Tisdale’s influence has grown, Nancy’s name has risen

We examined how his philosophy appears to be shaping recruitment, the managerial shortlist and the club’s football identity. We also explored the wider intelligence landscape Celtic must enter if they are serious about competing beyond domestic boundaries, a frontier where data, psychology, structure and football insight must finally work in unison.

But now comes the part that cannot be solved by theory, recruitment models or clever tactical alignment. Now comes the part only leadership can answer.

Because everything Celtic are attempting, from pursuing Wilfried Nancy to recalibrating the academy to modernising internal processes, collapses without authority behind it. And authority can only come from one place – the board.

Their silence, their caution, their instinct to protect rather than explain has shaped Celtic’s culture for decades.

Which makes this Friday’s AGM far more than a financial formality. It is the moment where the board must finally reveal whether Tisdale’s emergence reflects genuine conviction or simply convenient cover.

Football clubs are not defined by statements, marketing campaigns or PR discipline. They are defined by the moments when uncertainty arrives and leadership must decide what the club stands for. For Celtic, that moment is now, and it will unfold not on the pitch, but at this week’s AGM, in front of supporters who have seen promises drift, strategies half-implemented and cycles repeat with almost ritualistic familiarity.

This AGM is not a financial checkpoint. It is a philosophical test.

Because Celtic stand on the edge of a directional shift. The emergence of Tisdale as the club’s central football thinker, the likely appointment of Nancy, the potential move toward intelligence-led structures, these are not cosmetic changes. They are a fork in the road. One path leads to modernisation, the other leads back to the same cautious, incremental culture that has kept Celtic dominant at home but stagnant in Europe.

And at the heart of that crossroads sits a simple, unavoidable question. Is Celtic truly ready to change?

For months, the board has allowed speculation to swirl as supporters tried to piece together a vision the club refuses to articulate. Tisdale’s influence has grown, yet only indirectly. Nancy’s name has risen, yet without explanation. Recruitment bears the marks of a new logic, yet without clarity on its purpose. And Celtic supporters, perhaps for the first time in decades, are demanding something more than signings or silverware. They are demanding direction.

The AGM should be the moment the club delivers it.

The board’s recent public stance, pinning responsibility for shortcomings on Brendan Rodgers while insisting the structure is sound, places them squarely on the hook. If Rodgers was the obstruction, if everything else is functioning as they claim, then Celtic should move confidently into a new era. But confidence requires clarity, and clarity requires honesty.

The AGM is the chance to show Celtic have not replaced one personality with another, but embraced a structural vision that outlives individuals, a vision in which Tisdale is not merely present but empowered.

Because Tisdale is now central. Whether by design or convenience, his fingerprints are on every major footballing decision. The club’s pursuit of Nancy — a coach whose ideas apparently align with Tisdale’s — is the clearest sign yet that Celtic are shifting from reactive hiring to philosophical alignment.

If that is the case, the AGM becomes the perfect stage for the board to say so. To outline a football-first identity. To explain how recruitment, academy development, data, psychology and coaching will work together. To acknowledge the need for modern infrastructure and proper departmental expertise. To confirm that Tisdale will shape the architecture of Celtic’s future, and that the next manager will work within a framework designed to outlast him.

This is not radical. This is how serious European clubs operate.

And yet, Celtic have often resisted transparency, preferring to operate behind closed doors, treating communication as a concession rather than a strategic asset. That culture, more than budgets, tactics or transfers, is the biggest barrier to progress. It erodes trust, it makes every managerial change feel like a gamble rather than a plan, and It leaves Celtic suspended between the familiarity of their past and the uncertainty of a future they hesitate to build.

The AGM is an opportunity to break that pattern.

For the first time, Celtic could place a football thinker alongside executives, giving him the authority to explain how the club intends to evolve. Tisdale could articulate the pillars of a modern football department, he could define the philosophy, not in granular secrets, but in broad principles supporters can believe in. He could give Celtic something they have lacked for years, coherence.

And the impact would be immediate. Supporters who feel uncertain or disillusioned would see signs of leadership. Investors would see purpose. The media would see direction. And most importantly, Celtic would begin behaving like a club preparing for the next decade, not reacting to the previous month.

But that requires courage. Celtic must be willing to expose themselves to scrutiny. They must say, clearly, “this is our vision, this is our structure, and this is the man entrusted to build it.” If they instead retreat into familiar vagueness, reduce the AGM to deflection and rely on silence to control the narrative, the message will be obvious, the club is not ready to change.

And that outcome would not just stall Celtic’s potential evolution, it would end it. Supporters would recognise another false dawn. Tisdale would risk becoming the latest figure held up as a shield for institutional inertia. Nancy, or whoever sits in the dugout, would inherit a club unsure of its direction. And two years from now, Celtic would find themselves exactly where they are today, another manager, another reset, another cycle of stagnation packaged as stability.

The AGM is, therefore, more than a procedural exercise. It is a declaration of intent.

The board can choose ambition, placing football at the centre of the club’s thinking, elevating Tisdale as a genuine architect and explaining how he will be supported. Or they can choose caution, avoiding detail, hiding strategy, and hoping results alone will quiet concerns.

But results no longer tell the whole story. Supporters have lived through enough cycles to know where each path leads. They no longer accept vague assurances or briefed whispers. They want structure. They want direction. They want a club that looks forward rather than sideways.

Everything Celtic need already exists, the resources, the fanbase, the scale, the opportunity. What they lack is only the willingness to articulate that ambition.

This AGM is their chance to prove they finally have it.

Whether they seize that chance will define the next era of Celtic as a football club — and reveal whether Paul Tisdale is truly the architect of a new future, or simply the latest name placed between supporters and a board still fearful of vision.