🔗 Share this article

Just a quarter of an hour following the club released the news of Brendan Rodgers' surprising departure via a brief short communication, the bombshell arrived, from Dermot Desmond, with whiskers twitching in apparent fury.

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

This individual he convinced to come to the club when their rivals were gaining ground in that period and required being in their place. And the figure he again turned to after Ange Postecoglou left for another club in the summer of 2023.

So intense was the severity of his critique, the astonishing return of Martin O'Neill was practically an after-thought.

Two decades after his departure from the club, and after much of his recent life was given over to an unending series of appearances and the performance of all his past successes at the team, Martin O'Neill is returned in the manager's seat.

For now - and maybe for a while. Based on comments he has said 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 environment where he enjoyed such glory and praise.

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

All-out Attempt at Reputation Destruction'

The new manager's reappearance - however strange as it is - can be set aside because the most significant shocking moment was the brutal way the shareholder described Rodgers.

This constituted a forceful attempt at defamation, a branding of him as deceitful, a perpetrator of falsehoods, a spreader of misinformation; divisive, misleading and unjustifiable. "One individual's desire for self-interest at the cost of everyone else," wrote he.

For somebody who values propriety and places great store in dealings being done with discretion, if not complete privacy, here was another illustration of how abnormal things have grown at Celtic.

Desmond, the organization's dominant presence, operates in the margins. The absentee totem, the one with the power to take all the important decisions he pleases without having the obligation of justifying them in any open setting.

He does not participate in team annual meetings, sending his offspring, Ross, in his place. He rarely, if ever, does media talks about the team unless they're glowing in tone. And still, he's slow to speak out.

He has been known on an rare moment to support the club with private missives to news outlets, but no statement is made in public.

This is precisely how he's preferred it to be. And it's exactly what he went against when launching all-out attack on Rodgers on that day.

The official line from the club is that he stepped down, but reading his criticism, line by line, one must question why he permit it to reach such a critical point?

If Rodgers is guilty of every one of the things that the shareholder is alleging he's guilty of, then it is reasonable to ask why had been the coach not removed?

He has charged him of spinning things in public that did not tally with the facts.

He claims Rodgers' statements "played a part to a toxic atmosphere around the club and fuelled hostility towards members of the executive team and the directors. Some of the criticism directed at them, and at their families, has been entirely unwarranted and unacceptable."

What an remarkable allegation, indeed. Lawyers might be preparing as we speak.

'Rodgers' Aspirations Clashed with Celtic's Strategy Again

To return to better times, they were close, Dermot and Brendan. Rodgers lauded the shareholder at all opportunities, expressed gratitude to him whenever possible. Rodgers respected him and, really, to nobody else.

It was Desmond who took the heat when Rodgers' returned happened, after the previous manager.

It was the most divisive appointment, the return of the returning hero for a few or, as some other Celtic fans would have described it, the return of the unapologetic figure, who departed in the difficulty for Leicester.

The shareholder had Rodgers' back. Gradually, the manager employed the persuasion, achieved the victories and the trophies, and an uneasy truce with the supporters turned into a affectionate relationship once more.

It was inevitable - always - going to be a moment when his goals came in contact with the club's business model, though.

It happened in his first incarnation and it happened once more, with added intensity, recently. Rodgers spoke openly about the slow way the team conducted their transfer business, the endless 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 called "flexibility" in the market. Supporters concurred with him.

Even when the organization spent record amounts of money in a twelve-month period on the £11m one signing, the £9m another player and the £6m further acquisition - none of whom have cut it to date, with Idah already having left - Rodgers pushed for more and more and, oftentimes, he expressed this in openly.

He planted a controversy about a internal disunity within the club and then walked away. When asked about his comments at his next media briefing he would typically minimize it and almost reverse what he said.

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

Earlier this year there was a story in a publication that allegedly came from a insider close to the organization. It claimed that the manager was harming Celtic with his open criticisms and that his true aim was managing his exit strategy.

He desired not to be present and he was arranging his way out, that was the implication of the story.

Supporters were angered. They then saw him as similar 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, naturally, and it was meant to hurt Rodgers, which it accomplished. He called for an investigation and for the responsible individual to be removed. If there was a examination then we heard nothing further about it.

By then it was plain the manager was shedding the support of the individuals above him.

The frequent {gripes