Tom English has followed up his criticism of Celtic’s leadership with an observation that goes to the heart of one of the club’s most persistent problems: silence.
In recent days, English has been one of the most prominent voices articulating that frustration.
English questioned the performance of Celtic’s board and suggested the issues facing the club extend far beyond the new manager. That intervention resonated with fans who have long felt shut out from understanding decision-making at the top of the organisation.
The debate has since shifted to the role of the media itself. Some supporters have asked why journalists are not putting tougher questions directly to chief executive Michael Nicholson and other senior figures.
The implication is that the press has either failed to challenge Celtic’s hierarchy or allowed them to operate without scrutiny during a period of decline.
English’s response on social media offers an explanation that is both simple and revealing. Rather than avoiding those questions, he suggests there has been no meaningful opportunity to ask them at all.
His account paints a picture of a club that has withdrawn from engagement at executive level, limiting access and communication even on basic matters.
A few Celtic folk asking why journalists don’t ask Michael Nicholson et al to explain what’s going on at Celtic. There’s been no opportunity to ask questions. In October I messaged somebody in there a routine question with an easy yes/no answer and I still haven’t had a reply
— Tom English (@TEnglishSport) December 15, 2025
Those words cut through because they challenge a common assumption. Supporters often believe that journalists are choosing not to press Celtic’s leadership, but English is instead pointing to a lack of availability and openness from the club itself.
If senior executives are not facing the media, then scrutiny becomes indirect, based on outcomes rather than explanations.
The timing of his comment is also significant. Celtic are navigating a turbulent period marked by poor results, fan protests and uncertainty around direction.
In moments like this, communication can steady the ship. Silence, by contrast, tends to inflame suspicion and deepen mistrust. English’s claim suggests that this silence is not accidental, but systemic.
From a governance perspective, the absence of dialogue raises serious questions. A club of Celtic’s size and stature would normally be expected to brief, explain and justify its strategy, particularly when major changes are being made.
The failure to even respond to routine enquiries reinforces the perception of a leadership group operating behind closed doors.
English’s post effectively validates those concerns, indicating that even established journalists are struggling to get answers.
The wider implication is that accountability at Celtic currently flows in only one direction. Managers and players face immediate scrutiny after defeats, while those responsible for long-term planning remain unseen and unheard.
English’s intervention highlights that imbalance and explains why criticism is increasingly being directed upward.
Ultimately, his comments underline a core issue at the club. Results can fluctuate, managers can change, and squads can be rebuilt, but trust is harder to restore once lost.
If Celtic’s leadership wants to ease the growing tension around the club, engagement will be essential.
Until then, as English suggests, the questions will keep coming, even if the answers do not.
