🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour following Celtic released the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a perfunctory short statement, the bombshell landed, from the major shareholder, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were getting uppity in 2016 and needed putting in their place. Plus the man he again relied on after the previous manager departed to another club in the summer of 2023.

Such was the severity of Desmond's critique, the jaw-dropping comeback of the former boss was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of public speaking engagements and the performance of all his past successes at Celtic, O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, he has been eager to get another job. He'll see this role as the perfect chance, a present from the club's legacy, a return to the place where he experienced such glory and praise.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. Celtic could possibly make a call to sound out their ex-manager, but the new appointment will act as a balm for the time being.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it is - can be parked because the biggest 'wow!' moment was the brutal manner Desmond wrote of the former manager.

It was a forceful endeavor at character assassination, a branding of Rodgers as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a disseminator of misinformation; divisive, deceptive and unacceptable. "A single person's desire for self-interest at the cost of others," wrote Desmond.

For a person who prizes propriety and sets high importance in business being done with confidentiality, if not outright privacy, here was another illustration of how unusual things have become at Celtic.

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

He never participate in club annual meetings, sending his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's reluctant to speak out.

There have been instances on an rare moment to defend the organization with private missives to media organisations, 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 full thermonuclear on the manager on Monday.

The official line from the club is that Rodgers stepped down, but reviewing Desmond's criticism, carefully, you have to wonder why did he allow it to reach such a critical point?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the manager not dismissed?

He has charged him of distorting information in open forums that were inconsistent with the facts.

He says Rodgers' words "have contributed to a hostile environment around the club and encouraged animosity towards individuals of the management and the board. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an extraordinary charge, indeed. Lawyers might be mobilising as we discuss.

His Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Model Once More'

To return to better times, they were tight, the two men. The manager praised the shareholder at every turn, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Brendan respected Dermot and, truly, to nobody else.

This was Desmond who took the criticism when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

This marked the most controversial hiring, the return of the prodigal son for some supporters or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who left them in the lurch for another club.

Desmond had his support. Gradually, the manager turned on the charm, achieved the victories and the honors, and an fragile peace with the supporters became a affectionate relationship once more.

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

This occurred in his first incarnation and it transpired once more, with added intensity, recently. He spoke openly about the sluggish way the team went about their player acquisitions, the interminable delay for targets to be landed, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was concerned.

Repeatedly he spoke about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the transfer window. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the expensive Arne Engels, the £9m another player and the significant further acquisition - all of whom have cut it so far, with Idah since having left - the manager pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in public.

He set a bomb about a lack of cohesion within the club and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his next news conference he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he said.

Internal issues? Not at all, all are united, he'd say. It appeared like he was playing a dangerous strategy.

A few months back there was a report in a newspaper that purportedly originated from a insider close to the club. It said that the manager was damaging Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was orchestrating his exit strategy.

He didn't want to be there and he was engineering his way out, this was the tone of the story.

Supporters were enraged. They then viewed him as akin to a martyr who might be carried out on his shield because his board members did not support his vision to bring success.

This disclosure was damaging, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it did. He demanded for an inquiry and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a probe then we learned no more about it.

At that point it was clear the manager was losing the support of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes