When the owner and directors of a company decide that one of their number is working against them, then confront him, and he is said to have resigned, some would praise them for swift action.

Not, it would appear, if the business is Celtic, and the owner is Fergus McCann.

In the three years in which he has been in charge of Celtic, McCann has turned them into a profitable company in which the supporters can have a stake. A new stadium is almost complete, and on a month-by-month analysis, he has given manager Tommy Burns more resources to spend on players than David Murray has given Walter Smith.

However, whether or not it is because his social skills do not fit with those of the pundits, there seems to be something odd.

While others communicate by unattributable leaks, McCann, on more than one occasion, has made public statements to answer criticisms. Yet it is still he who is seen as sinister. When David Murray sacked Hugh Adam from the board at Ibrox because he did not share the chairman's thinking, no-one suggested turmoil at Ibrox.

Murray's actions were, of course, the legitimate ones of the owner of a business who wanted it to be run his way. What evidence is there that Fergus McCann is doing anything other?

I cannot think of any company, in any business, where the man who owns it is not allowed to choose the main personnel. I cannot think of any firm, where if one of the partners seemed to undermine the others, his removal would not be sought.

There are many traditions at Celtic. Attacking football is one, charity another, board room back-biting sadly a third.

Perhaps Tommy Burns' recent difficulties have been caused by his own naiveties in dealing with McCann. For his part, McCann surely was not prepared for an atmosphere that would make the Borgias wince.

During the battle for control of Celtic, there was no shortage of people willing to come forward to pledge themselves as rebels willing to take over at Parkhead.

However, where was the cash needed to stop Celtic going bust? Even Brian Dempsey, who did so much to campaign against the old regime, did not come up with the necessary finance. Willie Haughey did contribute, but apparently his position on the board has become untenable.

What is so wrong with a man who owns a football club wanting to run it his way, particularly when his way has made such progress?

The other point is that the decision to deliver an ultimatum to Haughey was one made by the board of Celtic plc. Do the critics imagine that directors, like Brian Quinn, whose reputation for commercial integrity in the City is worth a great deal more than his association with Celtic, would be party to some underhand and unjustified removal of a director?

So far everything that has been achieved by McCann off the field exceeds expectations. On the field, money has been made available, and more has been promised.

Unlike any other owner of a club in European football, he has set a time limit on his own tenure of office.

Perhaps McCann's actions really suggest he is doing his best to get rid of that Celtic tradition for boardroom unrest, before he goes.