SENTINELCELTS

Trust AGM

Celtic Trust in denial – always the victims

‘We are a small group of volunteers, doing the best we can, please don’t criticize us’ was the message from Trustees at this week’s Celtic Trust AGM. With membership haemorrhaging from more than 1,000 during 2020/21 down to the current 623. 

Chair Tommy Brannigan told members it was difficult to recruit when the team was doing well on the park. The trouble with the Celtic Trust is that they are always the victims of external circumstances, it’s never down the performance of those running the show. 

Mr Brannigan later went on to make an impassioned plea for more volunteers. The Trustees don’t do irony.  In a statement worthy of Enver Hoxha (This year will be harder than last year. On the other hand, it will be easier than next year) the leadership was happy with the membership levels, as they had been around the 300 mark before the 10 in a row was lost. The Trustees are actually content with their performance and record. 

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Last year the Trust asked for specialist volunteers who came on board to give expert advice and then disabused them when they agitated for new, dynamic ways of improving the Trust. I myself was removed from the Communication Sub-Group which explains why I am shining a torch on this amateur shambles of an organisation. 

In the end up my ‘no confidence’ motion wasn’t allowed to be heard. In truth, it was sent to the wrong email address but having resolved that issue two days after my error the Trust leadership was in no mood to let such a critical issue be voted on. 

In comparison, Treasurer Jeanette Findlay didn’t make the meeting and there was no paperwork offered to members to inspect the finances. It’s all right when we disregard the rules. 

My ‘vote of no confidence’ would also have been ruled out of order as I didn’t have a seconder. I had presumed that it would be put to the floor to be seconded. Having said that, I was allowed to speak and had prepared along the lines that it might not be discussed in a formal vote. But the chair warned me what I was not allowed to speak about. 

It wouldn’t have mattered. There were only around 40 in attendance, so any vote would have been disregarded. 40 was the quorum for the evening and it fluctuated as people came and went. As I said in my pre-AGM blog, this is a moribund organisation that prefers no discussion with members or the fan base looking in.

Ex chair but still a figurehead, David Low gave the Sermon on the Mount, reiterating the ‘Parable of the Disconnected Shares’ to the faithful.

The Trustees eggs are all in two baskets now. They are relying on the Comms committee’s Drive for Five (per cent shareholding in the PLC) and the formation of a new shadow board (based on work done by Marco Guidi) for tangible progress. 

There has been no work done on the shareholder register since the mail out proposal was rejected. It makes you wonder why they hounded the PLC only to make no use of it. 

Now David Low is suggesting we get an updated version from the club. But what would the Trust do with it?

The comms Drive for 5% is going to be a mass publicity campaign to attract who own shares. It a scatter gun approach (a lot of activity and resources) with leaflet campaigns at games, social media campaigns asking members to promote and retweet online). I’m a typical shareholder. I’m not a season ticket holder, I don’t attend games, I’m not in a supporters’ club, I don’t use social media much. How will the Trust’s Drive for 5% find me, their core demographic?

My objection is they have the names and addresses but are putting faith in a general publicity campaign. It targets everyone. And by targeting everyone they are not targeting shareholders. 

There are no objectives or milestone on membership or % shareholding in the ‘plan’. It’s another finger in the air initiative by comms people who should know better. I criticised the Comms committee for presenting it formally, saying the paper was an embarrassment. It was no more than a rehash of six-month old shareholder subcommittee work with a measly two-bullet action plan. Until I see some key metrics and a substantial plan from the comms experts, I remain to be convinced of its value to a Trust who don’t get the basics right. 

Last year in a blaze of publicity, the Trustees put the PLC Board ‘on six-month probation’. In answer to my question, the Chair that nothing had been done to a conclude or report back on this. You cannot operate in a public conversation like this, either to Trust members or the PLC board. This is the sort of behaviour that causes real reputational damage. No wonder the board think the Trust is a paper tiger. 

There are some committed people with decent ideas and a professional comms background involved. But the problem is it’s just a list of publicity activities that don’t have any of the core elements of a communications plan. Who are you targeting, what are the aims and objectives (increase in membership and shareholder members or percentage shareholding, and how will you measure the outcomes (milestones, numbers, timescale)

The fact is the Trust fought to get the register, had experts work on it to digitize it and analyze it…and decided not to gamble of writing out letters at a cost of £2.5k. Last year the Trust banked £60,000 in member subs. Now Mr Low thinks the Trust should get a more up-to-date set of names and addresses. For what purpose?

And all of this stems from a leadership who, as I say, are in a boat rowing on a lake with lots of potential membership and shareholding harbours, who refuse to use a map. No direction, no measurement, no discussion, no vision, no change; no chance.

I don’t mind if they want to just keep buying shares. But be up front and tell members that is your sole endeavour. Also be open about how long it will take the trust to reach the milestone of 5% (which allows it to call a general meeting of the PLC) at current levels of share acquisition. To put this in perspective, there are 93 million shares in circulation and the Trust owns 120,000 – a tiny 0.04%). The drive for five, which will allow the Trust to call general meetings of the PLC Board looks like a huge mountain to climb.

The mail out is not a deal breaker. But it is symptomatic of a leadership’s organisational conservatism. It knows the cost of everything and value of nothing. 

The Trust smacks of ‘initiavitis’. Let’s be seen to be doing something, no matter what. No objectives, no measurement, no outcomes, no learning. 

The Trustees need to do the basics right. Be a membership organisation. They are your bread and butter. Devise a strategy to get to five percent. Have a website capable of showcasing your message. 

Last summer the Trust said it wanted no relationship with the current PLC Board. Now it has secured a new meeting. It has no plan and will do anything to be seen to be relevant. 

To the external fanbase they get the odd headline. But they don’t get any new members. There is so much work to be done on a plan and tactics, on direction, yet they are diverted by the potential of a quick gimmick. 

When what they really need for gravitas, is a solid foundation. A website they offer to members and non-members, a strategy to work out if they want to represent shareholders and/or fans or both. Perhaps a look at their subscription model to attract more non shareholders. An alliance with other big hitters in the Celtic blogosphere. Lots of them are wary or unwilling to work with Trust leadership. 

Much of this is routine, unsexy and internal. Building the basics of the fundraising, campaigning group. Getting the right people in the right roles, being visible, being vocal, building a narrative, building gravitas, building membership.

Reflecting on this week’s AGM, the reality is that the Trustees and Officers want to blame everyone else for their troubles. Yet they remain in a privileged place in the Celtic family capable of uniting shareholders and fans for real representation and influence on the PLC board. 

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; and the next best time is today. History will not be kind to the Trustees and Officers who languish at the helm and didn’t unfold the map. 

And the reason I think the Trust is a dead duck is that the present incumbents won’t resign and the don’t have the competency to come out, even in their own channels to defend their mediocrity.

Here’s a challenge to the Trust, publish this blog to your members in a forthcoming members’ email and defend yourselves to current members and the wider fan base. You have the floor Jeanette. 

Chris McGachy