🔗 Share this article

Merely a quarter of an hour after Celtic issued the announcement of Brendan Rodgers' shock departure via a brief short communication, the bombshell landed, from Dermot Desmond, with clear signs in obvious anger.

Through an extensive statement, key investor Desmond eviscerated his old chum.

The man he persuaded to join the club when their rivals were gaining ground 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 summer of 2023.

Such was the ferocity of his takedown, the astonishing comeback of the former boss was almost an secondary note.

Two decades after his departure from the organization, and after a large part of his latter years was dedicated to an continuous series of public speaking engagements and the playing of all his old hits at Celtic, Martin O'Neill is returned in the dugout.

Currently - and perhaps for a time. Based on comments he has said recently, O'Neill has been eager to get a new position. He'll see this one as the perfect chance, a gift from the club's legacy, a return to the environment where he enjoyed such glory and adulation.

Will he give it up readily? You wouldn't have thought so. The club could possibly reach out to sound out their ex-manager, but O'Neill will act as a soothing presence for the time being.

All-out Effort at Character Assassination

O'Neill's return - as surreal as it may be - can be set aside because the biggest shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder wrote of Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a labeling of him as untrustful, a source of untruths, a spreader of falsehoods; disruptive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the expense of everyone else," stated Desmond.

For somebody who values decorum and sets high importance in dealings being done with discretion, if not outright privacy, this was a further example of how abnormal things have become at the club.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, moves in the background. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the major decisions he wants without having the responsibility of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in club AGMs, dispatching his offspring, his son, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about Celtic unless they're hagiographic 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 nothing is heard in public.

It's exactly how he's preferred it to be. And that's just what he contradicted when launching all-out attack on the manager on Monday.

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

Assuming the manager is culpable of all of the things that Desmond is claiming he's guilty of, then it's fair to ask why was the manager not dismissed?

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

He claims Rodgers' statements "have contributed to a hostile environment around the team and encouraged animosity towards members of the management and the board. A portion of the criticism aimed at them, and at their loved ones, has been completely unwarranted and unacceptable."

Such an remarkable charge, indeed. Legal representatives might be preparing as we speak.

His Aspirations Clashed with the Club's Model Once More'

Looking back to happier times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded Desmond at all opportunities, thanked him whenever possible. Rodgers deferred to Dermot and, truly, to no one other.

This was the figure who drew the criticism when his comeback occurred, post-Postecoglou.

It was the most divisive hiring, the return of the prodigal son for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the shameless one, who left them in the lurch for another club.

The shareholder had his support. Over time, the manager turned on the charm, delivered the victories and the trophies, and an fragile peace with the fans turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a point when Rodgers' ambition came in contact with the club's operational approach, though.

This occurred in his initial tenure and it transpired once more, with bells on, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the sluggish way Celtic went about their player acquisitions, the endless waiting for targets to be landed, then not landed, as was frequently the case as far as he was believed.

Repeatedly he stated about the need for what he called "agility" in the transfer window. The fans agreed with him.

Despite the organization spent unprecedented sums of funds in a twelve-month period on the £11m Arne Engels, the £9m Adam Idah and the significant further acquisition - none of whom have performed well to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers demanded more and more and, often, he did it in public.

He planted a bomb about a internal disunity inside the team and then distanced himself. Upon questioning about his remarks at his subsequent media briefing he would typically minimize it and nearly reverse what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a newspaper that purportedly came from a insider associated with the club. It claimed that the manager was damaging the team with his open criticisms and that his real motivation was orchestrating his departure plan.

He didn't want to be present and he was arranging his exit, that was the tone of the story.

Supporters were angered. They now saw him as similar to a sacrificial figure who might be carried out on his shield because his directors did not back his plans to achieve triumph.

The leak was poisonous, of course, and it was intended to harm him, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. Whether there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

At that point it was plain the manager was shedding the backing of the people in charge.

The frequent {gripes