Celtic in Crisis? No, but bad omens after Lawwell loses John McGinn poker game

Too often blaming the mainstream media gives an easy out to Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board. We could lose Brendan Rodgers

Commodities

I once watched a documentary about craftsmanship in which a man proudly showed off one of his greenwood chairs. (A traditional method of woodworking using the natural moisture of the wood to create strong joints without glue or  metal.)

"That costs £700," he told the shocked person who inquired.

As justification, he said: "Well, I like to try to pay myself £10 an hour and it takes me 70 hours to make one chair."

Fair enough but when you can get a functional chair from IKEA for one twentieth of that price - both of which will support your backside quite acceptably, it's a tough sell.

But for some, only the greenwood chair would do while others will shell out even more for the one-off designer seat that captures their heart.

Now before you kindly offer help in recovering my marbles, let me say that I do realise that footballers are different to chairs in a number of key ways.

Firstly, they are people, not commodities, though the archaic transfer system might lead you to think otherwise.

Secondly, they have minds of their own and are capable of making their own decisions.

But, as a third point, footballers have something in common with any other item for sale - they are worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for them.

It is not clear that Peter Lawwell or the Celtic board recognise any of these key points. And that's a problem - perhaps a big one.

The John McGinn saga is one of the sorriest Celtic affairs of recent times, though by no means

without precedent.

Steven Fletcher and Kevin Thomson both spring to mind as players who the manager clearly wanted but who Lawwell either thought surplus to requirements or that he had a better-value alternative on hand.

With McGinn, you have read many unqualified opinions on the player's ability or lack of it - including from this blogger.

But a more expert opinion was apparently scorned - that of our manager Brendan Rodgers.

And, even if you have already declared McGinn of insufficient quality to get a game for Celtic, that should give you cause for concern.

The pluck of the Irish 

I have already put my  hands up to the fact that I was totally wrong about Brendan Rodgers before he took the reins at Celtic.

I could make excuses but the fact is that I didn't rate him as a candidate. And that causes me embarrassment. Because I really should have informed myself better, with a more open mind, and recognised just how good Brendan was and is.

We are extremely lucky to have him at Celtic and the shakers and movers at just about every switched-on club in Europe see that, too.

We have had a lot of excellent coaches in many ways but, in terms of being at the cutting edge of top-level football knowledge, I have no hesitation in saying that Brendan is our most outstanding manager since Jock Stein.

Anyone who reads this blog (and, if we can get the numbers, we might get a five-a-side team going) will, I hope,  realise that, while  not shy with my opinions, I rarely indulge in hyperbole.

But, as an admirer of Martin  O'Neill, Gordon Strachan, Neil Lennon and - yes - Ronny Deila, I have seen a level of coaching at Celtic that we would have been highly unlikely to have enjoyed had we not been a magical club who just happened to have a real Celtic man - a genuine one of our own - amongst the top tier of coaches.

The media will conveniently forget that the fantabulous Steven Gerrard, having played under Houllier, Eriksson, Capello and many more described our Brendan as the best one-to-one coach he had ever worked with.

But now, I fear, that's under threat.

3-5-7

When Brendan took over at Celtic, I listened to his interviews and he talked of having been "in a hurry", as young men usually are, in his earlier coaching career.

It was wonderful - let's not forget that he was made the bookies' second-favourite to be the next England manager within a couple of weeks of signing on at Celtic.

So, that, logically, brought the  numbers of 3, 5 and 7 to my mind.

If true to his word, he saw the Celtic job as lasting a minimum of three years - anything less would be consistent with a "man in a hurry", itching to get his next big opportunity.

As a coach and manager who has a reputation as seeing himself as a club-builder, five years would seem a more likely period in the job.

And, as Brendan has also said that he expects to be a coach for more than 20 years, a productive five years at Celtic seemed a solid prospect. Club-building, you see, involves player development with a view to the future.

To leave a club with a solid foundation for the future and to lay the groundwork for replacing a legendary captain over the next three or four years. Leaving something lasting.

For example, signing the player who Scott Brown himself praised to the heavens just a couple of weeks ago. Less secure players than Scott might have felt threatened by efforts to recruit a footballer who is so often compared to the great man himself.

But Scott signalled that there would be no tension between himself and John McGinn.

Can you see just how much McGinn was wanted by the football people at Celtic?

(For my part, I'll say that we might just have lost the captain of Celtic in 2021-2025).

My expectation was for a three-to-five-year tenure of Brendan. My wildest dreams were of seven years.

I dream of that no more.

Language, Timothy! 

Now, while the search facility offers copious evidence of my complaints against the Celtic board and Chief Executive - the vast majority of which I stand by - I am as sceptical of and hostile to the mainstream media shills who often do, in fact, mischievously sow the seeds of grief amongst Celtic supporters.

I've slagged almost all of them and, again I stand by almost all of it.

This week, the BBC's Chris McLaughlin was getting it for saying that the board were unhappy with Brendan's comments on the transfer window activity.

But, while I am decidedly NOT one of those "in the know" bloggers with impeccably-placed sources, dear reader, I do know a few things beyond the fiduciary duty of other clubs' executives (I know you read it, guys, because you parrot it occasionally with never a "chapeau".)

One of my interests is in the art of coaching, to which end I have read several biographies and autobiographies of football managers.

A recurring theme that I have noticed, from Alex Ferguson down (in the modern era) and from all the great Celtic managers is the importance of psychology.

And I can say, without fear of reasonable rebuke, that there is no manager in football more aware of the weight that his words carry than Brendan Rodgers.

(Trust me - you'll see this in other blogs, claiming that they always knew this.)

Now, remember that I don't know Brendan. If I did, I'd surely have trumpeted him from the heavens as the next Celtic boss.

But I do know, for example, that Brendan has studied neuro-linguistic programming for several years.

If you aren't aware of NLP, it can be roughly summarised as a practice attempting to achieve positive results through managing thought patterns through specific techniques, with a strong emphasis on language.

For example, when you make a silly mistake, do you say to yourself, "I'm so stupid", or something similar? Many of us do.

NLP theory says that the first voice we hear is our own and that we undermine our own confidence by using that language to ourselves.

Instead, why not say: "I made a mistake so I'll learn from it and do better the next time"?

Do you remember Jack Hendry after the Rosenborg match? (I don't believe that Brendan is educating players in NLP, but that they are echoing his positive language).

How often have you heard Brendan criticise the team or say anything negative about them?

How many times can you recall him saying, for example, "We didn't finish well enough" or "We didn't defend well"?

They are both negative statements, whereas "we could have scored more goals" and "we can defend better" are the sort of positive statements Brendan usually prefers.

On top of that, having been at one of the richest clubs in Europe, Brendan has had top-level media training.

That's partly why he is so adept at sidestepping the booby-trap questions that the media throw at him.

And the point of all of this is that Brendan is fully aware of the impact of his words.

So, when he chose to speak so negatively about transfer activity on the day his side had a vital Champions League qualifier with AEK, you better believe that he really is angry and that's not just another media fabrication.

I am confident that he will remain with us until the end of the season. Because, apart from anything else, he is on record as saying that managers should take new jobs before the season starts.

And, of course, in May he will have completed the minimum three-year period of a man not in a hurry.

Que sera, sera

But, dedicated to Celtic as Brendan is, he is also clearly conscious of his reputation and future aspirations.

For example, never mind the English Premier League, he is known to aspire to some day work in Spain.

He will not be so loyal to Celtic as to see his own reputation damaged due to the "Plan" of Peter Lawwell, who - let's not forget - gets a player-trading bonus each year and is therefore incentivised to favour selling over buying.

And the sad fact is that I doubt that Lawwell cares.

He has increasingly been allowed to run Celtic as he sees fit, seeing managers come and go, and using friendly "independent" Celtic bloggers to tell us that's just how it had to be.

He also knows that Neil Lennon and Steve Clarke would both likely jump at the chance to replace Brendan.

It's a remarkable fact that the last Celtic manager to be sacked was John Barnes.

It's equally remarkable that no Celtic manager since Barnes has resigned because he was lured away by a better offer.

Every single one has chucked it for different reasons that were never really made clear.

Time and time again, Celtic fans have thought we were on the road to something special, only to find that some unforeseen change had set us back.

Peter Lawwell and the board can keep Brendan Rodgers for the key five years and maybe longer if they want him.

But that will involve supporting him in his vision of building a strong Celtic for the future, not just pocketing the tens of millions of pounds that he has already made them.

So, do they want Brendan to remain at Celtic, continually building supporters' hopes in a manner that requires funding or do they want someone to make the most money out of the least possible investment while doing deals between Lawwell and his son, Mark, at Manchester City?

What is Peter's plan this time?
 --