🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief five-paragraph statement, the howitzer landed, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

In 551-words, key investor Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and needed putting back in a box. And the figure he again relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of his takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an unending circuit of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to secure another job. He'll view this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Will he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - however strange as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

This constituted a full-blooded endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," wrote Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in dealings being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, this was another example of how unusual situations have become at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, operates in the background. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He does not participate in club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in tone. And still, he's reluctant to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with confidential messages to media organisations, but no statement is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he contradicted when going all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers resigned, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, one must question why did he allow it to get this far down the line?

If the manager is culpable of every one of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has charged him of spinning things in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says his statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and encouraged hostility towards members of the management and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their loved ones, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

Looking back to better days, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

This marked the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have put it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

Desmond had his support. Over time, Rodgers turned on the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the fans became a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the interminable delay for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the situation as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club spent record amounts of funds in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with one already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in openly.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, all are united, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that allegedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his way out, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not support his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was damaging, naturally, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain Rodgers was losing the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes