The Celtic board’s opposition to a published five-year plan leaves me asking a basic question: how can supporters judge the club’s direction when the leadership resists giving them clearer targets?

The Celtic Trust wants a three-to-five-year football, financial and strategic plan, with measurable goals and remuneration linked to delivery. Ahead of the AGM on 1 December, the directors recommend voting against it.

For me, that response captures an antiquated boardroom culture. Supporters want a clear destination, responsibilities and evidence of progress. The board points towards existing reporting and warns against publishing more.

What the Celtic board says about the five-year plan

The formal AGM notice sets out the disagreement under Resolution 16.

Celtic argues that its annual report already contains a strategic report and performance indicators. Publishing further forward-looking financial and strategic detail, it says, would put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

The response states that releasing such detail “would not be a measure undertaken by a responsible board”.

That is an extraordinary way to frame this argument.

Commercial confidentiality matters. Nobody should expect Celtic to publish live transfer negotiations or sensitive valuations. However, the Trust’s proposal asks for “measurable football and financial goals”, alongside a link between those goals and remuneration.

There is room to protect confidential information while publishing meaningful ambitions, milestones and progress reports.

Indeed, Celtic’s own governance information describes an internal rolling five-year business plan. The dispute concerns disclosure and accountability. Simply insisting that planning exists behind closed doors does little to rebuild confidence in its quality.

Long service has to produce foresight

Brian Wilson is 77 and Dermot Desmond is 76. Wilson joined the board in June 2005; Desmond joined in May 1995.

Those decades should provide institutional knowledge and the confidence to embrace change. Instead, I see a leadership culture too comfortable defending its existing approach.

The responsibility extends across generations. Michael Nicholson is 50 and Christopher McKay is 51. Younger executives also have to explain how Celtic’s football structure works and why it deserves supporters’ confidence.

As our timeline of Celtic’s boardroom failures examined, managerial upheaval and European setbacks raise questions about preparation and continuity.

That is where the dysfunction shows: repeated disruption, followed by assurances that leave the underlying decision-making difficult to assess.

Meetings and accounts provide information. They still leave supporters searching for a convincing explanation of what Celtic intends to become.

Other clubs explain how they plan ahead

Brentford offers a useful comparison.

In a December 2023 interview on the club’s official website, technical director Lee Dykes explained a seven-stage recruitment process combining data, scouting, positional requirements and financial assessment.

Brighton also published a June 2023 interview in which then recruitment chief Sam Jewell described succession planning for staff and players, including preparation several transfer windows ahead.

Both examples show that clubs can explain their methods while protecting sensitive details. Their Premier League resources differ from Celtic’s, but explaining responsibility and process does not require an English television deal.

On analytics, precision matters. Training Ground Guru has reported Celtic’s appointment of data analyst Luke Merrill, working alongside lead analyst Antoine Ortega. Celtic does employ analytical expertise.

My concern is how that expertise shapes decisions. Who owns the recruitment strategy? How does it survive managerial changes? What measures tell the board whether it works?

Our earlier coverage of the breakdown between Celtic and organised supporters showed why trust needs more than another engagement promise.

The AGM vote has yet to happen. Nevertheless, the board’s recommendation already reveals its preference.

For me, this is leadership stuck in the dark ages: guarding its discretion while offering too little measurable accountability. Celtic needs a clear direction supporters can understand, assess and believe in.

Key takeaways

• The board recommends voting against Resolution 16; shareholders have yet to vote.
• The proposal seeks measurable targets and remuneration linked to results.
• Brentford and Brighton demonstrate how clubs can explain planning without revealing every secret.
• Celtic employs analysts, but its leadership still needs to explain how evidence drives decisions.