Who would be your replacement for Ronny?

Stubbs probably = Mowbray

Would rather have someone tried and tested at a high level. Plenty of good managers out of work who would jump at the chance to come here if Ronny goes.

 

Mate, if it gets to a point where a manager's position is untenable, then aye I'd be wanting him removed for the sake of the club also - but Deila's position is not in any shape or form under threat (as it stands just now) and has just been backed with 4 players in the January window. He deserves our support whilst he is in the hotseat and whilst we still have plenty to play for.

I know obviously you have your grievances with the management and it's style - as do I, but clearly not to the extent of you and others, but if you say you support Celtic (I know you clearly are a die-hard), then not fully backing the manager at this point (imo) is damaging.

 

Warren Joyce and Paul Scholes.

 

It's untenable for me mate, the board doesn't get to decide that for me. The team gets my full backing but I'm not going to pretend dross is acceptable and either will you.

 

Why does the team get your full backing and the manager doesn't - especially when the players themselves really deserve most of the critique for certain aspects of their own pesonal game at individual points this season?

Do we as a support just down tools then if Deila's reign as Celtic manager (for you, and others) is untenable? Do we continue to criticize and OVER-criticize at every point from now to the remainder of the season (with two competitions left play for) until such times as you get what you wish for and Ronny is sacked? Or do we get FULLY behind the players AND management? I know what I'll be doing.

 

Because as you full well know, I believe it's the managers job to get the team playing and it's his responsibility to ensure we meet the targets on the pitch, it's his job to set us up so we don't consistently do as poorly as we have been. That's down to Ronny in my opinion because it happens regardless of which personnell is in there.

They'll get criticised when they deserve it, we shouldn't just ignore things like Sunday for the sake of getting behind the team and manager. At Celtic we have certain standards and in my mind, those standards shouldn't drop for the sake of backing the manager.

I will always back us on the pitch, Ronny is not Celtic though, if I think a players not good enough I want shot of them, if I think our chief exec isn't good enough I'd want shot of him, physios, assistants etc are all not exempt from this. Why should the man ultimately in charge of the team be?

 

You know fine well I have criticised Ronny and co - if and when deserved - since his arrival, and you also know I have defended him at points also, what I have always done though is question the mentality on here of "it's Ronny's fault, it's all down to him, he takes sole blame etc etc" - now, I don't care if worldwide the mentality has always been if a team's failing,then the manager takes sole responsibilty - i've always found it somewhat wrong.....especially since we have experienced players on the pitch who know what it is to represent Celtic, and represent them at the highest level (Commons, Broon, Lustig, Ambrose, Mulgrew etc).

 

I think at the end of the day it's done to the managers to find the right way to find the way to get these players to their highest levels, my biggest concern with Ronny is his tactical ability and the way he can't seem to change a game if it's going wrong for us.

Players aren't exempt from criticism, the likes of Ambrose we need to get shot of. When it's happening as consistently as it has, regardless of whose on the pitch, that's the manager for me. I don't feel like this teams short of effort or ability.

 

This team is in no way short of ability - neither are guys like Ambrose etc, but it is most definitely short of effort, concentration and a bit of plain old * cahones!

Listen, I'm not saying you're in the wrong for not wanting the manager here, or for having concerns - that's your opinion which you are entitled to. What I don't agree with is * like the invention of this thread and the utterly crass negativity and abuse aimed at Deila from clowns on here and in the real world - the guy is still in charge, and won't be removed under current circumstances, nor should he be. So whilst he is in charge - and forgive me for being somewhat positive and forward thinking - he should be backed to some degree by each and every Celtic supporter, up until IF a point eventually comes when he leaves, or is shown the door.

 

First Micky O'Neil touted by the BelTel then the Giggs rumour. I wonder if the board are participating in a lock of expectation management by drip feeding potential names to test the supports reaction? If this is true then I am worried again because the early indicators is that Lawwell will do the unthinkable and hire another lapdog. Inexperienced men who are happy to get the job are a gamble that we should not be taking.

 

"Lapdogs", eh?

And what is it exactly that makes a manager a "lapdog", and what makes a manager not a "lapdog" - and please explain to us all the last manager we had that was NOT. a "lapdog" - I assume you mean in terms of accepting board expectations......

 

No doubt mate, the abuse is unacceptable.

 

Lenny nearly did become one when they tried to force him to take Baxter as a mentor. Men who would rather live in * than let the world see them work a shovel, ya know. Men glad to get the job and put up with all sorts. There's no way you dont know what im on about, your just too thran to admit it.

 

Whoever is in charge will be accepting the job the board want them to do :smiley-laughing002:

 

Lennon was OFFERED Baxter as a mentor - given he was a novice, and rejected it - a good showing from him - so don't make out he was FORCED a mentor, and rejected it. If you're naive enough to think it was not an option for Lennon to refuse, negotiations would've ceased before he was even able to sign a contract to take the manager's job.

Thran you say? Only fella here who is Thran would be yourself, considering the sheer amount of times you dodge and refuse to answer plain ol' simple (and respectful) questions.

 

Exactly - infact, it's hardly rocket science to understand it.

This isn't the * 1960's or 70's when a manager had sole control of a football club

 

True but if you hire some cowboy to build you a wall he will put up with all sorts of conditions and mental requests just to get the work. Hire a man to do it properly and he wont put up with stupid suggestions he will do it right. Our board are hiring the cowboys and projects, people glad to get the work, rather than a man who will go out and do it properly.

The reason is that Lawwell is running the club through a proxy. It's his way or rhw highway as Lennon found out when he had to walk for the heinous crime wanting to strengthen and add experience at exactly the right time to do it. Lennon knew how to do it properly. Lawwell is a suit with his hands all over the football side.

 

I make a point of ignoring your posts for the most part because you tend to suck me into arguments.

 

You're no doing very well then are ye, considering you've replied to me twice within the last 5 mins or so.

But hey ho, dodge away Steve McQueen, if you're unable to respond to a civilised line of questioning........

 

Lenny had the board puppet accusations thrown at him as well. Which is * daft, they won't hire anyone who is at odds with them. No managers would.