🔗 Share this article

Just fifteen minutes after the club released the announcement of their manager's surprising departure via a perfunctory five-paragraph statement, the howitzer arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in obvious fury.

Through an extensive statement, major shareholder Dermot Desmond eviscerated his former ally.

This individual he convinced to come to the team when their rivals were getting uppity in that period and required being back in a box. And the figure he once more turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the ferocity of his critique, the jaw-dropping return of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Twenty years after his exit from the club, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous circuit of appearances and the performance of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and maybe for a time. Considering things he has expressed recently, O'Neill has been keen to get a new position. He will see this role as the perfect opportunity, a gift from the club's legacy, a homecoming to the place where he experienced such success and praise.

Would he relinquish it easily? It seems unlikely. The club could possibly reach out to sound out Postecoglou, but the new appointment will serve as a balm for the moment.

'Full-blooded Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

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

This constituted a forceful endeavor at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a perpetrator of untruths, a spreader of misinformation; disruptive, deceptive and unjustifiable. "One individual's wish for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in business being conducted with discretion, if not complete secrecy, here was another example of how abnormal situations have grown at the club.

The major figure, the club's dominant presence, operates in the background. The remote leader, the individual with the authority to make all the important calls he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any public forum.

He does not participate in team AGMs, dispatching his son, Ross, instead. He seldom, if ever, gives media talks about the team unless they're glowing in nature. And even then, he's slow to communicate.

There have been instances on an occasion or two to defend the club with confidential messages to media organisations, but nothing is made in public.

It's exactly how he's wanted it to be. And that's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on the manager on that day.

The directive from the team is that Rodgers stepped down, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why did he allow it to reach this far down the line?

Assuming Rodgers is guilty of all of the accusations that Desmond is claiming he's responsible for, then it is reasonable to inquire why had been the coach not removed?

He has accused him of distorting things in public that were inconsistent with reality.

He says Rodgers' statements "played a part to a hostile atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their families, has been completely unwarranted and improper."

What an extraordinary allegation, that is. Lawyers might be mobilising as we speak.

'Rodgers' Ambition Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. The manager praised the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him every chance. Rodgers respected him and, truly, to no one other.

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

This marked the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as other Celtic fans would have described it, the arrival of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, Rodgers employed the persuasion, delivered the wins and the trophies, and an uneasy peace with the supporters became a love-in again.

There was always - consistently - going to be a moment when Rodgers' ambition clashed with the club's business model, however.

It happened in his initial tenure and it transpired again, with added intensity, over the last year. He spoke openly about the slow process the team conducted their transfer business, the interminable waiting for targets to be secured, then missed, as was too often the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the necessity for what he termed "flexibility" in the market. The fans concurred with him.

Even when the club splurged unprecedented sums of money in a calendar year on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have performed well so far, with one already having departed - Rodgers pushed for increased resources and, oftentimes, he did it in openly.

He set a controversy about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically downplay it and almost reverse what he stated.

Internal issues? Not at all, everybody is aligned, he'd claim. It appeared like he was engaging in a dangerous strategy.

Earlier this year there was a report in a publication that allegedly came from a source close to the organization. It claimed that Rodgers was harming Celtic with his public outbursts and that his real motivation was managing his departure plan.

He desired not to be there and he was arranging his exit, this was the tone of the article.

Supporters were enraged. They then saw him as akin to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his honor because his directors wouldn't back his vision to achieve success.

This disclosure was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the guilty person to be dismissed. Whether there was a probe then we heard no more about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was losing the backing of the individuals in charge.

The regular {gripes