McCoist, Boyd & Jackson: Three Voices, One Familiar Narrative?

As another season begins, the Celtic board should have one objective beyond events on the pitch.

Protect the club.

For too long, many Celtic supporters have watched the same media cycle repeat itself. Former Rangers players such as Ally McCoist and Kris Boyd, along with journalists such as Keith Jackson, continue to shape narratives that many supporters believe are judged by a completely different standard when Celtic are involved.

Nobody is suggesting these figures should be prevented from expressing opinions. Strong debate is part of football.

But there is a clear difference between analysing the game and helping to create narratives that damage the reputation of clubs, officials and Scottish football itself.

Ally McCoist demonstrated how quickly that line can be approached when discussions surrounding a controversial Celtic decision moved beyond football and into repeated references to words such as “corruption” and the game’s “integrity”. Whether those words were his own or attributed to others, the impact was the same. Once those suggestions are given oxygen by one of Scotland’s biggest broadcasting personalities, they spread rapidly and fuel suspicion, division and hostility.

Then there is Kris Boyd.

When three significant decisions went against Celtic, the message was clear. Trust the officials. Referees make mistakes. Accept it and move on.

Yet when Celtic benefited from a contentious penalty against Motherwell, the tone changed completely. Suddenly there was outrage, repeated criticism of the officials and endless discussion about the decision.

Supporters are entitled to ask why the principle of trusting referees appears to disappear the moment a major call goes in Celtic’s favour.

Consistency matters.

Then there is Keith Jackson.

The so-called “missing minute” became a major talking point, with the focus shifting away from football and towards another controversy involving Celtic. Rather than accepting the referee’s authority over the game, the story became another opportunity to keep questions surrounding Celtic alive long after the final whistle.

Viewed in isolation, each incident can be dismissed as opinion.

Viewed together, many Celtic supporters see something else.

A familiar narrative.

One where Celtic are scrutinised differently, where controversy involving the club is amplified, and where similar situations elsewhere rarely generate the same level of outrage.

The same pattern extends beyond individual incidents.

Celtic can win league titles and domestic doubles yet still be portrayed as a club in decline. Rangers can fall short and yet optimism quickly replaces scrutiny. Managers, transfers, finances and performances often appear to be judged through different lenses depending on the badge involved.

Supporters are entitled to question whether those standards are truly applied equally.

That is why the Celtic board cannot continue to rely on silence.

No one expects the club to respond to every newspaper column or television debate. Robust criticism is part of football.

But when selective outrage becomes routine, when damaging narratives are repeatedly aimed at the club and when commentary drifts beyond analysis into insinuation, the board has a duty to defend Celtic’s reputation.

Supporters do it every day.

The board should be prepared to do exactly the same.

The coming season will undoubtedly bring more controversial decisions, more media debates and more opportunities for familiar narratives to emerge.

When they do, Celtic’s response should not be silence.

It should be leadership.

Should the Celtic board finally challenge what many supporters see as repeated double standards from Ally McCoist, Kris Boyd and Keith Jackson whenever they believe the line has been crossed?