Celtic wants to choose the people who are supposed to represent Celtic supporters and challenge the very people making those appointments.

Think about that for a moment.

The club has devised a system in which the people being scrutinised have a decisive influence over who gets to scrutinise them. And somehow, we are supposed to accept that this represents meaningful progress towards supporter democracy.

I have read Celtic’s latest statement, examined the original Celtic Connect proposals and, perhaps more importantly, taken the time to read the Celtic Fans Collective’s response to the club. And I must admit, the more I look at this entire situation, the more convinced I become that Celtic’s board has fundamentally misunderstood what supporters are asking for.

Celtic supporters are not asking for an invitation to sit in a room, enjoy a cup of tea, exchange a few polite words with club representatives and then return home feeling that they have somehow changed the world.

No. We are asking for something considerably more meaningful: the right to choose our own representatives. And apparently, that is where the problem begins.

Celtic’s announcement of last night confirms some adjustments to the original Celtic Connect proposals. The number of meetings has increased from three to four annually, supporter places have increased from nine to eleven, and there have been changes to the proposed representation arrangements.

Fine. Some adjustments are welcome. But I would like to ask a rather important question: have these changes actually addressed the fundamental problem, or have we simply been presented with a slightly rearranged version of the same idea?

Because, as far as I am concerned, the central problem remains untouched.

Under the published selection arrangements, applicants are assessed by a panel involving a Celtic board member, John Paul Taylor and a former player.

There is no supporter-wide election. There is no democratic mandate from the people these representatives are supposedly going to represent.

And I find that particularly difficult to swallow.

How can a representative body genuinely claim independence when the organisation being scrutinised has such considerable influence over the selection of the people doing the job?

It is rather like asking somebody to appoint their own examiner and then expecting the examination results to be entirely independent. An interesting arrangement, certainly, but hardly convincing! In my profession we call it “marking your own homework.”

Celtic can call this supporter engagement, Celtic Connect or whatever other attractive name it wishes to put on the proposal. However, changing the name does not change the fundamental question of accountability.

Independence cannot simply be printed on a piece of paper. It must be demonstrated through the structure itself.

And four meetings a year? Better than three, certainly. But what happens when something serious occurs between those meetings? Who can demand an extraordinary meeting? Who can insist that an uncomfortable question receives an answer? Who makes sure that the board follows up on issues raised by supporters?

And what happens when the representatives and the board fundamentally disagree?

Suppose every supporter representative opposes a particular club decision. Can they publish their objections independently? Can they insist that the board provides a formal response? Can they challenge the club’s version of events without worrying about their relationship with the people responsible for selecting them?

These are not obscure procedural questions. They go to the very heart of whether a representative body has any meaningful authority. There is an enormous difference between having permission to raise a concern and possessing the independence to pursue it.

More seats around the table do not automatically create more democracy. Eleven appointed representatives are still eleven appointed representatives. Increasing the number does absolutely nothing to resolve the question of who gives them the authority to speak for us.

And that is precisely why I believe the Celtic Fans Collective has a much stronger argument.

Unlike Celtic Connect, the Collective has been developing an alternative approach based on democratic representation and genuine independence.

Its steering group brings together existing supporter organisations and communities, including the Celtic Supporters Association, the Celtic Trust, the Celtic Disabled Supporters Association, Fans Against Criminalisation, supporters’ clubs, organised supporter sections and fan media.

And I think that deserves considerably more recognition than it has received.

Celtic supporters are not one enormous group of people who agree on everything. We have different priorities, different experiences and sometimes profoundly different opinions about the direction of our football club.

There are disagreements about ticketing, policing, governance, supporter behaviour, the running of the club and almost everything else imaginable.

Yet the Collective has managed to bring together organisations representing a significant range of these interests and persuade them to work towards common objectives.

That is an achievement in itself.

It demonstrates something that Celtic’s board appears remarkably reluctant to understand: Celtic supporters are not an audience waiting to be selected. They are a community with their own organisations, opinions, experience and right to representation.

They are already capable of organising themselves. They do not require the board’s permission to decide who should speak on their behalf.

The Collective’s proposed Fan Advisory Board offers a fundamentally different approach. Representatives should be nominated and elected by supporters, accountable to those who give them their mandate, and independent of the club’s management.

Supporters should have the ability to raise their own subjects rather than depend on the club deciding which conversations are convenient.

And I particularly like that last point. Because genuine representation is not about discussing only the subjects that make everybody comfortable.

It is about having the freedom to ask difficult questions, challenge decisions and demand explanations when something is wrong.

That freedom becomes especially important when relations between the club and its supporters are strained.

Indeed, surely that is when proper supporter representation matters most.

A communication structure that functions only when everybody agrees is of very limited value. The real test comes when the representatives have something to say that the board would rather not hear.

I also want to remind everybody that the Collective has not simply been shouting from the sidelines. It has engaged with Celtic, attended the meeting on 22 September, presented its objections and put forward an alternative.

This is not an organisation refusing dialogue. Quite the opposite. It has demonstrated a willingness to find a workable solution, provided that the solution actually respects supporters’ democratic rights.

And there is something rather extraordinary about a situation in which supporter organisations are doing the work of building a broad representative structure, while the club appears determined to retain substantial influence over who gets appointed to its own alternative.

One approach starts with the supporters and works upwards. The other starts with the club and works downwards. That difference matters.

There is also an important piece of research worth mentioning.

University of Glasgow research, referenced in the Collective’s published material, indicates that support for an independent Fan Advisory Board was approximately 66% or higher across the supporter groups surveyed.

Meanwhile, fewer than 10% in any of the groups reportedly preferred a model established and run entirely by Celtic itself.

Now, I would like somebody at Celtic Park to explain something to me.

If supporters have already expressed such a clear preference for independent representation, why is the club proposing a structure where the club itself retains such considerable influence over the selection process?

Is listening to supporters only important when their opinions happen to fit the board’s preferred direction?

Surely a club genuinely committed to improving relations with its supporters would look at that research and recognise the opportunity it presents.

Here are supporters telling you that they want an independent voice. Here are established organisations attempting to construct a democratic alternative. Here is an opportunity to create something that could enjoy genuine credibility across the wider Celtic support.

Why would the board not embrace that? Why insist on a selection process in which the club itself has such an influential role?

And why should supporters be expected to welcome an arrangement that falls short of the independence they have been asking for?

I am not suggesting that Celtic Connect cannot provide a useful channel for communication. Published minutes, regular discussions with senior executives and a more transparent relationship between the club and supporters would all be welcome.

I would be the first to acknowledge that meaningful engagement is long overdue.

But communication and representation are not interchangeable. Neither are consultation and democracy. And that is the distinction I want Celtic’s board to understand.

Supporters do not simply want permission to speak.

They want the right to decide who speaks on their behalf.

They want representatives who answer to them, not representatives whose positions depend on a selection process influenced by the very institution they may need to challenge.

I have said many times that Celtic belongs to its supporters in a way that goes far beyond buying tickets, merchandise or subscriptions.

We are the people who fill Paradise, travel across the country and beyond, support the team through magnificent victories and miserable afternoons, and carry this football club in our hearts. We are not customers who should be grateful for whatever engagement arrangement happens to be offered to us.

And I certainly do not believe that asking for democratic representation is an unreasonable demand. In fact, I struggle to understand how it could be considered controversial at all.

If Celtic genuinely believes in supporter engagement, why should it be afraid of supporter elections? If its proposed representatives are the right people, surely they should have no difficulty earning the confidence of those they wish to represent.

And if the board genuinely wants to hear the views of its supporters, why should it matter whether those views are delivered by people it has helped select or by people who have earned their mandate directly from the support?

The answer should be obvious.

Democratically elected representatives would arrive with something that no club appointment process can bestow: the authority of the people who chose them. That does not mean every decision they make would be correct. It does not mean supporters would suddenly agree about everything.

Democracy has never promised either of those things.

What it would mean is that those representatives could be held accountable by the people whose interests they were supposed to defend, and that is an entirely different proposition from asking supporters to place their faith in a selection process in which the board itself participates, and in fact plays the leading role.

The adjustments announced on 9 November may make Celtic Connect look a little more attractive, but they do not resolve its fundamental democratic weakness.

The Celtic Fans Collective has presented a much more convincing direction, one built on independence, accountability and the right of supporters to choose their own representatives.

It has also demonstrated that supporters with different interests and perspectives can work together constructively towards a common purpose. That should be welcomed, not treated as something that needs to be bypassed by a club-designed alternative.

Celtic can have its communication forum. It can call it Celtic Connect. It can make it as useful as possible. But please, let us not confuse a club-influenced selection process with supporter democracy.

Because Celtic supporters deserve more than an invitation to participate in a system designed by the people they are asking to hold accountable.

They deserve the right to choose their own voice.

And if Celtic’s board truly has nothing to fear from an independent supporter body, perhaps it is time to stop deciding who gets to speak and start listening to the people who have been speaking all along.

Celtic Connect offers supporters a place at the table.

But it is still the board that decides who gets a chair, and that is the difference between being invited into a conversation and having a genuine voice.

It will not suffice. It is window dressing. It is the appearance of engagement rather than the sort that works, the sort that is real. No-one should accept it.

Choose The CelticBlog as a Preferred Source on Google News…