🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through 551-words, major shareholder Desmond savaged his old chum.

This individual he persuaded to come to the club when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. Plus the figure he once more relied on after Ange Postecoglou departed to another club in the recent offseason.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of Martin O'Neill was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his departure from the organization, and after much of his recent life was given over to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is back in the manager's seat.

For now - and perhaps for a time. Based on things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get another job. He'll see this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and adulation.

Will he relinquish it easily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic might well reach out to contact Postecoglou, but O'Neill will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

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

This constituted a forceful attempt at character assassination, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-preservation at the cost of everyone else," stated he.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was a further illustration of how unusual things have become at the club.

The major figure, the organization's dominant figure, moves in the margins. The remote leader, the individual with the power to take all the major decisions he pleases without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not attend team annual meetings, dispatching his offspring, Ross, instead. He rarely, if ever, gives interviews about Celtic unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to defend the organization with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in the open.

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

The official line from the team is that he resigned, but reviewing his criticism, line by line, you have to wonder why did he permit it to get such a critical point?

Assuming the manager is guilty of all of the things that the shareholder is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to ask why was the manager not removed?

Desmond has charged him of distorting information in public that did not tally with reality.

He says Rodgers' words "played a part to a toxic environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and improper."

What an remarkable allegation, that is. Lawyers might be preparing as we discuss.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Conflicted with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier days, they were tight, Dermot and Brendan. The manager lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Brendan deferred to Dermot and, really, to nobody else.

This was the figure who took the heat when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the difficulty for another club.

The shareholder had his back. Over time, the manager turned on the persuasion, delivered the wins and the honors, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when his 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. He spoke openly about the sluggish process Celtic went about their transfer business, the interminable delay for prospects to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

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

Even when the club spent unprecedented sums of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the £6m Auston Trusty - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a lack of cohesion inside the club and then distanced himself. When asked about his comments at his next news conference he would usually minimize it and nearly contradict what he stated.

Internal issues? No, no, all are united, he'd claim. It appeared like he was playing a risky game.

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a source close to the club. It said that Rodgers was harming the team with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He desired not to be present and he was engineering his exit, this was the implication of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his honor because his board members did not support his plans to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, naturally, and it was intended to hurt Rodgers, which it did. He demanded for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

By then it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes