Amid the chaos, walkouts and fury that defined Celtic’s abandoned AGM, one moment has slipped beneath the surface despite its significance. Before Ross Desmond’s controversial statement triggered boos and ultimately the collapse of proceedings, it was Peter Lawwell who offered an early spark that heightened tensions inside the hall.
The AGM was already on edge. Shareholders had arrived determined to ask hard questions about recruitment, leadership, communication and the direction of the club following a troubled year. Instead of attempting to ease that tension, Lawwell’s comment landed with irritation across parts of the room. Rather than bringing calm or acknowledging the seriousness of supporter concerns, he inadvertently poured fuel on an already volatile atmosphere.
The attitude behind the line was perhaps the most jarring element. Coming from the chairman of the club, on a day when supporters expected transparency and accountability, it felt misjudged. Many saw it as an unnecessary swipe at those who had taken time to attend, some travelling hours, to challenge the board. At a moment where bridge-building was required, it was interpreted as the opposite. When the meeting descended into disorder minutes later, supporters pointed back to that remark as an early indicator of where the tone of the AGM was heading.
Lawwell’s decision not to defuse tensions stands in stark contrast to what was needed. By the time Ross Desmond read out his heavily criticised statement, the room was already agitated. When the boos followed and the AGM fell apart completely, shareholders left with the feeling that the leadership had neither the willingness nor the interest to engage constructively. This makes the earlier moment all the more significant. It captured the mood of a boardroom losing its grip on the room before the most explosive phase even began.
He said: “Some don’t usually attend the AGM.“
The simplicity of the line does not diminish its impact. To shareholders, it sounded like a dismissal, a suggestion that those raising objections were outsiders or irregular contributors rather than committed, invested stakeholders. The reaction inside the room reflected that. Instead of reassuring fans that their concerns would be heard, it risked implying that their presence itself was a problem. In the context of a year defined by poor communication and frustration at the board’s approach, the comment underlined exactly why trust has eroded.
In the aftermath, shareholders described the remark as unnecessary and indicative of a wider cultural issue at the club. With tensions already high, the chairman’s responsibility should have been to encourage openness and coax dialogue out of a fractious moment. Instead, the tone was defensive, even condescending. It set the stage for Ross Desmond’s statement to land even more badly, and by the time the room erupted, the damage had already been done.
As supporters headed for the exits, some walking out in protest before the final adjournment, the sense of disconnect grew sharper. Lawwell’s comment was just one line, but it distilled a broader problem: the board’s attitude towards its own shareholders. These are the people who financially underpin the club, invest emotionally in it, and expect to be treated with respect. The AGM offered the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that their voices mattered. Instead, it offered the opposite.
If the board is serious about rebuilding trust, acknowledging how these words were received would be a start. Because while many things contributed to the collapse of the meeting, Lawwell’s early remark showed just how far relationships have deteriorated, and how far Celtic will have to go to repair them.
Keep Reading
