Yes.
Why are the board so silent on this? Surely we should have some executive from the club coming out right now and highlighting these decisions?
2 Likes
I don’t think the board should be saying anything. I’d like to see it mentioned by players and Ange even subtly. But Ange won’t want to talk about anyone other than Celtic understandably.
He seems an awful prick with a personal vendetta against football fans. The last sort of guy who should be given that job. Hopefully it’s just incorrect rumours.
1 Like
I think it’s the board’s duty to speak out on this. Not the management and players who need to focus on their football and potentially risk suspensions, the club need to release a very strongly worded official statement on refereeing decisions and who they consistently benefit.
Just shows you how out of touch the board are.
1 Like
I don’t think the optics of commenting on matches not involving Celtic are correct. Aberdeen barely raised an objection. It’s really up to them.
But a PR statement at some time is no harm. But that doesn’t need the board.
This is a league that facilitated a sectarian employment policy for a century. I don’t think they’re going to be reformist anyway, no matter what is said.
I think it does need the board. Are they ever accountable for anything with you?
Of course the board should speak out on this, they should do so loudly, consistently and make as much noise as they can about it until it stops. What good has 20 years of more or less silence from the custodians of Celtic done about these decisions? This is the responsibility of the board and executives to tackle this matter publicly and shame Scottish football. Why would Aberdeen complain about it? It’s one game that will mean little to them at the season end. The only club directly impacted by officiating decisions benefiting Rangers are the only club who will be battling with them for trophies and CL money.
The Uncle Toms and thieves that sit on the Celtic board continue to shame themselves.
I think you’re confusing thr board with the day to day running of the club.
That falls on the board seeing as they no longer have a CEO, nice that they are trying to get one of their stooges into the position.
Anyway, back the trust, sack the board. It’s what the real fans want.
1 Like
I’m pro trust too.
So you want Desmond removed?
Removed from the board or from ownership?
I’d rather there was fan ownership to a greater extent. If a fan group could take over or become a larger shareholder I’m all for that. But it’s quite precarious. Desmond doesn’t even own a majority so he needs his supporters too. If a fan group took his shares they may not find themselves controlling the board anyway.
What I don’t want to happen is see Desmond sell to a random other investor. The second biggest shareholder is a private equity fund I think which probably wouldn’t want control but if they did they’d be terrible for Celtic.
Removed from the board, that the board should be held accountable.
All I can say if Desmond has little interest in Celtic Football Club and has failed the supporters time and time again. The club has been consistently downsized in his timer here and Peter Lawwell made himself a millionaire 20x over by carrying out a cycle of austerity and downsizing on the playing pitch. He was Desmond’s lieutenant. The board needs to go, Desmond needs to go.
I don’t really get your rationale about things could be worse, they could also be infinitely better if we had ownership that want to progress the club rather than see it as a sitting investment they can asset strip at any time.
He won’t be removed from the board while he’s the largest shareholder. That’s not realistic. So really you need someone to buy him out and take control themselves.
There has been no asset stripping. None. So that’s just made up.
I think we’ve had a mixed time under Desmond. But he first increased his investment share to over 20% of the club in 2002. I think under most criteria we are far ahead of where we were back then in terms of spending, results, trophies and competitiveness in Europe (as well as being more stable financially).
I can disagree with plenty of decisions without thinking that he must be motivated to take all he can out of the club because that’s really not the case.
If we get the private equity owners in then we’d see a real asset stripping with the sale of media rights, stadium rights, future ticket sales etc.
What would you call Peter Lawwell earning 5m in a season where we made a big net profit on transfers?
You have been a big supporter of Lawwell who has been an absolute cancer on the club and widely despised by most of our best players and managers in the past 20 years. Sutton, Thompson, Balde, O’Neill and Rodgers had terrible working relationships with him as he actively downsized the playing side and where did the money go? Well he made himself one of the highest paid football executives in Europe for a one of the lowest spending sides in Europe.
Not asset stripping.
Cash is an asset and Lawwell pocketed it, signed off by the same thieves who are up for reappointment.
Get them tae fuck.
Ok you’re getting a little hysterical now so I’ll leave you be.