I want the Green Brigade bringing the noise at Celtic Park, but demanding a different protest means explaining how it would work.

Frank McAvennie has criticised the Celtic boycott, but his verdict leaves one uncomfortable question unanswered: what should frustrated supporters do instead?

Speaking on Let Me Be Frank, in comments reported by Celts Are Here, McAvennie described the Green Brigade’s decision to stay away as “going against the team”.

Chris Sutton has taken the opposite position, backing supporters who believe a boycott is necessary.

I understand both arguments. However, my preference is clear: I would love the Green Brigade inside Celtic Park against Celta Vigo.

Celtic need the noise the Green Brigade bring

European nights at Paradise should make the hairs stand up on your neck.

The scarves, the relentless singing and the roar when Celtic win possession can transform the feeling inside that stadium.

The Green Brigade contribute enormously. They are not the entire atmosphere, but dismissing their influence would be ridiculous.

Therefore, I understand McAvennie’s concern. The players need backing, and I want the visitors facing the loudest possible Celtic Park.

Yet wanting supporters there does not mean ignoring why they feel driven to stay away.

Sutton recognises the problem behind the Celtic boycott

It is easy to demand another form of protest.

Suggesting one that might actually achieve something is considerably harder.

Another banner? Another chant? Another statement expressing disappointment?

What happens when supporters believe every available route leads to the same silence?

For ordinary fans, meaningful access to Dermot Desmond can feel impossibly distant. They cannot simply arrange a conversation and demand answers about Celtic’s direction.

That is why Sutton’s position resonates. Supporters who withdraw their attendance are sacrificing something they value deeply.

They deserve to have their argument heard.

Financial pressure carries a painful cost

Withholding spending offers one potential source of pressure.

However, it affects Celtic’s income first. It does not directly take money from Desmond’s personal fortune.

That distinction matters. The aim would be to create commercial pressure that makes supporters’ concerns harder to dismiss.

The cost is painful: the club loses income, the team loses backing and supporters miss the football they love.

Nobody should pretend this is an easy choice.

I want them there, but the frustration is real

My preference would be a full Celtic Park, with the Green Brigade bringing the noise while pursuing effective protest elsewhere.

However, I cannot demand that solution without acknowledging the obvious difficulty: what makes that alternative effective?

McAvennie sees what Celtic lose through the boycott. Sutton understands why supporters believe they must act.

I can see both. That is precisely what makes this so difficult.