🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short statement, the howitzer arrived, courtesy of Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious fury.

In 551-words, major shareholder Dermot Desmond savaged his former ally.

This individual he convinced to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being back in a box. And the figure he once more relied on after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of Desmond's takedown, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the organization, and after much of his recent life was dedicated to an unending series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Considering things he has said lately, he has been keen to secure another job. He will see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the Celtic Gods, a return to the place where he enjoyed such success and adulation.

Would he relinquish it readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest shocking moment was the harsh manner Desmond described the former manager.

It was a full-blooded attempt at defamation, a labeling of Rodgers as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated he.

For somebody who prizes decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another illustration of how unusual situations have grown at Celtic.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the one with the authority to make all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of explaining them in any public forum.

He never attend club AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

He has been known on an occasion or two to support the organization with confidential messages to news outlets, but nothing is made in the open.

This is precisely how he's wanted it to be. And that's just what he went against when launching full thermonuclear on Rodgers on that day.

The directive from the club is that he stepped down, but reviewing his criticism, carefully, one must question why he allow it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it's fair to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

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

He claims his words "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the abuse directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and improper."

Such an remarkable allegation, that is. Legal representatives might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Model Again

To return to better times, they were tight, the two men. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him every chance. Brendan deferred to him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the reappearance of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as other supporters would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

Desmond had Rodgers' back. Over time, Rodgers employed the charm, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the fans became a affectionate relationship again.

There was always - always - going to be a point when his goals clashed with Celtic's operational approach, however.

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, over the last year. He publicly commented about the slow way the team conducted their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was frequently the situation as far as he was believed.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. Supporters concurred with him.

Despite the organization splurged unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m Auston Trusty - all of whom have performed well to date, with one already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he expressed this in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his subsequent media briefing he would usually minimize it and nearly reverse what he stated.

Lack of cohesion? No, no, everybody is aligned, he'd say. It looked like Rodgers was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source associated with the club. It claimed that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

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

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his board members wouldn't support his plans to bring triumph.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was losing the support of the people above him.

The frequent {gripes