Minutes released from Celtic Fans Collective meeting with Celtic FC

In partnership with

The Celtic Star

·24 de fevereiro de 2026

Minutes released from Celtic Fans Collective meeting with Celtic FC

The Celtic Fans Collective were being chased at the weekend to release the minutes of the recent meeting with the club…

This led to one unfortunate exchange on social media which is no worse than much of what you see on there It also gave an insight into the additional pressures that the Celtic supporters working on The Celtic Fans Collective have had to endure in recent months, alongside their usual responsibilities in their lives and jobs.

Then we had the four podcasters, three from the fan media and one from a mainstream outlet, accepting an invitation to a Celtic Park corporate box at the weekend. You would have thought it was the crime of the century again judging by responses on social media.

Vídeos OneFootball

Perhaps not reading the room is a valid criticism but that’s it really. The pile on was atrocious as was some fan media sites getting involved but it was a nothing incident perhaps worthy of a few snide remarks, like the one shown above but nothing more. Posting the photo was the real issue – why bother doing that? Surely the inevitable feedback would be expected, especially as tensions as so high at the moment.

Rain falls in the second half Celtic v Hibernian, Scottish Premiership, Celtic Park, – 22 February 2026. Photo Mark Runnacles IMAGO Shutterstock

ACSOM resigning from the Celtic Fans Collective as a result is regrettable and most I would imagine would regard it as unnecessary. Hopefully that decision will be reconsidered in the interests of Celtic – a better Celtic, when the heat comes out of this nothing incident.

Moving onto more important matters and today The Collective have updated its members – that’s supporters associations, independent supporters buses, various Celtic media outlets including The Celtic Star and other Celtic organisations together forming a vast section of the entire Celtic support – about the meeting with Celtic last Wednesday.

Before showing you the minutes here’s a little explanation from the Celtic Fans Collective.

“Firstly, thank you for your patience while awaiting the minutes from last week’s meeting with Celtic FC. The Club had indicated they hoped to provide their version by close of business on Friday. However, we only received a draft this morning and we felt this had key information and discussions omitted.

“In the interest of transparency, we have decided to publish our own version today. These are broadly aligned with the Club’s draft, but include the omitted detail.”

So presumably Celtic will release their own minutes and it’s worth noting for the person who was impatient to see these at the weekend, that the group of Celtic supporters in the Celtic Fans Collective have addressed this to produce the minutes quicker than Celtic PLC with all its resources. Worth remembering that folks.

Celtic supporters singing YNWA ahead of the UEFA Europa League 2025/26 Knockout Play-off First Leg match between Celtic FC and VfB Stuttgart at Celtic Park on February 19, 2026. (Photo by WM Sport Media/Getty Images)

Here are the minutes from The Celtic Fans Collective from the meeting with Brian Wilson and other senior management personnel from Celtic FC…

Continues on the next page…

Celtic interim Chairman Brian Wilson looks on during the Scottish Premiership match between Celtic and Falkirk at Celtic Park on February 01, 2026. (Photo by Ian MacNicol/Getty Images)

MEETING OF CELTIC FC AND CELTIC FANS COLLECTIVE

Wednesday 18 February 2026 Celtic Park, Glasgow

Attendees:

Club Attendees: Brian Wilson (Interim Chairman), John Paul Taylor (Supporter Liaison Officer) Kevin McQuillan (Head of Commercial Operations), George Campbell (Head of Legal and Governance)

Celtic Fans Collective: Paul Quigley, Andy McGregor, Jeanette Findlay, Kev Toner, Steph McGinn, Paul Thomson

Agenda

Introductions
Opening statement from the Celtic Fans Collective outlining position and hopes for the meeting
Response from Celtic PLC
Substantive Items: Fan Engagement , Board and Executive Communications
Summary and agreement on outcomes
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

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.

Continues on the next page…

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. Continues on the next page… 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. No timeline beyond a further meeting in one month was provided. 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. 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: 1. Stadium management / Safety considerations. 2.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. Continues on the next page… 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. More Stories / Latest News Minutes released from Celtic Fans Collective meeting with Celtic FC Feb 24 2026, 13:47 John Beaton gets whistle for Celtic’s Ibrox trip, Steven McLean is the VAR Feb 24 2026, 11:20 24th February – Five Memorable Celtic Moments on This Day Feb 24 2026, 10:44