The Latest “Theory” On Why Celtic Hasn’t Sacked Lennon Is Pro-Lawwell Garbage.

Image for The Latest “Theory” On Why Celtic Hasn’t Sacked Lennon Is Pro-Lawwell Garbage.

You might hear this one going around today; if you do, ignore it completely.

As pro-Lawwell sentiment goes it’s right up there with the most patronising and insulting.

The “theory” goes something like this; Lennon is still in his job because the board has made all these big plans for the transfer market in January, and bringing in a new manager would disrupt them.

Have you ever heard such tripe in your life?

Let’s start with the obvious one; Lennon doesn’t make use of the squad he currently has.

The idea that he should be given more money to spend so he can pad it out further is frankly ridiculous.

Besides, you could give Lennon Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo and we’d still not be putting shots on target or stopping the ball going in at the other end.

Lennon has shot it, it’s as simple as that, and we will not win ten in a row if he remains at Parkhead.

The idea that this board is keeping him in his job because it intends to spend more money, and we should all wait and see and be astounded, is perhaps the most offensive piece of PR bollocks I’ve heard yet. What an insult to our collective intelligence it is.

On top of that, it is complacent. It is arrogant. It assumes there will still be a title to play for by the time the January window properly gets underway, and I don’t believe for a second that there will be if Neil Lennon is still in charge at the end of this year.

The board has adopted various different approaches to this in the course of the last week, and none of them has provided us with any answer as to how we’re going to get out of this mess. At least now though we know the general outlines of what they have in mind … more of the same.

Repeat the same mistakes and hope for a different outcome.

Isn’t there a word for that?

Please read our article on our new Facebook strategy, and bookmark the sites mentioned in it.

Share this article