Ian Bankier's unremarkable Celtic legacy - Kevin McKenna

The news that the boutique whisky salesman is to step down from his role at Parkhead was greeted with something between supreme indifference and mild satisfaction by supporters. How can you feel strongly about anyone either way if you’re not entirely sure what they even look like let alone what they actually achieved?

Outside of the highly-specialised sector in which his firm operated, Bankier was almost completely unknown before he became Celtic chairman. He departs 11 years later with that anonymity virtually intact.

On the very few occasions he was moved to say anything that could be considered significant, you felt that he might have been better advised to maintain his verbal austerity.

At Celtic AGMs he betrayed an almost total absence of empathy for the concerns of the support while conveying an attitude that would have found favour in today’s hard-right Tory government. It certainly made you wonder if this man really did have any emotional attachment to the club he purported to support.

In 2015, both he and then chief executive Peter Lawwell deployed a series of absurd arguments to defend Celtic’s refusal to pay the national living wage to its lowest-paid staff.

Bankier simply dismissed the issue by saying “it wasn’t in Celtic’s interests” to pay these employees an extra £1 or so as it would “cost £350k a year” – probably roughly equivalent to a sponsorship deal for one of Scott Brown’s boots.

Later, Celtic agreed to pay the equivalent of the living wage but only after withdrawing an annual discretionary bonus agreement with club staff, a move which reeked of contempt. He reiterated the club’s policy of not recognising a trade union.

In his 11 years as chairman of Celtic it’s difficult to conclude anything other than that he contributed close to the square root of zero in exchange for getting to wear the club blazer, receiving a handsome annual emolument, travelling and residing in first-class luxury all over the world and occupying the best seat in the house. 

Celtic supporters are entirely aware of the inexact social contract that exists between them and the club’s custodians. This mainly rests on the ability of 11 men wearing the green and white hoops to get results on the park and win trophies at the end of the season. But they also know when their emotional attachment is being exploited and manipulated.

While Dermot Desmond remains the principal shareholder his writ will run at Parkhead with little or no opposition from a board and shareholders who can always be relied on to see off any challenge. While success is being gained on the park, the traditional policy of “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” will always be considered sufficient.

And when their actions do come under intense scrutiny – as they did in the catastrophic 2020-21 season – they could rely on Neil Lennon to deflect it. So many questions arose from the meltdown of that season that still require answering, but probably won’t be.

Who was actually sanctioning the transfers? How many players were foisted on Lennon with little or no input from him? And how many of them had connections with third-party agencies that had a larger business relationship with Celtic? How many deals for other players sanctioned by the manager were jettisoned at the last minute without his knowledge?

During a prolonged period of national crisis affecting the health and economic wellbeing of their supporters, what passes for leadership at Celtic simply hid. Their response to this was to offer a money-off token for spending in the club shop. This is when a chairman of stature, in tune with the supporters’ needs and emotions, would have emerged.

In football, a board of directors can remain impervious to such concerns so long as the team are achieving success – but this can never be guaranteed.

And how do you define success? For Celtic, is it merely about winning the domestic league? Or does it include fielding a team capable of doing the club and its history justice in the Champions League?

Perhaps there is a notion at boardroom level that reaching the knockout stages of the Europa League and entertaining realistic hopes of progressing to the last four is the extent of Celtic’s European ambitions. And that they’re really a Europa League team which sees the odd victory in the group stages of the Champions League as a rare bonus. A significant number of Celtic supporters would seem to have accepted this dimming of European ambitions too.

The problem, as with other clubs who refuse to engage significantly with their core support base, is that no-one beyond an anointed few individuals ever really know what the club’s long-term goal really is. This gap is then filled by speculation or third-hand information from a source whose friend or relative works at Parkhead or Lennoxtown.

A decent chairman, even one working within the limited scope granted by Celtic, can help bridge the gap.

No-one expects him or her to be issuing monthly supporter updates but it might help if they were to be an occasional presence in the supporters’ sightlines. And perhaps even possess the ability to ‘read the room’.

By this, I suppose I mean that they should be aware of the concerns of supporters and then be willing to engage with them. Not regarding them as ignorant trouble-makers, valued only insofar as they can continue to hand over their cash.

The position of Celtic chairman should command a significant degree of prestige in Scotland’s national life. Whoever fills it ought to be a person of substance who can inspire respect well beyond the narrow confines of football administration and the west of Scotland business community.

They should have charisma and proven leadership skills to advocate for Celtic in politics and culture. Someone who can build bridges, not dismantle them or hide under them. 

It would help too if that person had some sympathy for the social circumstances of the majority of Celtic’s fans – and who didn’t appear to be embarrassed by them.