Surely Celtic would not use Martin O’Neill’s contract against him, right?

Charlie Mulgrew has raised an uncomfortable possibility about Martin O’Neill’s future at Celtic, and for me it goes far beyond the question of whether the manager should survive three bad results.

Mulgrew believes O’Neill may have been perfectly happy to walk away after delivering last season’s extraordinary league and Scottish Cup double.

He also believes the contract Celtic subsequently offered him has complicated that decision, because simply resigning could mean walking away from money he would otherwise be entitled to receive.

Celtic officially announced O’Neill on a one-year contract with a further one-year option, not a guaranteed two-year deal, and Mulgrew’s suggestion that a dismissal might cost close to £1 million is his own estimate.

We do not know the precise financial terms of O’Neill’s contract. But the principle behind the discussion bothers me enormously.

Because if Martin O’Neill genuinely wants to leave Celtic, and the only thing preventing a clean departure is the financial structure of the contract Celtic gave him, then the club has a moral as well as a football decision to make.

This is a 74-year-old man who came back when Celtic were in chaos.

He did not create that chaos. He walked into it.

He rescued a season which looked as though it was disappearing, delivered the league title and Scottish Cup, and gave this club something to celebrate when the people above him had made an extraordinary mess of things.

Celtic then asked him to stay.

O’Neill was not banging on the door demanding another two years of his career at Celtic Park. Before the permanent appointment, he had been openly uncertain about continuing. After the Scottish Cup final, he even admitted that if the new season had started immediately, he could not have done it.

The club persuaded him to continue.

And that is why I would find it disgusting if the situation has now become one where Celtic are effectively relying on the contract they offered him to keep him in place.

I am not saying that is definitely happening. I do not know that O’Neill wants out. Nobody outside that room knows.

But the moment Martin O’Neill publicly said he intended to reflect on his future after a terrible run of results the question had to be asked. He even said that perhaps it was time to “wrap it up”. Michael Nicholson then publicly backed him.

That leaves a question hanging over everything. What happens if O’Neill’s private conclusion is that he has had enough? Does Celtic allow him to go with dignity? Does the club reach an agreement which recognises what he did last season and allows both sides to move on?

Or does it sit there knowing that walking away voluntarily could cost him a substantial amount of money and wait for him to make the sacrifice?

Because if it is the latter, I think that would be appalling.

A football contract is not a set of handcuffs. It exists to protect both sides. If Celtic decided tomorrow that Martin O’Neill was no longer the right man for the job, nobody at the club would hesitate to invoke the contractual mechanisms which protect Celtic.

O’Neill is entitled to exactly the same consideration. He should not be expected to walk away from money merely to solve a problem the club helped create.

That is the part of Mulgrew’s theory which I think deserves much more attention.

If you sign a contract promising somebody financial security, you do not suddenly acquire the moral right to exploit the existence of that contract because you know he can afford to walk away from it. His wealth does not make the money meaningless.

It does not make the agreement meaningless.

And it certainly does not make it acceptable to put him in a position where the choice is between staying in a job he no longer wants and surrendering money Celtic agreed he should receive. If that is happening, it would be grubby.

Especially after what he did for this club last season.

O’Neill came in twice when Celtic needed him. The second time, he inherited a team which looked broken and somehow dragged it to a double.

The club rewarded him with a permanent contract. You do not then get to turn that reward into leverage. That would be grotesque.

And it would say something very unpleasant about the people running Celtic.

This club has more than £60 million in cash according to its latest accounts. Whatever a managerial settlement ultimately cost, the idea that Celtic should allow football decisions to be distorted because they cannot stomach paying compensation would be ridiculous.

It would also be financially stupid.

A failed season costs far more than a managerial payoff. Another Champions League failure costs tens of millions. Poor player development costs money. Bad recruitment decisions cost money. Keeping the wrong manager because dismissing him costs money is one of those apparently prudent decisions which can become catastrophically expensive.

But for me, this goes beyond economics.

It is about how you treat people. Martin O’Neill owes Celtic nothing. Read that again.

He owed us nothing when Brendan Rodgers resigned and he answered the call. He owed us nothing when Wilfried Nancy was sacked and Celtic asked him to come back again. He certainly owed us nothing when he dragged this team across the line to a league and Scottish Cup double.

If he wants to remain Celtic manager, then the club should properly back him and give him every chance to succeed. If he wants to leave, then Celtic should sit down with him, reach a fair agreement and let him walk away with his head held high.

What they must not do is hide behind a contract.

They must not sit there hoping that a 74-year-old man will solve their managerial problem for them by voluntarily surrendering money they promised him.

Because if Celtic are effectively saying, “You can leave whenever you like, Martin, provided you are willing to pay for the privilege yourself,” that would not be clever financial management.

It would be contemptible.

The decision has to be about football. Does Martin O’Neill want to continue? Does Celtic genuinely want him to continue? If both answers are yes, then get on with it.

If either answer is no, then end it properly.

But do not turn the contract Celtic gave him as a reward for rescuing the club into the very thing which traps him there.

He deserves better than that, and Celtic supporters deserve better than watching another season drift because the people running this club are more frightened of writing a cheque than making the right football decision.

That would not be prudence. It would be another failure of leadership.

Choose The CelticBlog as a ‘Preferred Source’ on Google News for quick access to the news you value.