🔗 Share this article

Merely fifteen minutes following the club released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock resignation via a brief short statement, the howitzer landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in apparent fury.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

The man he convinced to join the team when Rangers were getting uppity in 2016 and required being back in a box. And the figure he again turned to after the previous manager left for Tottenham in the recent offseason.

Such was the severity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after a large part of his recent life was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, O'Neill is back in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a while. Based on things he has expressed recently, he has been keen to secure a new position. He'll see 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.

Will he give it up readily? It seems unlikely. Celtic might well reach out to contact their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the moment.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

The new manager's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest 'wow!' development was the harsh manner the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a source of falsehoods, a disseminator of falsehoods; divisive, misleading and unacceptable. "A single person's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For a person who values propriety and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was a further example of how abnormal situations have become at the club.

The major figure, the club's most powerful presence, moves in the margins. The absentee totem, the individual with the authority to make all the major calls he wants without having the obligation of explaining them in any open setting.

He does not attend team AGMs, sending his offspring, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, does 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 media organisations, but no statement is made in the open.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he went against when going full thermonuclear on the manager on that day.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why he permit it to reach 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 had been the manager not removed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled animosity towards members of the executive team and the directors. A portion of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unjustified and unacceptable."

Such an extraordinary allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Again

Looking back to happier times, they were close, the two men. The manager praised Desmond at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to him and, really, to no one other.

This was Desmond who drew the heat when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most controversial appointment, the reappearance of the returning hero for some supporters or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who departed in the lurch for Leicester.

The shareholder had his support. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a love-in again.

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

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers publicly commented about the sluggish way the team conducted their transfer business, the endless delay for prospects to be secured, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was concerned.

Time and again he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "agility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Despite the club splurged unprecedented sums of funds in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having departed - Rodgers demanded more and more and, oftentimes, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity within the team and then walked away. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent news conference he would usually downplay it and nearly contradict what he said.

Lack of cohesion? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It looked like Rodgers was playing a risky strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that purportedly originated from a source associated with the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He desired not to be there and he was engineering his way out, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They now viewed him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be removed on his shield because his board members did not support his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was damaging, of course, and it was intended to hurt him, which it accomplished. He demanded for an investigation and for the guilty person to be removed. Whether there was a probe then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was shedding the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes