Peter Martin’s Clement contract theory is so improbable as to be ridiculous.

Most regular readers will know by now that I think Peter Martin is a dreadful journalist. It’s no wonder he can’t secure a job with a major national title. Whenever he pops up on this site, it’s rarely for a good reason.

He’s one of those figures I’d usually be content to ignore because, frankly, he’s not a significant voice in the national discourse around football. But in this case, I think it’s worth paying attention to his latest mutterings, as they relate to the situation facing the club across the city.

Martin seems to believe that when the inevitable moment arrives—when Clement’s reign of errors can no longer be tolerated and they’re forced to sack him—it won’t be as painful as many of us expect. I don’t know when this guy decided to become a spin doctor for the Ibrox club; maybe it’s a daily habit. I don’t follow him closely enough to comment.

But his remarks this time are so absurd, I had to take notice.

Martin’s subject was Philippe Clement’s new contract, or rather, his contract extension at Ibrox. He suggested this new deal might actually protect the club.

Yes, you read that right. Clement signed a new deal while there were already serious questions about whether he was up to the job, but this new contract, far from benefitting Clement himself, supposedly benefits the club. This is the drivel Martin is peddling.

He claims that agents have told him clubs sometimes offer managers extended deals with better terms, but with lower compensation for being sacked. Now, pause for a second and really think about that, which, believe me, is more than Martin seems to have done.

First, in what scenario does that make sense?

A manager who’s performing well might want such a clause in his contract—more money with a decent buyout clause and a reduced payout if he’s confident he won’t get sacked but rather poached by a bigger club. It’s plausible that these are the kinds of deals Martin’s been told about.

But then you consider Clement’s situation, and the logic starts to fall apart. His position has never been secure. If he was offered an extension, it would have been based on their early form last season, before their slump and the hammer blows we delivered to retake control of the title race.

It’s far more likely the club extended his contract based on those early results, rather than the ludicrous alternative—that they approached Clement, while his position was tenuous, and asked him to sign a deal that gave them the power to fire him for peanuts, in exchange for a salary bump. This scenario stretches credibility to breaking point.

Let’s break this down.

First, we’re talking about a club that has gotten nearly every major decision wrong. Are we really expected to believe they foresaw this situation coming and had the foresight to renegotiate Clement’s contract so cleverly that they can now dispatch him for next to nothing?

This is the same club that, as of now, doesn’t have a chairman, didn’t have a CEO, and couldn’t even sort out a basic stadium upgrade without inflicting a massive blow on themselves. Do you honestly believe they had the vision to pull off this contractual masterstroke?

If that doesn’t strain credulity enough, consider this: Clement is working at a club that’s replaced its manager in October or November three years running. He knows the fanbase is the most intolerant he’s ever dealt with. He’s aware the club is a shambles.

He knows he’s got players he can’t rely on, no money to spend, and that the fixture list was daunting, to say the least. Under these circumstances, are we to believe he signed a contract that made him easier to fire? If your agent even suggested that, you’d sack him on the spot. It would be reckless and bordering on suicidal for any manager at that club to accept such a deal.

So, why does the media in this country persist in offering the most favourable interpretations of events at Ibrox, even when common sense and all the evidence point in the opposite direction? When presented with two possible explanations, why do they consistently pick the one that benefits the club across the city, no matter how improbable?

This club has had seven managers in its short history, almost all of them unceremoniously sacked.

The only exception was Gerrard, who couldn’t wait to leave because he knew the axe was coming.

If you had half a brain, you’d look at the history—Beale, sacked before he hit 50 games; Van Bronckhorst, who got them to a European final and was gone within six months; Pedro, axed after just 26 games; Warburton, who discovered he’d been sacked when he saw it on Sky Sports News.

Given the choice between two conflicting versions of events—one where the Ibrox club, with its laughably chaotic off-the-field issues, added a contract extension for Clement to its growing list of calamities, and another where an under-pressure manager at that madhouse signed a deal that made it easier for them to get rid of him—ask yourself which seems more likely.

Congratulations, you’ve given this more thought than Peter Martin did.

That man shouldn’t be allowed out unsupervised. That man is a clown.