MEETING BETWEEN CELTIC F.C. AND CELTIC FANS COLLECTIVE

Wednesday 18 February 2026
Celtic Park, Glasgow

Attendees:

Agenda

1. Introductions
2. Opening statement from the Celtic Fans Collective outlining position and hopes for the meeting
3. Response from Celtic PLC
4. Substantive Items:
   • Fan Engagement
   • Board and Executive
   • Communications
5. Summary and agreement on outcomes
6. AOCB

The meeting broadly followed this structure, although discussion frequently overlapped across themes.

Minutes

1. Introductions

Attendees were noted as above.

Jeanette Findlay (JF) opened proceedings on behalf of the Celtic Fans Collective (CFC).

2. Opening Statement – Celtic Fans Collective

JF referenced the October meeting and subsequent correspondence. It was noted that expectations at that meeting had included improved communication, structured supporter engagement, and greater accountability.

The Collective stated that, in their view, the situation had deteriorated significantly since October. Concerns outlined included:

• The January transfer window and perceived lack of preparedness.
• The appointment and rapid departure of Wilfried Nancy.
• The removal of Paul Tisdale shortly before the January window.
• Continued absence of a Fans Forum despite commitments.
• The banning of the Green Brigade without prior engagement.
• Removing fan media access.
• Tone and conduct at the AGM.
• Interim financial results.
• A perceived pattern of shutting down supporter engagement channels.

JF referenced the recent AGM and stated that the tone and conduct of proceedings had further eroded trust. It was argued that remarks directed at sections of the support were widely perceived as dismissive and inflammatory. It was also noted that the Clubs’ written response to complaints from shareholders after the AGM contained significant inaccuracies. The Collective expressed the view that leadership during periods of tension required de-escalation and accountability, and that the approach taken both during and following the AGM has instead deepened division. JF emphasised that the Collective does not seek protest for its own sake but requires tangible and credible progress to report back to the wider support.

The question was asked directly: what decisions could realistically be made in the room and what authority did the Interim Chair hold?

3. Response – Celtic PLC

Brian Wilson (BW) confirmed he holds no unilateral authority and acts as Interim Chair reporting to the Board collectively.

BW stated his desire was to move the Club forward, acknowledge concerns raised, and seek mutual understanding. He expressed a wish for unity behind the team during a crucial sporting period but acknowledged that unity cannot be artificial.

Paul Quigley (PQ) responded that unity must be built on transparency, engagement and trust, and that any change in supporter behaviour would depend on meaningful progress.

BW stated he did not disagree with that principle.

4. Substantive Items

A. Board and Executive

Executive Accountability

The Collective set out the view that Michael Nicholson should not remain as CEO beyond the current season, citing:

• Three major appointments (Tisdale, Nancy, Hargreaves) viewed as detrimental 2 of which have been relieved of their duties.
• Repeated recruitment failings across windows.
• Poor management of managerial transition.
• Growing supporter boycotts and withholding of spending.
• A breakdown of trust and credibility.

BW confirmed he would convey the views expressed but stated he has faith in Michael Nicholson and considers his performance this season acceptable.

JF stated that there was an inherent contradiction in acknowledging significant failures whilst simultaneously describing the CEO’s performance as acceptable. She argued that this position was difficult for supporters to reconcile and risked undermining credibility in the room.

BW reiterated that responsibility rests with the Board collectively.

Representatives of the Collective noted this position and observed that it raised broader questions regarding individual accountability within executive structure.

The Collective challenged inconsistencies between prior public statements and subsequent events regarding Brendan Rodgers’ resignation. BW confirmed Rodgers resigned and stated the situation had been managed internally.

No commitment was made regarding executive change.

Recruitment Process & Governance

Questions were raised regarding:

• The recruitment process for Wilfried Nancy.
• The role of the nominations committee.
• Why Paul Tisdale was removed shortly before the January window.
• What lessons had been learned from recent failures.
• Whether the recruitment model remains fit for purpose.

BW acknowledged mistakes had been made this season and that Nancy’s appointment was “not good” and circumstances “far from ideal”. However, no specific failings were detailed.

It was confirmed that the recruitment process is under review. No detail or timeline was provided.

PQ challenged the club on the process for recruiting Nancy to the Club making note to the club still using the same process’ that it always has and a refusal to modernise and instead often using personal contacts when it comes to recruitment.

BW confirmed that the process was the same as it has always been and cited previous successful managerial hires following this process such as Martin O’Neill and Gordon Strachan. He went on to note that Ange Postecoglou was a successful hire by the board and their recruitment system.

Members of the Collective expressed the view that Ange’s appointment reflected a recurring reliance on established personal and professional networks, referencing perceived links between the City Group and individuals formerly connected to the Club’s leadership.  

PQ asked for further clarification about this process to which BW noted that there was a nominations committee who would interview the manager and decide who would be offered the role. When pushed to say who would be involved in this committee BW noted that Dermot Desmond and Michael Nicholson were involved in the committee.

The Collective then asked that if the Club did not believe it was the process that was at fault for this appointment, did they then believe it was those individuals currently managing the process at fault. BW said he did not but would not indicate where he believed the fault was in recent recruitment.

Board Refresh

JF asked whether discussions were ongoing regarding Board refresh or executive change.

BW confirmed that governance review and Board refresh discussions are ongoing but did not provide specifics. He did confirm that an external recruitment body would be used.

The Collective noted that without tangible detail or timescale, such statements would lack credibility with supporters.

B. Fan Engagement

Advisory Board / Structured Engagement

The Collective referenced October minutes which included discussion of a Fan Advisory Board. Four months on, no structured engagement mechanism had been introduced.

BW confirmed consultation on supporter engagement structures would begin and committed to meeting again within one month to update on progress.

However, he did not commit to establishing a “Fan Advisory Board” specifically, stating that wording and structure remain under review.

PT noted previous the meeting with the club in which there was specific reference to the establishment of a Fan Advisory Board using this exact terminology.

Following this BW committed that the club would remain consistent and follow through on this with an offer to provide an update in a months’ time.

Kevin McQuillan and George Campbell confirmed research into other clubs’ models is underway.

The Collective stressed that:

• Engagement must be democratic and representative.
• Structures must endure beyond individual office holders.
• The absence of progress over four months has deepened mistrust.

During discussion on supporter engagement BW invited John Paul Taylor (JPT) for comment which he stated candidly that he was not fully sighted on the current position regarding the development of a formal engagement framework. He indicated that he could not provide detail on progress or timelines.

The collective noted the difficulty this creates given that JPT holds the role of Supporter Liaison Officer. 

No timeline beyond a further meeting in one month was provided.

Safe Standing Working Group

John Paul Taylor confirmed that an internal working group had examined potential safe standing configurations and scenarios.

Engagement with supporter groups had not progressed due to current tensions.

No timeline was provided for next steps.

Green Brigade

The Collective raised the continued exclusion of the Green Brigade (GB), arguing:

• Their absence has negatively impacted atmosphere and team performance.
• The situation is contributing to wider supporter disillusionment.
• Two distinct issues appear to have been conflated:
  • Stadium management / Safety considerations.
  • Allegations relating to incidents at the AGM.
• The approach taken amounts to collective punishment

The collective further noted that the club has historically and publicly remained opposed to strict liability, arguing that supporters should not be collectively punished for the actions of individuals.

It was therefore states that the current position – whereby an entire supporter group remains excluded due to alleged actions of individuals – is inconsistent with that public stance.

The Collective argued that:

• If specific individuals are alleged to have committed misconduct, those individuals should be addressed directly.
• Applying sanctions to a broader group undermines the clubs own stated principles
• The situation risks setting a precedent whereby collective punishment is normalised domestically
• The contradiction weakens the Club’s credibility when challenging strict liability externally.

It was further noted that:

• Following the allegations at the AGM those individuals were permitted entry
• The retrospective nature of subsequent sanctions was difficult to reconcile
• There has been no dialogue between the club and those individuals about this alleged incident
• The team is entering a critical run in and that atmosphere is a tangible factor.

BW confirmed he had met the Green Brigade the previous week and that dialogue is ongoing. He stated there is a will within the Board to resolve matters and that progress had been made on one strand, with another strand more complex.

It was stated that conditionality would apply. GC stated that the Head of Security (Mark Hargreaves) does not hold a veto.

The Collective reiterated that the current position of the club is disproportionate and that the contradiction of the club’s stance should be addressed. They also stated that reinstatement of the GB would represent a clear and immediate gesture of good faith.

BW acknowledged that the Green Brigade’s presence could have a positive impact on the team but did not commit to a timeframe for resolution of this matter.

C. Communications

Fan Media Access

The Collective raised concerns regarding the removal of fan media access, including the suspension of established outlets covering both the men’s and women’s teams.

It was noted that fan media were originally welcomed by the club as a means of broadening engagement and diversifying representation beyond mainstream press coverage. The Collective expressed concern that recent restrictions appear to coincide with increased criticism of executive decision making.

Kevin McQuillan stated that a refreshed communications strategy is underway and that the role of fan media is being reviewed. It was acknowledged that criticism of the Club may have influenced decisions. Neither KM or BW knew who made the decision that fan media access would be removed.

The Collective stressed that criticism of leadership is not misconduct and that powerful institutions must be open to scrutiny. It was argued that reducing access in response to criticism risks appearing thin-skinned and damages trust further.

No commitment was made regarding reinstatement or timeline for review.

Public Statements

The Collective noted that recent statements from the Club had been perceived as dismissive or critical of supporters and that this has exacerbated tensions.

BW disputed aspects of that characterisation but acknowledged communication could improve. KMQ referenced the ongoing review of the Club’s communications strategy.

No commitment was made regarding a revised approach to public messaging in the immediate term.

5. Summary and Agreement on Outcomes

The Collective requested something tangible to take back to members in order to prevent escalation of protest and unrest.

The only firm commitments provided were:

• A further meeting within one month to update on supporter engagement consultation.
• Continued dialogue with the Green Brigade.
• Ongoing review of recruitment processes.
• Governance review discussions ongoing at Board level.

No firm commitments were made regarding:

• Executive change.
• Board refresh timelines.
• Formal adoption of a Fan Advisory Board.
• Immediate reinstatement of the Green Brigade.
• Restoration of fan media access.
• Public statement following the meeting.

During closing exchanges, JPT acknowledged the strength of supporter feeling and confirmed that he has consistently communicated this internally. He stated that he was aware of the seriousness of the situation and the potential consequences of continued inaction.

JPT further noted that he had been asked to attend the meeting in the evening of the day prior and reported that he was not fully briefed on all the matters which would be discussed. The Collective expressed concern that this reflected broader structural issues in communication with the Club and placed the Supporter Liaison Officer in a difficult position when engaging with representatives.

The Collective indicated they would report back to signatory organisations immediately.

6. AOCB

During closing remarks, as members of the Collective reiterated the seriousness of supporter anger and the opportunity for leadership to reset relations, it was observed that BW appeared disengaged at points in the discussion. This was perceived by some attendees as indicative of a lack of urgency or attentiveness at a critical juncture.

The Collective emphasised that their role is to maintain structured dialogue and are keen to prevent further escalations of protests, but that this requires reciprocal movement from the Club.

BW reaffirmed willingness to continue consultation and dialogue.

The meeting concluded without agreed substantive outcomes beyond the commitments noted above.