Few managerial situations in Scottish football are as delicate as this one. Celtic are still top of the Scottish Premiership, yet the weeks around that fact have been poor enough that their manager’s position is being discussed openly. Into that debate has stepped Paul Lambert, the former Celtic captain, with a message that is loyal, direct and carefully worded. Lambert said that Martin O’Neill leaving Celtic would not surprise him, but that he would be “shocked and disappointed” if the veteran manager were sacked.
The BBC’s headline put it more starkly: Celtic can’t sack their manager. It is a rhetorical flourish, because a club can obviously dismiss whoever it chooses. But it captures the spirit of Lambert’s argument. In his view, the credit O’Neill has built up over his spells at the club makes a dismissal something that ought to be unthinkable.
This piece looks at what Lambert said, why he said it, the results that prompted the discussion, and the arguments on both
Lambert was responding to a bad run. O’Neill, who is 74, said he would use the international break to take stock after back-to-back defeats by Rangers. Those Old Firm setbacks came either side of a home loss to Ferencvaros in the Europa League. That makes three consecutive defeats, two of them against Celtic’s oldest rivals, in a very short space of time.
The recent past adds weight. In August, Celtic suffered a shock Champions League collapse to LASK, surrendering a 4-0 aggregate lead. A four-goal cushion is supposed to make progress a formality, and losing it is the sort of result that lingers in the memory. Put alongside the recent defeats, it feeds a narrative that Celtic’s season has been more turbulent than the league table suggests.
O’Neill’s response to all this was candid. He said he would reflect on the games. He also said he is not immune from criticism, describing himself as far from it, and that there is every reason to ask whether he can turn things around. That is not the language of a manager digging in his heels. It is the language of someone honestly weighing his own position, which is part of why the wider conversation has been so intense.
Some reports have gone further. One outlet claimed that O’Neill could walk away after the reaction of supporters at the end of the second Rangers defeat. Another aggregator page reported that Celtic were holding internal talks about his future. These claims come from lower-tier outlets, and I couldn’t confirm them from the club or from the main news organisations. They should be treated as unverified.
To understand Lambert’s argument, you need the backstory, and it is an unusual one.
Martin O’Neill first stepped in as caretaker manager for eight games after Brendan Rodgers left in October, and won seven of them. That spell ended when Celtic appointed Wilfried Nancy. But Nancy’s time in charge was brief and difficult: Celtic sacked him after eight games, six of them defeats, and brought O’Neill back to lead the team until the end of the season. The club’s statement at the time confirmed that he would be supported by Shaun Maloney and Mark Fotheringham as assistants, along with Stephen McManus, who joined the existing coaches.
What followed was a striking recovery. The two interim spells produced a league and Scottish Cup double. In the summer, O’Neill was made permanent manager for a second time. Few managers at any age pull off a turnaround of that kind, and it explains why supporters and former players hold him in such high regard.
His original spell adds to that reservoir of goodwill. He won seven trophies with Celtic between 2000 and 2005, the years when Lambert was a player at the club. That shared history is the foundation of everything Lambert says.
The headline compresses Lambert’s comments, but the full argument has several distinct parts.
He would not be surprised if O’Neill left. Lambert told BBC Sport Scotland that it would not surprise him if the manager departed, adding that he does not think O’Neill needs the job. This is an acknowledgement of reality. O’Neill has an enormous career behind him, and he could walk away without harming his reputation in any way.
He would be shocked if the club sacked him. The same interview made clear that a dismissal would be different. Lambert said he would be shocked and disappointed, and suggested the club should give O’Neill the option to walk away if that is what he is thinking. The distinction between leaving and being dismissed is at the heart of his argument. He is not saying O’Neill must stay. He is saying the decision should belong to the manager.
He believes O’Neill has credit in the bank. Lambert pointed out that it was not long ago people were calling for a statue of O’Neill, and argued that it is hard to move from one extreme to the other. It is a sharp observation about how quickly the mood around a club can change, and how short memories can be after a bad week.
The SSBCrack summary reduced it to a simple principle: the club’s hierarchy should consider O’Neill’s legacy and give him the freedom to decide his future, and if he wants to go, he goes himself.
The boldest statement in the interview is historical. Lambert insists O’Neill is Celtic’s best manager since Jock Stein.
Stein is the benchmark for greatness at Parkhead. He led the club to the European Cup in 1967 and to nine successive league titles, and his name is the standard against which every later manager is measured. To place O’Neill directly behind him is to say that his achievements in the early 2000s, and again last season, are the finest by any manager in the decades since.
That is an opinion, not a fact, and Celtic have had other successful managers over the years, including Rodgers in his first spell. But the claim shows the emotional register of the interview. This is not a detached assessment of form. It is the loyalty of a captain to the man who led him, and it should be read that way.
Much of Lambert’s case rests on what O’Neill did last season. He said O’Neill steadied the ship twice last term, following the departures of Rodgers and Nancy. He described the club as hanging on by a thread and said the manager turned that around, adding that only one person could have rescued Celtic and he did it.
That framing changes the debate from the present to the record. A manager who twice stabilised a club in crisis and delivered a domestic double has a case that a single bad run should not erase. Whether the board accepts that case is another matter, but it is a reasonable one.
One analysis piece put it well. It said O’Neill’s rescue of Celtic twice last season, followed by the league and Scottish Cup double, gives him a case for time, though past success cannot excuse poor performances forever. That last clause is the necessary counterweight. Lambert’s argument is about respect and process, not a claim that results no longer
Lambert also drew attention to the players. The analysis piece said his point about player responsibility deserves attention, noting that a manager cannot make every decision once the ball starts moving. A separate commentary noted that individual errors and soft goals have stacked up, and that the manager cannot tackle or finish on the squad’s behalf.
That is a fair reading of how football works. Managers pick teams and set tactics, but matches are decided by execution. A misjudged clearance or a missed chance is beyond the touchline’s reach. It does not make the manager blameless, but it complicates any idea that a sacking would solve the underlying problems.
There was also a reference to Cameron Carter-Vickers, whose comments were said to suggest frustration inside the squad. I couldn’t verify what he said, so I won’t characterise it, but it shows that the players themselves are part of the conversation and that the dressing room mood will be watched closely.
One fact softens the crisis considerably. Celtic sit two points clear at the top of the Scottish Premiership despite three straight losses. That is remarkable given the run, and it is the main reason some observers argue the board has room to be patient. As one commentary put it, the league position gives the board room to avoid panic.
It also reminds us of Celtic’s long dominance. The club has won the league 14 times in the last 15 seasons, and that context shapes what a bad week means at Parkhead. A run of poor results at a club with such a record feels seismic, even when the objective position remains strong.
The margin, though, is thin. Two points over Rangers is nothing, and the recent Old Firm defeats mean the gap could vanish within weeks. That is why the international break carries so much weight. It offers everyone a chance to pause before the direction of the season is
Several commentators argued that Celtic should wait. Their reasoning falls into a few strands.
Three results are not a trend. One piece argued that jumping straight to “sack him” after three bad results ignores the bigger picture. Every successful club endures spells like this, and reacting to one can cause more damage than it prevents.
Age is not evidence. The same commentary warned against assuming that age alone decides capability. O’Neill is 74, and some will suggest the game has passed him by. His results last season are the strongest answer to that.
The board’s silence is a signal.** The commentary observed that the absence of public statements demanding change usually means a club is giving its manager space. That is an inference, not a fact, and boards can change course fast, but it is a reasonable reading of the public signals so far.
The break is a natural pause.** The recommendation was that Celtic should give O’Neill the international break instead of sacking him immediately. The timing suits both sides. The manager can reflect, as he has said he will, and the board can assess without acting in the immediate aftermath of a defeat
The other side deserves a fair hearing too. Supporters have watched their team lose two Old Firm games in a row, lose at home in Europe, and throw away a huge aggregate lead in the Champions League qualifiers. Those setbacks touch the core of what the club expects of itself, and the frustration is understandable.
There is also the question of energy. Earlier in his second spell, O’Neill admitted he did not know whether he would have the energy to stay beyond the end of the season. He has since been made permanent, but if the strain of the job is weighing on him, that matters in its own right. Lambert acknowledged as much when he said it would not surprise him if the manager left.
Some outlets have floated possible replacements, with Robbie Keane and Neil Lennon among the names mentioned. Those are tabloid-style reports, and I found no reliable confirmation that Celtic have approached anyone, so they should be read as speculation.
Lambert brings real authority to this discussion. He captained Celtic under O’Neill, then managed Ipswich Town and Norwich City, so he has seen the relationship between manager and board from both sides. One commentary described him as an O’Neill loyalist, which is fair, and it means his views should be read as those of a friend as well as an informed observer.
That does not make him wrong. Loyalty and accuracy are not opposites. But it is worth remembering that his message is one perspective. The club’s owners have a wider set of considerations, including finances, fixtures and the long-term direction of the squad, and they may weigh
The BBC headline is best understood as an argument about propriety. Lambert is saying that a club has obligations to a figure who has given it so much, and that dismissing him after a poor run would betray that history. He is also saying that a manager who has achieved what O’Neill has earned the right to decide when to go.
In practice, boards can and do sack managers, and no amount of sentiment prevents it. But the argument has a force that goes beyond the literal. It is a call for dignity in the way a club handles an inevitable transition. If O’Neill’s time is drawing to a close, Lambert suggests it should end on his terms and not through an abrupt dismissal.
There is a wider point about football culture here. Clubs often treat managers as interchangeable, but the most successful relationships are built on trust and mutual respect. A club that discards a legend after a bad month sends a message to everyone associated with it, including future managers and players. Whether that message matters to the board is for them to judge, but it is part of what Lambert is invoking.
It is easy to treat a story like this as a simple choice between keeping and sacking a manager. The reality is more layered. Lambert’s comments are as much about tone as substance, an appeal to treat a great servant of the club with respect. The results are genuine cause for concern, but the league position is still strong. The manager himself is unsure whether he can turn things around, which complicates any straightforward verdict.
What the situation calls for, on most readings, is patience and clarity. Patience because three defeats do not cancel out a double and two rescues. Clarity because a club at this level cannot drift, and everyone involved needs to know where they stand once the break is over.
Paul Lambert’s message is short but weighty. Martin O’Neill, he says, has earned the right to leave on his own terms, and Celtic should not sack him. It would not surprise Lambert if the manager chose to go, because he does not need the job, but he would be shocked and disappointed by a dismissal.
The argument rests on the record: a manager who rescued Celtic twice in a single season and delivered a domestic double, and who won seven trophies in his first spell. It also rests on the plain fact that Celtic are still top of the league. Against that stand a poor run of results, a painful European collapse, and the relentless pressure that comes with running one of Scotland’s two biggest clubs.
Whichever way the decision falls, Lambert has framed it clearly. In his view, the choice belongs to O’Neill, and the club owes him at least that much. Whether the board agrees will become clear soon enough
