🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes after Celtic issued the news of their manager's shock departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent anger.

In an extensive statement, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he convinced to join the team when Rangers were gaining ground in that period and needed putting back in a box. Plus the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of Desmond's critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after much of his latter years was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a while. Based on things he has expressed recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll view this one as the perfect opportunity, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Character Assassination

The new manager's reappearance - as surreal as it is - can be set aside because the biggest shocking development was the brutal way Desmond wrote of the former manager.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a source of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright secrecy, here was another illustration of how abnormal things have grown at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to make all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, his son, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic in nature. And still, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the organization with private messages to media organisations, but nothing is heard in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to remain. And it's just what he contradicted when launching full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The directive from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading Desmond's invective, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is culpable of every one of the accusations that Desmond is alleging he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the coach not dismissed?

Desmond has accused him of distorting information in public that did not tally with the facts.

He says his words "have contributed to a hostile atmosphere around the team and encouraged hostility towards individuals of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unjustified and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

His Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to happier days, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the heat when Rodgers' comeback occurred, after the previous manager.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as some other supporters would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Over time, the manager employed the charm, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' goals came in contact with Celtic's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it happened once more, with bells on, over the last year. Rodgers publicly commented about the slow process Celtic conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he stated about the need for what he called "agility" in the market. Supporters agreed with him.

Despite the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the expensive one signing, the costly another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with Idah since having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a bomb about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent news conference he would typically minimize it and almost contradict what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like Rodgers was engaging in a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source associated with the organization. It said that the manager was harming the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his exit, that was the implication of the article.

Supporters were angered. They now viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be removed on his honor because his directors did not support his vision to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was clear Rodgers was losing the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes