There are times when I genuinely wonder whether some football journalists have any idea what they are talking about, and then somebody comes along and raises the bar for utter nonsense.

Hey, there is only one other alternative in the context of what I’m about to say and it’s that our club would be completely mad. Not just incompetent. Mad.

Mark Guidi believes that Kieran McKenna is lined up to become Celtic manager at the end of the season. David Moyes has also been discussed as a possible alternative.

Naturally. Because when discussing two managers with very different footballing philosophies, approaches and managerial identities, why bother deciding what kind of football Celtic should actually be playing?

So, is this a man taking a wild shot in the dark, or does it reflect the thinking inside Celtic? Because I have to say, I don’t know who is the most out of their mind.

Let me examine this little managerial mystery, because I find it fascinating. Not necessarily in the way I find Celtic’s glorious history fascinating, but in the way one might find a particularly embarrassing episode of a television comedy strangely difficult to turn off.

I am not suggesting that either man is incapable of managing Celtic. That would be a different argument altogether. What I am questioning is the apparent logic behind placing these two names in the same conversation as though they represent interchangeable solutions to Celtic’s managerial problems.

Kieran McKenna has built his reputation around a modern, progressive approach, with an emphasis on possession, structured build-up play, player development and tactical organisation.

David Moyes, meanwhile, has established himself over many years as a vastly experienced manager whose teams have generally been associated with pragmatism, defensive organisation and getting results through a rather different tactical route.

Both approaches can have merit. Football is not a religion in which there is only one acceptable tactical doctrine, and I am perfectly capable of recognising that different managers can succeed in different circumstances.

But there is a rather important question here.

What kind of football does Celtic actually want to play? That is where my patience with these stories begins to wear thin.

If Celtic want a manager who will develop a progressive playing identity, improve younger players and build a team around a clearly defined footballing philosophy, then they should identify the right candidate for that project. If they want a more pragmatic manager who prioritises experience, organisation, defensive solidity and immediate results, then they should pursue somebody suited to that brief.

What they should not do is throw two names into the media washing machine and expect supporters to believe that this constitutes a coherent managerial appointment strategy.

It does not. Because even if we had the ambition to go for a name with an established Premier League pedigree – whatever of you think of that name – there is nothing to link those two except for the notion that McKenna likes us and Moyes once played here.

Now, let me be fair. Journalists speculate. That is part of the business, and sometimes they have genuine information that the rest of us do not possess.

Guidi has said he believes McKenna is lined up, and he has also discussed Moyes as a possible option if circumstances change. Celtic themselves have confirmed nothing. But it feels a lot like someone at the club pushing out a bit of PR.

Perhaps this is simply speculation being turned into something more.

But if the Celtic board really were considering both men as serious alternatives, then I would argue that the problem is considerably more worrying than a journalist getting carried away with his own predictions.

Because what would that tell us?

It would suggest that the people responsible for appointing Celtic’s next manager have not even established the footballing identity they want the club to pursue. And this is not a concept that has just dawned on people. Think about the wildly inconsistent options being considered when Rodgers left; we ended up with Nancy, whose style was so vastly at odds with anything we’ve seen before that it broke the club.

But there were other names in the frame, some of them wildly different from one another, as if there was no plan other than just to bring in someone whose name fans would know. One of the names people were discussing in disbelief at the time was Gary O’Neill; what did his football philosophy have in common with Nancy or Rodgers or even Martin O’Neill?

Celtic are not a wee local side trying to find their feet in professional football. This is a club with a magnificent history, a massive support, considerable resources by Scottish standards and expectations which extend well beyond simply finishing first in the Premiership.

Yet we might be expected to believe that the people in charge cannot decide whether their ideal manager is somebody who builds a progressive, possession-based team or somebody whose strengths lie in a more pragmatic, results-oriented approach. Do they even realise that there is a difference?

If that is genuinely the situation, then I have a question for our board of pricks.

Have you actually worked out what you want Celtic to become, or are you simply hoping that the next manager will somehow make your lack of planning disappear?

Forgive me, but I thought that was supposed to be the board’s job.

Celtic need more than a new man in the dugout.

They need a coherent football operation, proper recruitment planning, a clear pathway for developing young players and a board which understands the difference between appointing a manager and creating an identifiable club culture.

A manager must know what he is being asked to achieve. He must understand the club’s ambitions, have a meaningful say in recruitment and work within a structure which supports his footballing ideas rather than undermining them. And the board must know what sort of manager it is appointing, and how he views the game itself, before negotiations even begin.

Otherwise, we end up on a weird merry-go-round. Appoint a manager. Discover that his ideas do not align with the club’s expectations. Argue about recruitment. Blame the man in the dugout. Begin the entire circus again.

Then we can all sit back and listen to another round of explanations about how nobody could possibly have anticipated the problems. Oh, please.

The supporters deserve better than this. We deserve a club with a plan, not a succession of improvised decisions dressed up as long-term strategy.

I am not going to pretend that I don’t know which candidate would ultimately prove the better appointment. That’s McKenna. I’ve written about it several times, and so has James. Do I think we’d have the ambition to go and get him? We might try but we’d have to bend the club around him and we won’t do that.

Recruitment, resources, authority, the existing squad and the relationship between the manager and the board would all matter and neither man would stand, for long, the interference of Desmond or the incompetence of Nicholson.

But I do know this. Before Celtic choose a manager, they must decide what they want that manager to deliver.

Do they want progressive football? A high press? Possession and controlled build-up? Greater defensive resilience? A stronger emphasis on youth development? A manager capable of reshaping the squad over several transfer windows? Or somebody expected to deliver immediate domestic success while also making Celtic competitive in Europe?

Some of those ambitions can coexist, of course. A progressive manager can build a defensively solid team. A pragmatic manager can develop young players and sometimes dazzle you with effective, attacking football.

Football does not fit into two perfectly separated boxes.

But there must still be a clear footballing vision behind the appointment. McKenna and Moyes are not simply two names on a shopping list from which the board could pick whichever one happens to be available and willing.

Their suitability depends on the project Celtic want to build, the authority they are prepared to give the successful candidate and the resources they are willing to commit. And that is precisely why this discussion matters.

It is not really about these two names; I think both are wildly unrealistic for different reasons. It’s that they are wholly incompatible in a fully thought-out process. It’s the kind of thinking that might have left us with a final two, at the start of this campaign, of Askou and Steve Clarke, and might well leave us with a similarly bizarre choice in the summer.

If Guidi is simply speculating, supporters should treat his prediction accordingly.

If Celtic genuinely are considering managers with such different profiles, then I would like to know what connects them beyond the fact that they are football managers who might theoretically be available.

Perhaps there is a master plan which has escaped the rest of us. Perhaps our board has suddenly become a collection of footballing visionaries, quietly preparing a strategy so sophisticated that ordinary supporters cannot possibly understand it.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we are witnessing another example of a club which again and again betrays how little it understands the functional realities of the business they are in.

My English teacher’s final mark for this apparent managerial strategy? A generous D-minus, with the comment: “Some interesting names, but the central argument lacks structure, coherence and evidence of deep thinking. In short; lazy work.”

The next managerial appointment must be about more than finding somebody willing to sit in the dugout at Celtic Park. It must be about establishing a footballing direction, building a team capable of competing at home and in Europe, and ensuring that the people running the club finally understand what they are trying to achieve.

So, Mark Guidi, is it McKenna or Moyes?

I have a better question.

Does anybody at Celtic Park actually know what Celtic need? Does anyone have a vision beyond “what gets us through the next season ticket renewal period?” Because if the answer is yes, I would very much like to see the plan.

And if the answer is no, then we have a far bigger problem than choosing between two managers who almost certainly won’t come to work with these idiots anyway.

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