The Celtic Rumour Mill goes into Overdrive

And there’s also another rumour that has emerged since submitting this article to The Celtic Star about Brendan Rodgers closing in on a new one-year contract extension backed by a substantial transfer budget for the January transfer window. Talks with Michael Nicholson, this rumour claims, have progresses positively. Pinch of salt with that one too for the moment. Look at this…

This one is all about the earlier rumours…

Rumours have always swirled around Celtic, often loud, often contradictory and often evaporating as quickly as they arrive…

Last week there was the suggestion that Willie Haughey could replace Peter Lawwell as Chairman. The week before, it was talk of Michael Nicholson stepping down as CEO in January. There has been chatter of non-executive directors changing, and suggestions that shareholder-focused supporter groups have attracted interest from outside parties watching Celtic carefully.

Not all of these things can be true. Most likely, many will fade, as so many rumours at Celtic do.

But the rumours themselves are perhaps not the story. What matters is that they are being believed, or at least, that people find them plausible. Rumours stick when a mood exists for which they feel like an explanation.

If Celtic supporters were entirely confident in the clarity of the club’s direction, in the decisiveness of its leadership, in the transparency of its vision, these rumours would be brushed away, laughed off, or barely noticed. Instead, they travel, they gain traction and they feel possible. That is the mark of a club whose foundations are steady, but whose leadership is no longer seen as unassailable.

This doesn’t mean change is inevitable, but it does mean change now feels thinkable at least.

There is a sense that the club is approaching a point where it must choose its next identity. The old one, stability, domestic consistency, cautious governance, has served its purpose. It safeguarded Celtic through volatile football cycles and periods of uncertainty. But what has preserved Celtic has arguably also constrained it. The club is safe, but it is not thriving, it is strong but not growing, it is respected but not feared.

And to many, Celtic was built not to survive quietly, but to stand boldly.

The real question, then, is whether Celtic is about to change, or whether Celtic needs to change.

There is a difference between change that arrives because the walls are closing and change that is chosen because the horizon is calling. The former is reactive, the latter strategic. The danger for Celtic is that it drifts, secure in the comfort of domestic dominance, while the rest of European football accelerates into new economic and sporting realities. That is how sleeping giants remain asleep.

Yet Celtic is not asleep, but it is restless.

Supporters feel it in their bones. They sense that the club’s current scale does not reflect its potential. They know Celtic could be more, in Europe, in recruitment, in ambition, in identity, in its relationship with its own people. They are not all demanding revolution but they are demanding seriousness.

So yes, some change may be not only likely, but necessary.

But necessity alone does not guarantee good outcomes. Change for the sake of change is as dangerous as stagnation. A new chairman, a new CEO, or new directors would matter only if they came with a shift in philosophy, culture, and strategic direction. Outside investment would matter only if it understood the club’s meaning as much as its market value. New influence would matter only if it strengthened Celtic’s identity rather than diluted it.

Continues on the next page…