorder between Rangers and Hibernian fans made similar recommendations. The Roberts Report on football policing in 2019 identified similar problems. Baroness Casey’s review of the Euro 2020 final at Wembley offered lessons that Scotland could have learned from, but haven’t. The cycle of disorder, report, recommendation, and inaction is well established.

The question is whether this time will be different. The evidence suggests it will not. The clubs have not changed their position. The SPFL has not changed its stance. The Scottish FA has not demonstrated the courage to impose reform against the will of its members.

The review’s observations on Ultra groups are particularly instructive. It notes that these groups “exercise a power over clubs and the wider supporter base that is disproportionate to their size.” The majority of supporters are being held hostage to the behaviour and demands of a disorderly, vocal, and at times threatening minority. The majority of clubs have demonstrated a reluctance to confront this dynamic, in part because of the atmospheric value Ultra groups provide, and in part through fear of the consequences.

This is not a failure of the disciplinary framework. It is a failure of the clubs to exercise the authority they have but have been reluctant to use. The Scottish FA and SPFL cannot solve the problem of Ultra group misconduct if the clubs are unwilling to confront the groups that operate within their grounds.

The review’s recommendation that clubs must formally sanction Ultra groups as a condition of continued stadium access may be seen by some as a good one. But it will only work if the clubs are willing to enforce it. And the clubs - outwith Celtic - have consistently demonstrated that they are not. Especially Rangers.

Scottish football’s disciplinary framework is not a failure of design; it is a failure of will. The clubs have the power to create meaningful deterrents. They have consistently chosen not to. They have voted against strict liability, refused to endorse immediate sanctions, and maintained a “reasonably practicable” defence that allows them to avoid accountability.

The review’s recommendations are necessary. But they are not sufficient. Until the clubs are prepared to accept responsibility for their supporters’ conduct, the disorder will continue. The turkeys will keep voting against Christmas. And Scottish football will continue to pay the price.

The final word belongs to the review itself, though it is a verdict the review does not fully embrace: “The question is not whether the tools exist. It is whether there is the will to use them.” On the evidence available, the answer is clear. The will does not exist. And until it does, Scottish football will continue to reap what it has sown.

This is the third and final article on the recent Scottish FA Independent Review into the disorder during the Scottish Cup Quarter Final tie between Rangers and Celtic on March 8th.