There is something rather remarkable about the way Celtic Football Club approaches supporter engagement.

The club regularly talks about the importance of its supporters, their contribution to the atmosphere, their loyalty and their place at the heart of everything Celtic represents.

Yet whenever supporters suggest that they might actually have something useful to contribute to the way the club is run, somebody in the boardroom seems to develop an unfortunate allergy to the idea.

The latest example concerns a Celtic Trust motion calling for elected supporter representatives to participate in a review of stadium security.

Of course, Celtic has rejected the proposal, or, more accurately, has recommended that shareholders reject it.

And I have to say, I find this particular decision especially disappointing.

Why? Because we are not talking about merchandise, commercial strategy, ticket prices or even the latest exercise in corporate communication.

We are talking about safety inside Celtic Park, the relationship between supporters and security personnel, and whether the people who actually experience those security arrangements every time they attend a match should have a voice in reviewing them.

Apparently, that is asking rather too much.

Celtic’s response falls back on the professionalism and experience of its security team, its legal responsibilities, existing reviews and the various other elements of the current arrangements. I am not questioning the professionalism of individual security personnel, nor am I suggesting that Celtic should abandon its legal obligations.

Of course, the club has responsibilities. Stadium security is a serious matter requiring proper expertise. But that is not the central point of the motion.

The question is whether the existing arrangements could be improved by including the people who experience them first-hand. And I struggle to understand why that should be such a controversial suggestion.

Let me make something perfectly clear.

Having elected supporter representatives involved in a security review does not mean handing responsibility for stadium security to the fans.

Nobody is suggesting that supporters should decide how emergency procedures operate, replace trained security personnel or start issuing instructions to stewards.

It means listening. What a revolutionary concept!

There are sections of Celtic Park where supporters have legitimate concerns about excessive policing, heavy-handed approaches and the way certain situations are handled.

There are questions about communication, understanding and the relationship between security teams and the people they are supposed to help keep safe. These are not necessarily problems which can be identified simply by looking at a security report prepared in an office.

Sometimes the people best placed to explain what happens inside a particular section of the stadium are the people standing there every other week.

Supporters know their own surroundings. They understand the atmosphere, the routines, the potential flashpoints and the situations in which an unnecessarily confrontational approach can make matters worse rather than better.

And surely, if the objective is to improve safety, that knowledge should be welcomed.

I would argue that better communication between supporters and security personnel could prevent misunderstandings, reduce unnecessary confrontation and create a more cooperative environment inside the stadium.

It could also help identify where particular practices are disproportionate or where a different approach might achieve better results.

Instead of operating permanently on the basis of “do as we say”, perhaps there could be a greater understanding of why certain measures are necessary, how they are implemented and whether they are actually working.

That is what meaningful engagement should look like.

I find it particularly difficult to accept the suggestion that professional security arrangements somehow make supporter involvement unnecessary. Professionalism and consultation are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, I would suggest that a genuinely professional organisation should be perfectly comfortable examining its own procedures and listening to constructive criticism. If everything is working as well as it possibly can, a review involving elected supporter representatives should have nothing to fear.

And if there are problems, surely identifying them is precisely the purpose of conducting a review in the first place. This is where I see a much bigger problem with Celtic’s attitude.

The club appears perfectly happy to talk about engagement, provided that engagement does not interfere with decisions already made by the people sitting at the top of the organisation.

Supporters can attend meetings, submit questions, complete consultations and listen to presentations. They can express their concerns, provided those concerns are received through whatever channels the club has decided are appropriate.

But when supporters ask for something more substantial, when they want an actual role in a process which directly affects them, suddenly the conversation becomes considerably more complicated. We have seen this pattern before.

The club wants to determine the structure, the terms and the boundaries of supporter engagement. It wants to decide who participates, what can be discussed and, ultimately, how much influence supporters are permitted to have.

That is not quite the same thing as listening.

And it certainly is not the same thing as democracy.

I cannot help noticing the contradiction.

Celtic constantly celebrates the extraordinary relationship between the club and its supporters, yet seems reluctant to recognise that this relationship should involve more than purchasing tickets, buying merchandise and providing an impressive atmosphere on matchdays.

Supporters are not simply customers who happen to sing particularly loudly.

They are the people who fill Celtic Park, who experience the stadium environment, who understand the culture of different sections of the ground and who have a direct interest in how security arrangements affect their matchday experience.

Their contribution should not be considered an inconvenience.

Indeed, I would argue that stadium safety is precisely the sort of issue where supporter representation makes enormous sense.

It is practical, relevant and directly connected to the everyday experience of attending matches. There is no reason why elected representatives could not work alongside security professionals, share supporters’ concerns and contribute to a constructive review.

Nobody loses authority simply because somebody else is allowed to speak. Unless, of course, the real concern is that somebody might ask uncomfortable questions.

I am also rather tired of the club using its legal responsibilities as a convenient way of avoiding the wider discussion.

Nobody is asking Celtic to disregard the law.

The existence of legal obligations does not prevent consultation, nor does it mean that existing security procedures should be immune from scrutiny.

The law establishes responsibilities. It does not prohibit common sense.

And common sense tells me that if supporters have concerns about how they are treated inside their own stadium, there should be a proper mechanism for those concerns to be examined.

I want Celtic to have effective security arrangements. I want supporters to feel safe, respected and comfortable attending matches. I want security personnel to be able to do their jobs without unnecessary confrontation.

Those objectives should complement one another, not compete.

But achieving them requires communication, transparency and a willingness to acknowledge that the people running the stadium might not have all the answers.

That last part might be the most difficult one for our Board to accept.

Ultimately, this is another example of Celtic wanting everything one way.

The club wants supporter loyalty, supporter money, supporter enthusiasm and supporter participation when it suits its purposes.

But when supporters request a meaningful role in decisions affecting their own matchday experience, the club suddenly appears considerably less welcoming.

I do not believe that elected supporter representatives would undermine Celtic’s security arrangements.

I believe they could strengthen them by bringing a perspective that professional security teams and club officials cannot necessarily provide on their own.

Supporters should not have to fight for the right to contribute to a discussion about their own safety. They should be recognised as stakeholders whose experiences and concerns deserve proper consideration.

If Celtic genuinely believes that supporters are at the heart of the club, perhaps it is time to demonstrate that belief through something more meaningful than another carefully worded statement.

Choose The CelticBlog as a Preferred Source on Google News…