Celtic Dressing Room Discontent Emerges After Wilfried Nancy’s Brief and Turbulent Spell

Fresh insight has emerged into the chaotic final days of Wilfried Nancy’s short-lived reign at Celtic, with claims that confusion, a lack of communication, and unclear tactical direction left the dressing room in disarray.

Former Scotland international Michael Stewart has revealed that senior Celtic players were left bewildered by Nancy’s approach, alleging that the manager failed to provide clear instructions and oversaw what was described internally as a “shambles” behind the scenes. Nancy was dismissed after just 33 days in charge, bringing one of the shortest managerial tenures in the club’s history to an abrupt end.

The 48-year-old Frenchman managed only two wins from eight matches, a run of form that saw Celtic surrender momentum in the Scottish Premiership, lose ground to Hearts at the top of the table, and miss out on Premier Sports Cup silverware. The final blow came in the form of a damaging Old Firm defeat to Rangers, which convinced decision-makers at Celtic Park that immediate action was required.

Within 24 hours of the derby loss, Dermot Desmond sanctioned Nancy’s departure and turned once again to Martin O’Neill, issuing what many saw as an emergency call to steady the club during a period of growing unrest.

According to Stewart, the problems under Nancy went far deeper than poor results. Speaking on BBC Sportsound, the former Hearts and Hibernian midfielder claimed that players were not being given sufficient tactical guidance, leaving them unclear about roles, responsibilities, and expectations on the pitch.

“There’s an assumption that managers always arrive with incredibly detailed instructions and a crystal-clear footballing philosophy,” Stewart explained. “But I’m led to believe that simply wasn’t the case here. The issue wasn’t that the ideas were too complex – it was that there was very little information at all.”

Nancy’s decision to rapidly implement a 3-4-3 formation proved particularly controversial. Stewart suggested that the abrupt tactical overhaul, combined with the lack of clarity, destabilised a squad that had previously been functioning effectively.

He argued that had the system remained largely unchanged, Celtic’s experienced core might have been able to compensate for any shortcomings in communication. Instead, sweeping alterations were introduced almost immediately, leaving players struggling to adapt.

“When a new manager comes in and rips everything up straight away, changes the system completely, and then expects instant results against top opposition, that’s where problems arise,” Stewart said. “Especially if those changes aren’t properly explained.”

The timing of the transformation also drew criticism. Nancy attempted to reshape Celtic’s approach just days before facing the league’s strongest teams, a move Stewart labelled as overly confident at best and reckless at worst.

“I’ve said before that I view this kind of approach as arrogant,” Stewart continued. “You can’t expect players to suddenly understand a new system, perform unfamiliar roles, and produce results without being given clarity. That’s when things begin to fall apart.”

Despite the mounting criticism of the squad following recent performances, Stewart was keen to defend the players’ overall quality. He rejected the idea that the group struggled due to an inability to grasp sophisticated tactical concepts.

“This is a squad that has dominated Scottish football for the best part of a decade,” he said. “These are high-level professionals with experience of winning titles and handling pressure. The problem wasn’t that the message was too advanced or too detailed – it was the opposite.”

Stewart added that players were often asked to carry out tasks that didn’t suit their natural strengths, further adding to the confusion. While he stopped short of absolving the squad of all responsibility, he insisted the environment made it difficult for players to succeed.

“You can’t completely excuse the players, of course,” he acknowledged. “But I’ve heard time and again that individuals were being asked to do things they simply aren’t equipped to do. That creates uncertainty, hesitation, and ultimately poor performances.”

Perhaps the most damning assessment came when Stewart was pressed on how players themselves had described the situation inside the camp.

“Shambles,” he said bluntly. “They didn’t know what he wanted.”

That lack of understanding filtered onto the pitch, where Celtic appeared disjointed, defensively vulnerable, and uncertain in possession. The cohesion and authority that had characterised the team earlier in the season evaporated, replaced by a side seemingly caught between systems and unsure of its identity.

The fallout from Nancy’s departure did not stop with the head coach. The upheaval extended to the club’s football operations, prompting further scrutiny of the decision-making process that led to his appointment in the first place. Supporters voiced their anger both inside and outside Celtic Park, calling for accountability at boardroom level.

In response, Celtic moved swiftly to restore stability, turning to O’Neill, a familiar and trusted figure whose previous spells brought sustained success and silverware. His return has been widely viewed as a calming influence, particularly given his ability to simplify messaging and reconnect the squad with the club’s core values.

For many observers, the episode has served as a cautionary tale about the dangers of rapid change without buy-in or clarity. While modern football increasingly embraces innovation and tactical flexibility, Stewart’s comments highlight the importance of communication and gradual transition, especially at clubs where expectations are relentless.

As Celtic look ahead, the focus now shifts to rebuilding confidence, restoring structure, and ensuring the mistakes of the past month are not repeated. With O’Neill back at the helm, the hope is that clarity, leadership, and stability will once again define life inside the Celtic dressing room.

Whether the scars of the 33-day experiment linger remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the brief Wilfried Nancy era will be remembered less for its ambition and more for the confusion it left behind.